International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 11, Issue 5 (May 2024), Pages: 166-176

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Sustainable innovation and business success: The mediating roles of information technology capability and knowledge management

 Author(s): 

 Balsam Saeed Abdelrhman Hussien, Houcine Benlaria *, Naima Sadaoui, Sumaya Awad Khader Ahmed, Lotfi Zabat Lzabat, Badreldin Mohamed Ahmed Abdulrahman Badreldin

 Affiliation(s):

 College of Business, Jouf University, Sakaka, Saudi Arabia

 Full text

  Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7108-7068

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2024.05.018

 Abstract

In this study, our goal was to explore the connections between Sustainable Innovation (SI), Business Success (BS), Information Technology Capability (ITC), and Knowledge Management (KM) within Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in Saudi Arabia. We chose a quantitative method, grounded in a positivist viewpoint, and selected 180 officials from Saudi Arabian SMEs using a targeted approach. We gathered data through a structured questionnaire and analyzed it with Covariance-Based Structural Equation Modeling (CB-SEM) to understand how these variables interact. Our results showed that SI did not have a direct and significant effect on BS. However, it had a notable positive influence on ITC and KM. Furthermore, both ITC and KM were found to significantly boost BS, highlighting their crucial mediating roles. These findings point out the indirect but essential influence of SI on BS by improving technological abilities and KM processes. This provides important guidance for SMEs in Saudi Arabia on how to effectively utilize SI.

 © 2024 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

 Sustainable innovation, Information technology capability, Knowledge management, Business success, CB-SEM model, Small and medium enterprises

 Article history

 Received 16 December 2023, Received in revised form 10 April 2024, Accepted 4 May 2024

 Funding 

The Deanship of Scientific Research funded this work at Jouf University through the fast-track Research Funding Program.

 Acknowledgment 

No Acknowledgment.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Hussien BSA, Benlaria H, Sadaoui N, Ahmed SAK, Lzabat LZ, and Badreldin BMAA (2024). Sustainable innovation and business success: The mediating roles of information technology capability and knowledge management. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 11(5): 166-176

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6

----------------------------------------------   

 References (59)

  1. Abuezhayeh SW, Ruddock L, and Shehabat I (2022). Integration between knowledge management and business process management and its impact on the decision making process in the construction sector: A case study of Jordan. Construction Innovation, 22: 987-1010. https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-02-2020-0021   [Google Scholar]
  2. Akram MS, Goraya MAS, Malik A, and Aljarallah AM (2018). Organizational performance and sustainability: Exploring the roles of IT capabilities and knowledge management capabilities. Sustainability, 10: 3816. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103816   [Google Scholar]
  3. Al Aina R and Atan T (2020). The impact of implementing talent management practices on sustainable organizational performance. Sustainability, 12: 8372. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208372   [Google Scholar]
  4. Al Teneiji TM, Ahamat A, Murad MA, and Raheem HAA (2022). The mediating role of knowledge management in the relationship between IT capabilities and innovation capabilities. Specialusis Ugdymas, 1(43): 2734-2751.   [Google Scholar]
  5. Alanazi AS and Benlaria H (2023). Bridging higher education outcomes and labour market needs: A study of Jouf University Graduates in the context of Vision 2030. Social Sciences, 12: 360. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12060360   [Google Scholar]
  6. Ali I, Musawir AU, and Ali M (2018). Impact of knowledge sharing and absorptive capacity on project performance: The moderating role of social processes. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22: 453-477. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2016-0449   [Google Scholar]
  7. Allioui H and Mourdi Y (2023). Unleashing the potential of AI: Investigating cutting-edge technologies that are transforming businesses. International Journal of Computer Engineering and Data Science (IJCEDS), 3: 1-12.   [Google Scholar]
  8. Almawishir N and Benlaria H (2023). Using the PLS-SEM model to measure the impact of the knowledge economy on sustainable development in the Al-Jouf region of Saudi Arabia. Sustainability, 15(8): 6446. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086446   [Google Scholar]
  9. Alzahrani MA, Suleiman ESB, and Jouda AA (2023). The relationship between strategic planning, strategic flexibility and firm performance in SMES of Saudi Arabia: Mediating role of strategic flexibility. International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and Management Sciences, 12: 1-22. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJAREMS/v12-i2/16280   [Google Scholar]
  10. Awan U, Sroufe R, and Kraslawski A (2019). Creativity enables sustainable development: Supplier engagement as a boundary condition for the positive effect on green innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 226: 172-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.308   [Google Scholar]
  11. Benlaria H and Alanazi AS (2023). The relationship between the rational management of resources and performance: Examining the case of the government sector in the Al-Jouf region. WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics, 20: 586-600. https://doi.org/10.37394/23207.2023.20.54   [Google Scholar]
  12. Benlaria H, Almawishir NFS, Saadaoui S, Mohammed SMM, Mohamed Ahmed Abdulrahman B, and Ahmed Elamin Eltahir I (2023). The moderating role of research and development (R&D) Support in the relationship between entrepreneurship and per capita output—A study on the GCC countries. Economies, 11(6): 162. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies11060162   [Google Scholar]
  13. Bentler PM (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107: 238-246. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.107.2.238   [Google Scholar] PMid:2320703
  14. Bocken NM and Short SW (2021). Unsustainable business models–Recognising and resolving institutionalised social and environmental harm. Journal of Cleaner Production, 312: 127828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127828   [Google Scholar]
  15. Bos-Nehles AC and Veenendaal AA (2019). Perceptions of HR practices and innovative work behavior: The moderating effect of an innovative climate. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30: 2661-2683. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1380680   [Google Scholar]
  16. Bruce N, Pope D, and Stanistreet D (2018). Quantitative methods for health research: A practical interactive guide to epidemiology and statistics. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, USA. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118665374   [Google Scholar]
  17. Chege SM and Wang D (2020). The impact of entrepreneurs' environmental analysis strategy on organizational performance. Journal of Rural Studies, 77: 113-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.04.008   [Google Scholar]
  18. Chiu TK (2023). Student engagement in K-12 online learning amid COVID-19: A qualitative approach from a self-determination theory perspective. Interactive Learning Environments, 31: 3326-3339. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1926289   [Google Scholar]
  19. Chu Z, Wang L, and Lai F (2019). Customer pressure and green innovations at third party logistics providers in China: The moderation effect of organizational culture. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 30: 57-75. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-11-2017-0294   [Google Scholar]
  20. Colicchia C, Creazza A, Noè C, and Strozzi F (2019). Information sharing in supply chains: A review of risks and opportunities using the systematic literature network analysis (SLNA). Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 24: 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-01-2018-0003   [Google Scholar]
  21. Costa J and Matias JC (2020). Open innovation 4.0 as an enhancer of sustainable innovation ecosystems. Sustainability, 12: 8112. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12198112   [Google Scholar]
  22. Demir A, Budur T, Omer HM, and Heshmati A (2023). Links between knowledge management and organisational sustainability: Does the ISO 9001 certification have an effect? Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 21: 183-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2020.1860663   [Google Scholar]
  23. Durst S, Hinteregger C, and Zieba M (2019). The linkage between knowledge risk management and organizational performance. Journal of Business Research, 105: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.002   [Google Scholar]
  24. Dwikat SY, Arshad D, and Mohd Shariff MN (2023). Effect of competent human capital, strategic flexibility and turbulent environment on sustainable performance of SMEs in manufacturing industries in Palestine. Sustainability, 15(6): 4781. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064781   [Google Scholar]
  25. El-Tahan EAKS, Houcine B, Eltahir IAE, Mostafa S, and Mohammed M (2021). The role of Saudi universities in serving and developing society for Vision 2030: Evidence from Jouf University. International Journal of Higher Education, 10: 138-154. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v10n5p138   [Google Scholar]
  26. Erkmen T, Günsel A, and Altındağ E (2020). The role of innovative climate in the relationship between sustainable IT capability and firm performance. Sustainability, 12: 4058. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104058   [Google Scholar]
  27. Fernando Y, Jabbour CJC, Wah WX (2019). Pursuing green growth in technology firms through the connections between environmental innovation and sustainable business performance: Does service capability matter? Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 141: 8-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.09.031   [Google Scholar]
  28. Helal TOA, Benlaria H, Enad OMA, Abdulrahman BMA, Eltahir IAE, Yahya HAA, Yahia AE (2023). Impact of human sustainability and knowledge management on green innovation: The mediating role of human capital in Sudan. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 58(3): 871-888. https://doi.org/10.35741/issn.0258-2724.58.3.73   [Google Scholar]
  29. Hermida R (2015). The problem of allowing correlated errors in structural equation modeling: Concerns and considerations. Computational Methods in Social Sciences, 3(1): 5-17.   [Google Scholar]
  30. Holtz P (2020). Does postmodernism really entail a disregard for the truth? Similarities and differences in postmodern and critical rationalist conceptualizations of truth, progress, and empirical research methods. Frontiers in Psychology, 11: 545959. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.545959   [Google Scholar] PMid:33041913 PMCid:PMC7527490
  31. Huang W, Chau KY, and Nureen N (2022). Relating sustainable business development practices and information management in promoting digital green innovation: Evidence from China. Frontiers in Psychology, 13: 930138. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.930138   [Google Scholar] PMid:35800951 PMCid:PMC9255555
  32. Kanda W, Del Río P, Hjelm O, and Bienkowska D (2019). A technological innovation systems approach to analyse the roles of intermediaries in eco-innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 227: 1136-1148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.230   [Google Scholar]
  33. Kline TJ (2017). Sample issues, methodological implications, and best practices. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement, 49(2): 71-77. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000054   [Google Scholar]
  34. Klingenberg B and Rothberg HN (2020). The status quo of knowledge management and sustainability knowledge. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(2): 136-148. https://doi.org/10.34190/EJKM.18.02.004   [Google Scholar]
  35. Kölbel JF, Heeb F, Paetzold F, and Busch T (2020). Can sustainable investing save the world? Reviewing the mechanisms of investor impact. Organization and Environment, 33(4): 554-574. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026620919202   [Google Scholar]
  36. Lee K, Azmi N, Hanaysha J, Alzoubi H, and Alshurideh M (2022). The effect of digital supply chain on organizational performance: An empirical study in Malaysia manufacturing industry. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 10(2): 495-510. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.uscm.2021.12.002   [Google Scholar]
  37. Lim AF, Lee VH, Foo PY, Ooi KB, and Wei–Han Tan G (2022). Unfolding the impact of supply chain quality management practices on sustainability performance: An artificial neural network approach. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 27(5): 611-624. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-03-2021-0129   [Google Scholar]
  38. Liu R, Yue Z, Ijaz A, Lutfi A, and Mao J (2023). Sustainable business performance: Examining the role of green HRM practices, green innovation and responsible leadership through the lens of pro-environmental behavior. Sustainability, 15(9): 7317. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097317   [Google Scholar]
  39. Mamabolo MA and Myres K (2019). A detailed guide on converting qualitative data into quantitative entrepreneurial skills survey instrument. Academic Conferences and Publishing International, Reading, UK. https://doi.org/10.34190/JBRM.17.3.001   [Google Scholar]
  40. Martins VWB, Rampasso IS, Anholon R, Quelhas OLG, and Leal Filho W (2019). Knowledge management in the context of sustainability: Literature review and opportunities for future research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 229: 489-500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.354   [Google Scholar]
  41. McLean CN (2019). The significance of the association between information technological capabilities (ITC) and perceived firm performance in Fortune 1000 firms. Ph.D. Dissertation, Capella University, Minneapolis, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  42. Murphy J and Gouldson A (2020). Environmental policy and industrial innovation: Integrating environment and economy through ecological modernisation. In: Arthur M, David S, and Gert S (Eds.), The ecological modernisation reader: 275-294. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003061069-19   [Google Scholar] PMCid:PMC8475751
  43. Nellestijn L (2022). The effect of entrepreneurial behaviour on multinational performance in sub-Saharan Africa moderated for corporate culture: Business potential for multinationals. M.Sc. Thesis, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.   [Google Scholar]
  44. Nussholz JL (2018). A circular business model mapping tool for creating value from prolonged product lifetime and closed material loops. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197: 185-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.112   [Google Scholar]
  45. Opazo-Basáez M, Vendrell-Herrero F, and Bustinza OF (2018). Uncovering productivity gains of digital and green servitization: Implications from the automotive industry. Sustainability, 10(5): 1524. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051524   [Google Scholar]
  46. Pai RY, Shetty A, Shetty AD, Bhandary R, Shetty J, Nayak S, Dinesh TK, and D'souza KJ (2022). Integrating artificial intelligence for knowledge management systems–synergy among people and technology: A systematic review of the evidence. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 35(1): 7043-7065. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2058976   [Google Scholar]
  47. Qiu L, Jie X, Wang Y, and Zhao M (2020). Green product innovation, green dynamic capability, and competitive advantage: Evidence from Chinese manufacturing enterprises. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(1): 146-165. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1780   [Google Scholar]
  48. Rafi M, Jian Ming Z, and Ahmad K (2022). Estimation of the knowledge management model for performance measurement in university libraries. Library Hi Tech, 40(1): 239-264. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-11-2019-0225   [Google Scholar]
  49. Rožman M, Tominc P, and Milfelner B (2020). A comparative study using two SEM techniques on different samples sizes for determining factors of older employee’s motivation and satisfaction. Sustainability, 12(6): 2189. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062189   [Google Scholar]
  50. Santoro G, Vrontis D, Thrassou A, and Dezi L (2018). The Internet of Things: Building a knowledge management system for open innovation and knowledge management capacity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136: 347-354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.02.034   [Google Scholar]
  51. Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, and Müller H (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2): 23-74.   [Google Scholar]
  52. Shahzad F, Xiu G, and Shahbaz M (2017). Organizational culture and innovation performance in Pakistan's software industry. Technology in Society, 51: 66-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2017.08.002   [Google Scholar]
  53. Shahzad M, Qu Y, Zafar AU, Rehman SU, and Islam T (2020). Exploring the influence of knowledge management process on corporate sustainable performance through green innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(9): 2079-2106. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2019-0624   [Google Scholar]
  54. Shalhoob H and Hussainey K (2022). Environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure and the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) sustainability performance. Sustainability, 15(1): 200. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010200   [Google Scholar]
  55. Tassabehji R, Mishra JL, and Dominguez-Péry C (2019). Knowledge sharing for innovation performance improvement in micro/SMEs: An insight from the creative sector. Production Planning and Control, 30(10-12): 935-950. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2019.1582101   [Google Scholar]
  56. Turulja L and Bajgoric N (2018). Information technology, knowledge management and human resource management: Investigating mutual interactions towards better organizational performance. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 48(2): 255-276. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-06-2017-0035   [Google Scholar]
  57. Valdez-Juárez LE and Castillo-Vergara M (2021). Technological capabilities, open innovation, and eco-innovation: Dynamic capabilities to increase corporate performance of SMEs. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(1): 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010008   [Google Scholar]
  58. Zhang Y, Khan U, Lee S, and Salik M (2019). The influence of management innovation and technological innovation on organization performance. A mediating role of sustainability. Sustainability, 11(2): 495. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020495   [Google Scholar]
  59. Zhu Y, Zhang H, Siddik AB, Zheng Y, and Sobhani FA (2023). Understanding corporate green competitive advantage through green technology adoption and green dynamic capabilities: Does green product innovation matter? Systems, 11(9): 461. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11090461   [Google Scholar]