Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Sustainability
This content is subject to copyright.
Citation: Petersen, N.H.; Fuerst, S.;
Torkkeli, L. Sustainable
Entrepreneurship Management and
Digitalization: A Green Digital
Innovation Radar. Sustainability 2023,
15, 14120. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su151914120
Received: 28 August 2023
Accepted: 17 September 2023
Published: 24 September 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
sustainability
Editorial
Sustainable Entrepreneurship Management and Digitalization:
A Green Digital Innovation Radar
Nicolaj Hannesbo Petersen 1, Sascha Fuerst 2,3 and Lasse Torkkeli 4, *
1Applied Research in Business and Technology, UCL University College, Seebladsgade 1,
5000 Odense, Denmark; nhpe1@ucl.dk
2EGADE Business School, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Eugenio Garza Lagüera and Rufino Tamayo,
San Pedro Garza Garcia 66269, Mexico
3Turku School of Economics, University of Turku, Rehtorinpellonkatu 3, 20500 Turku, Finland
4Lappeenrannan kampus, LAB University of Applied Sciences, Yliopistonkatu 36,
53850 Lappeenranta, Finland
*Correspondence: lasse.torkkeli@lab.fi; Tel.: +358-504484976
1. Introduction
Today’s entrepreneurs and managers face challenges of a transformative character.
Digital and sustainable transformations are changing the ways we start businesses and carry
out work in terms of what is valuable to whom, the ways in which we use resources and
create the most valuable internal and external capabilities, and where to innovate through
digital technology and/or introduce sustainable practices for closing resource loops. Thus,
digitalization and sustainability are both important and interrelated in contemporary
entrepreneurship [
1
,
2
]. They are both mega trends that are bringing about changes in how
we do business, for both new and established business, now and in the long-term future.
Both digital entrepreneurship and sustainable entrepreneurship [
3
,
4
] provide distinct
and timely perspectives from which entrepreneurship and management can be explored.
However, less is known about how these forces collide, converge, or disrupt markets,
competences, business models, networks, and opportunities. Entrepreneurs or innovators
have a central role as change agents and have transformative capacity through carrying
out new Schumpeterian combinations in the form and content of economic development.
We have therefore invited researchers to contribute to this Special Issue by answering some
of these questions.
Digitalization and sustainability are innovative forces and materials for new combi-
nations within entrepreneurship and management. Digitalization is understood both as a
necessity for survival and as an opportunity for transformative growth and competitive
advantages [
5
]. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated digitalization and its adoption by
several years, and the digitalization of firms is increasingly more important for their abil-
ity to stay in business or seek new opportunities for growth. Conversely, sustainability
is currently more voluntarily for entrepreneurs and managers; according to a survey of
3000 managers across the globe, sustainability is a top priority among 90% of them, yet
only 60% of companies incorporate sustainability in their strategy, and a mere 25% have
sustainability incorporated in their business model [
6
]. There is indeed a lack of action
regarding sustainability, which is reflected in a shrinking rate of material extraction from
circular-economy activities, from 9.1% in 2018 to 8.6% in 2020, and now 7.2% in 2023 [
7
].
Businesses and societies around the globe almost exclusively rely on new materials, which
means that more than 90% of materials are either wasted, lost, or remain unavailable for
reuse for years as they are locked into long-lasting stock such as buildings and machinery.
It is thus essential to understand how we can innovate, use resources, and do business in
new ways for our common good, as well as creating long-lasting effects of sustainability
and digitalization within our economy.
Sustainability 2023,15, 14120. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914120 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2023,15, 14120 2 of 10
Research has highlighted that digitalization and sustainability are growth enablers
for the businesses of tomorrow [
5
,
8
]. However, prior research [
9
,
10
] has been inconclusive
regarding the patterns of interaction among the above-mentioned growth paths, with only
some convergence on complementarity between digitalization and sustainability within
larger companies. Denicolai et al. [
8
] found evidence that international SMEs struggle to
pursue both paths simultaneously, and that the liability of smallness is an explanatory factor
in it, due to their limited resources. These organizations achieve international performance
through a focus on digitalization or sustainability, and not on both simultaneously. Hence,
sustainability and digitalization need to be on a “growth radar” for entrepreneurs and
managers. However, since it may not be feasible for SMEs and entrepreneurs to engage in
both simultaneously, we have therefore conceptually developed a green digital innovation
radar that provides growth and innovation dimensions significant for new combinations
and entrepreneurial action. We focus on green or environmental perspectives of sustainabil-
ity to keep the radar simple, feasible and action-oriented in creating regenerative growth
opportunities. This is seen as important in moving from a take-make-waste linear econ-
omy to a more circular and transformative way of doing business [
11
–
13
]. The research
question our conceptual model responds to is the following: How can entrepreneurs and
managers envision and innovate their business through new combinations and dimensions
of digitalization and sustainability?
We acknowledge that organizational sustainability as an overall concept is more com-
plex by addressing and integrating economic (profit), environmental (planet) and social
(people) value creation as core to an organization’s way of doing business [
14
]. However,
the model developed here includes a significantly greener environmental and circular per-
spective of sustainability. This corresponds to Denicolai et al. [
8
]’s findings of entrepreneurs
and SME managers, who with their scarce resources and liabilities of small size have
to make trade-offs when acting between economic, social, and environmental aspects of
sustainability and digitalization. Furthermore, green opportunities invite entrepreneurs
and managers to look more carefully at their resources by adding, extending, or closing
loops for regenerative growth paths. In that way, balancing the liability of smallness by
using resources and their means is economically and environmentally wise.
In the following section, we will present the green digital innovation radar in the form
of a self-assessment tool to evaluate business opportunities. We will then introduce the
Special Issue papers before providing conclusions regarding this Special Issue and our
innovation radar.
2. Green Digital Innovation Radars
Innovation is considered an important driver of competitiveness and economic dy-
namics [
15
,
16
]. It is essentially a process of entrepreneurial vision, action, and pioneering,
when successful commercial innovations create followers and imitators. Business inno-
vation [
17
] through digital [
18
] and sustainable [
19
] innovation or transformation needs
to be systematic and holistic in its approach. This has clear implications for managers
and entrepreneurs. Similarly, the Schumpeterian creative destructor is an entrepreneurial
model that goes beyond the mere process of adaptation and marginal change. There exists
no ‘isolated innovation road’ or ‘best practice’ management; it is highly entrepreneurial,
involving experimentation and transformation. This is due to new dilemmas and old
ones which never fully end, perspectives in conflict and different starting points, and
entrepreneurial or innovation capacity [
5
,
19
,
20
]. Blind spots are common errors, where
digital technology is considered as a driver (enabler) only [
5
] and too much of the focus
is placed on sustainability reporting [
21
] without realizing the desired impact for profit,
people, and/or planet.
To avoid innovation blind spots, we suggest that entrepreneurs or managers think
holistically in terms of all possible dimensions and options for new combinations in which
their organizations can innovate in green and digital directions. An innovation radar is a
suitable frame for understanding and finding the next best practices. Sawhney, Mohanbir,
Sustainability 2023,15, 14120 3 of 10
Wolcott, and Arroniz [
17
] developed an innovation radar as a tool for transformation. We
now conceptually extend it to sustainable and digital business. We define green digital
business innovation as the creation of substantial new and useful value for customers, the
firm, and their environment, as well as for other stakeholders, by creatively combining and
consciously changing one or more dimensions of the business system. This definition leads
to the following three important principles and propositions for research.
1. Business innovation is about new, useful, and conscious value impact
. Businesses
cannot rely only on new technology, digitalization, or sustainability measurement.
Innovation is firstly relevant if it creates value and impact for customers, and therefore
for the firm and its milieu. Secondly, novel, useful, and conscious value creation
for others is advantageous through, e.g., new offerings and sustainable and digital
processes. The customer is central in judging value within their ecosystem because
they are the ones paying and therefore making a business viable. Nevertheless, in
today’s environment customers are also increasingly demanding sustainable and digi-
tal products, services, marketing (brands), and organizations. Thirdly, resources are
not inexhaustible, either naturally, socially, or commercially. The demand and supply
sides of businesses increase consciousness about their impact as well as evaluating
and measuring their efforts.
2. Business innovation comes in many new combinations conditioned by uncertainty.
Innovation can take place in any dimension of a business system constrained by un-
certainty, and may therefore proceed in experimental, experience, and test-driven
ways. This is a process of true uncertainty by defining what is valuable to whom, how
to use resources and create the most valuable internal and external capabilities, and
what to innovate through digital technology and/or sustainable practice for closing
resource loops. Though uncertainty, any new combination will be within four anchor
points, e.g., (1) the firm’s offering (what), (2) customers (who), (3) processes (how),
and (4) presence (where).
3. Business innovation is systemic and paradigm-changing, surrounded by profit,
people, and planet.
Successful business innovation requires the careful consider-
ation of all aspects of doing business. Firstly, when innovating a new product, it
needs to be synergistically integrated with both the supply and the demand side,
meaning that from inbound and outbound logistics to marketing and sales, and after
service, all needs must be aligned. Innovation is never a simple, isolated activity and
relies on other complementary innovations, going beyond the boundaries of a single
organization. Secondly, innovation can change depending on degrees of radicalness,
paradigms of how to do business by including novelty, usefulness, digital technology,
and sustainable impact in their offering, process, presence, and customer relations.
These three principles and propositions are central for our green digital innovation
radar in terms of how to think and carry out sustainable entrepreneurship management
and digitalization (Figure 1).
In this way, the green digital innovation radar is systemic and more holistic, not
solely covering products, services, processes, or other innovation activities. It may involve
new ways for the firm to create value and new firm offers (e.g., products or service inno-
vations), new ways for the customers to view the firm’s offers (positioning innovation),
and changes to how the firm views its activities (paradigm innovation) and operations
(process innovation). As a result, this may be complementary to business model innovation
when entrepreneurs and managers work systemically and holistically with their growth
dimensions for paradigm innovation. The business model innovation perspective likewise
includes value creation (offer and customer) and value delivery (process and presence), but
in addition value capture (bottom line profit, people, planet) [5,22,23].
Sustainability 2023,15, 14120 4 of 10
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 10
Figure 1. Green digital innovation radar.
In this way, the green digital innovation radar is systemic and more holistic, not
solely covering products, services, processes, or other innovation activities. It may involve
new ways for the rm to create value and new rm oers (e.g., products or service inno-
vations), new ways for the customers to view the rm’s oers (positioning innovation),
and changes to how the rm views its activities (paradigm innovation) and operations
(process innovation). As a result, this may be complementary to business model innova-
tion when entrepreneurs and managers work systemically and holistically with their
growth dimensions for paradigm innovation. The business model innovation perspective
likewise includes value creation (oer and customer) and value delivery (process and
presence), but in addition value capture (boom line prot, people, planet) [5,22,23].
3. Entrepreneurial (Radar) Action and Reective Self-Assessment
The green digital innovation radar provides a 360 degree view of business transfor-
mation with four anchor points (what, who, how, where) in between eight digital and
sustainable growth dimensions of innovation, thus contributing 12 innovation dimensions
signicant for creating new combinations and entrepreneurial actions. When mapping the
radar, it is not desirable or feasible to innovate all 12 dimensions in one holistic action,
since entrepreneurs and managers, as well as their organizations, need entrepreneurial or
innovation capacity for doing so. Instead, they should be aware of business opportunities
for innovation, digitalization, and sustainability, but their action should be more reective
in terms of their oering (what), customers (who), processes (how), and presence (where).
This depends on their strengths, resources, and capabilities for new combinations in cre-
ating and discovering new opportunities. As a self-assessment of current entrepreneurial
action within their organization, entrepreneurs and managers alike can reectively map
their current innovation strengths, resources, and capabilities. By doing so, managers and
entrepreneurs can holistically and systematically pinpoint their opportunities of innova-
tion, digitalization, and sustainability.
There are notable managerial implications in terms of what to innovate of the 12 di-
mensions, and how these dimensions should be combined in a novel manner. We opera-
tionalized the 12 dimensions through a set of questions by using previous research: Clauss
Green Digital Innovation Radar
Figure 1. Green digital innovation radar.
3. Entrepreneurial (Radar) Action and Reflective Self-Assessment
The green digital innovation radar provides a 360 degree view of business transfor-
mation with four anchor points (what, who, how, where) in between eight digital and
sustainable growth dimensions of innovation, thus contributing 12 innovation dimensions
significant for creating new combinations and entrepreneurial actions. When mapping
the radar, it is not desirable or feasible to innovate all 12 dimensions in one holistic action,
since entrepreneurs and managers, as well as their organizations, need entrepreneurial or
innovation capacity for doing so. Instead, they should be aware of business opportunities
for innovation, digitalization, and sustainability, but their action should be more reflective
in terms of their offering (what), customers (who), processes (how), and presence (where).
This depends on their strengths, resources, and capabilities for new combinations in creat-
ing and discovering new opportunities. As a self-assessment of current entrepreneurial
action within their organization, entrepreneurs and managers alike can reflectively map
their current innovation strengths, resources, and capabilities. By doing so, managers and
entrepreneurs can holistically and systematically pinpoint their opportunities of innovation,
digitalization, and sustainability.
There are notable managerial implications in terms of what to innovate of the 12 dimen-
sions, and how these dimensions should be combined in a novel manner. We operational-
ized the 12 dimensions through a set of questions by using previous research: Clauss [
24
]
tested a questionnaire used for the following dimensions, i.e., offering, customers, processes,
presence, and knowledge of users and customer needs, and his operationalization has been
found to be applicable in empirical research on entrepreneurial firms. Kirchherr et al. [
11
],
Popovi´c and Radivojevi´c [
12
], and Sitadewi et al. [
13
] engaged in circular economy and
sustainability research by examining the design and development of circular products or
services, smarter product use, and the manufacturing and useful application of materials
and technology. Schallmo et al. [
25
] conceptualized digital transformation research in terms
of the following dimensions, i.e., networking and connectivity, digital data, automation,
and digital customers’ access.
Table 1lists the respective questions for reflection and self-assessment as related to
each dimension of the green digital innovation radar.
Sustainability 2023,15, 14120 5 of 10
Table 1.
Operationalization of the 12 dimensions of the green innovation radar. Please assess the
extent to which your company, which you represent, can identify itself with the questions below: 1.
Strongly disagree, 2. Disagree, 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Agree, 5. Strongly agree.
Green Digital Innovation Radar Dimension Questions for Reflection and
Self-Assessment
Offering (What)
1. Do we regularly address new, unmet
customer needs?
2. Are our products or services very
innovative in relation to our competitors?
3. Do our products or services regularly
solve customer needs, which were not
solved by competitors?
4. Do we try to increase customer retention
through new service offerings?
Networking and connectivity
5. Do we work with digital connectivity,
such as cloud computing, broadband and
sensor technology?
6. Do we work with digital network
opportunities, such as smart factory,
platforms, remote manufacturing, and
pure digital products?
Design and development of circular
products/services
7. Do we use discarded products or
their parts in a new product with
different function?
8.
Do we use parts of discarded products in
a new product with the same function?
9. Do we restore old products and bring
them up to date?
10.
Do we repair and maintain defective
products, so they can be used with their
original function?
11.
Do we reuse discarded products that are
still in good condition and fulfill their
original function?
Customer (Who)
12.
Do we regularly take opportunities that
arise in new or growing markets?
13.
Do we regularly address new, unserved
market segments?
14.
Are we constantly seeking new customer
segments and markets for our products
and services?
15.
Do we emphasize innovative/modern
actions to increase customer retention?
(e.g., CRM)
Digital data
16.
Do we work with big data, internet of
things and/or wearables?
17. Do we work with predictive maintenance,
demand prediction and/or
data-based routing?
Sustainability 2023,15, 14120 6 of 10
Table 1. Cont.
Green Digital Innovation Radar Dimension Questions for Reflection and
Self-Assessment
Smarter product use and manufacturing
18.
Do we make the product redundant by
abandoning its function or by offering the
same function with a radically
different product?
19.
Do we make product use more intensive
(e.g., by sharing products)?
20.
Do we increase efficiency in product
manufacture or use by consuming fewer
natural resources and materials?
Process (How)
21.
Were we recently able to significantly
improve our internal processes?
22.
Do we utilize innovative procedures and
processes during the manufacturing of
our products?
23.
Are existing processes are regularly
assessed and significantly changed
if needed?
Useful application of materials and technology
24.
Do we process materials to obtain higher
(high grade) or lower (low
grade) quality?
25.
Do we work with the incineration of
material for energy recovery?
Automation
26.
Do we use digital technology, such as
robotics and additive manufacturing,
to automate?
27.
Do we use automation opportunities,
such as drones, autonomous automobiles,
and other intelligent processes?
Presence (Where)
28.
Do we regularly utilize new distribution
channels for our products and services?
29.
Have constant changes to our channels
led to improved efficiency of our
channel functions?
30.
Do we consistently change our portfolio
of distribution channels?
Digital customer access
31.
Do we use digital channels to reach
customers through, e.g., social media,
apps, and mobile internet?
32.
Do we use digital channels, such as
e-commerce, infotainment, and
digitalization of customer relations?
Knowledge of users’ and customers’ needs
33.
Are we continuously researching and
addressing unmet needs of users
and customers?
34.
Relative to our direct competitors, do our
employees have up-to-date knowledge
and capabilities?
35.
Do we constantly reflect on which new
competencies or capabilities need to be
established in order to adapt to changing
market requirements?
Sustainability 2023,15, 14120 7 of 10
Overall, the contributing articles to this Special Issue further illustrate ways in which
firms innovate by combining digitalization with sustainability, thus supplementing the
development of the green digital innovation radar in the present introductory article. We
next introduce these selected Special Issue articles in more detail.
4. Special Issue Papers
All of the articles published in this Special Issue address novel innovation combina-
tions and value from sustainable and digital entrepreneurship management, thus helping
to answer key questions regarding the intertwined natures of digitalization and sustainabil-
ity in entrepreneurial firms and SMEs. Previous research has illustrated the importance
of digitalization and sustainable practices for both international and domestic small en-
trepreneurial firms, and innovation is a significant concept through which to foster sustain-
able entrepreneurship management and digitalization in such firms. There are many paths,
but most likely this will involve innovation questions of either what, who, how, or where
within the developed radar. The development is a process of true uncertainty by defining
what is value to whom, how to use resources and create capabilities most internally and
externally, and where to innovate through digital technology and/or sustainable practice
for closing resource loops. We will now highlight each individual paper for the reader.
Digital technologies and digital transformation can have a positive influence on the
sustainability efforts of firms. What are the digital transformation actions that have had
an impact on sustainability during the last five years, and what are the main investments
of these companies to achieve sustainability? These are the questions Diaz and Montalvo
[contribution 1] tackle in their article. The authors analyze the annual sustainability reports
of five of the largest Mexican companies listed in the MSCI Emerging Markets Index.
This review helps to identify digital transformation activities over a five-year period and
how these contribute to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The
findings indicate that the digital transformation actions of these firms contribute to their
sustainability. Nevertheless, the path through these actions can be quite different for each
company over the observed five-year period due to the needs of each industry. In addition,
the recent coronavirus crisis accelerated the digital transformation actions. Although these
actions contribute to the achievement of some of the sustainability goals, their contribution
to these goals is often not intentional. The authors conclude that these firms might have
a well-established agenda for digital transformation, but that is not necessarily linked to
sustainability goals. It is rather the collateral effect than the direct effect of these digital
actions on the accomplishment of sustainability goals.
Digitalization has rapidly increased during the coronavirus crisis and many firms
have been faced with the necessity of reinventing themselves and innovating their business
models as a result. The crisis period also saw the rise and fall of many new businesses,
with ventures that particularly focused on digital technologies experiencing rapid growth.
Based on this context, Rodriguez-Marin, Saiz-Alvarez, and Huezo-Ponce [contribution
2] review the scholarly work on digital entrepreneurship in their article, along with the
role of innovation in the digital-entrepreneurship-related literature and the role of pay-per-
click business models for promoting sustainable development. The authors conducted a
bibliometric analysis of the literature between 2021 and 2022.
Their findings indicate that research on digital entrepreneurship increased during
the coronavirus crisis. Researchers affiliated with universities in the European Union lead
publications on the topic, followed by US-affiliated researchers. Interestingly, most research
projects on digital entrepreneurship received funding from either a European Union or
Chinese institution. The authors also identified that the keyword ‘innovation’ is closely
linked to digital entrepreneurship. This relationship provides evidence of the increased
interest in research digital entrepreneurship from an innovation perspective. Innovation
does not necessarily mean a reduction in operation costs or production efficiency (i.e.,
value creation)—it can also be linked to innovations for value delivery. Furthermore, the
Sustainability 2023,15, 14120 8 of 10
findings indicate that the relationship between digital entrepreneurship and sustainable
development is further enhanced through digital technologies and crowdsourcing.
Xu, Hou, and Zhang [contribution 3] explore the relationship between digitalization
and sustainable entrepreneurship, and their study thus contributes to the discussion of
organizational capabilities able to strengthen sustainable entrepreneurial activities. This
is particularly interesting since relatively few studies have researched sustainable devel-
opment from a capability perspective. The authors collected their data from SMEs in
the pollutive industries in China, such as mining, oils, and textiles. These industries are
more likely to receive pressure from the government and civil society for mitigating the
environmental effects and implementing sustainable strategies. Their findings reveal that
the SME’s digital capability has a positive influence on the firm’s digital entrepreneurial
activities, that is, on social and environmental value creation, value delivery, and value
capture (i.e., digital sustainable entrepreneurship—DSE). Furthermore, a digital innovation
orientation further enhances the relationship between digital capabilities and DSE, and it
can decrease the tension between the energy consumption of digital technology and social
and environmental values. Most importantly, however, their study provides empirical
evidence (moderating effect) of the importance of a manager’s cognition of sustainable op-
portunities for guiding digital capabilities and digital innovation orientation to convert into
DSE within SMEs. This means that if the manager perceives sustainability rather as an op-
portunity than a threat, he or she is more likely to engage in the development of sustainable
strategies, accelerate digital transformation, and unleash the SMEs digital capability.
Sustainable entrepreneurship is considered to provide solutions to the grand social and
environmental challenges. The combined application of sustainability and digitalization
leads to even higher levels of sustainability. Despite these positive effects of digitaliza-
tion, there has been a lack of understanding in research about the application of digital
technologies and their usage within the business models of sustainable entrepreneurship.
Hence, Fuerst, Sanchez-Dominguez, and Rodriguez-Montes [contribution 4] investi-
gated the role of digital technologies for value creation, value delivery, and value capture
within sustainable entrepreneurship. The authors studied the adoption and usage of digital
technologies within the business models of 10 born-sustainable ventures in Mexico. Their
findings indicated that context matters: despite the claims that digital technologies promote
community integration, social inclusion, and broader stakeholder integration, important
limitations exist that put constraints on the implementation of digital technologies, particu-
larly in the value creation and value delivery components of the business models analyzed.
The authors highlight how entrepreneurs leverage digital technologies in their business
models from a Global South perspective.
5. Conclusions
Entrepreneurs and managers can create and discover new combinations of digital and
sustainable innovation. This demonstrates that they are indeed change agents and have a
transformative capacity within this new business reality by carrying out new innovative
combinations of sustainability and digitalization. This Special Issue, with its contributing
papers, finds theoretical and empirical evidence for sustainable entrepreneurship man-
agement and digitalization. The present article conceptualizes and contributes to these
domains of the literature by suggesting a 360 degree view of business transformation, with
four anchor points between eight digital and sustainable growth dimensions of innovation.
Thus, it contributes 12 innovation dimensions significant for creating new combinations
and entrepreneurial actions.
We highlight that entrepreneurs and managers alike should not innovate in all 12 di-
mensions at the same time. Instead, they can use self-assessment for reflecting and system-
atically mapping the green digital innovation potential of their business. The core focus
and thus innovation action starts with their offerings, customers, processes, and presence
by dealing with digitalization and sustainability holistically and systematically. As a result,
Sustainability 2023,15, 14120 9 of 10
entrepreneurs and managers will be more capable of envisioning, innovating, and acting
with digital and/or sustainable transformation in creating their business reality of growth.
List of Contributions
1.
Diaz, R.; Montalvo, R. Digital Transformation as an Enabler to Become More Efficient
in Sustainability: Evidence from Five Leading Companies in the Mexican Market.
Sustainability 2022,14, 15436, doi:10.3390/su142215436.
2.
Rodriguez-Marin, M.; Saiz-Alvarez, J.M.; Huezo-Ponce, L. A Bibliometric Analysis
on Pay-per-Click as an Instrument for Digital Entrepreneurship Management Us-
ing VOSviewer and SCOPUS Data Analysis Tools. Sustainability
2022
,14, 16956,
doi:10.3390/su142416956.
3.
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, doi:10.3390/su141811222.
4.
Fuerst, S.; Sanchez-Dominguez, O.; Rodriguez-Montes, M.A. The Role of Digital
Technology within the Business Model of Sustainable Entrepreneurship. Sustainability
2023,15, 10923, doi:10.3390/su151410923.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, N.H.P.; methodology, N.H.P., S.F. and L.T.; validation,
N.H.P., S.F. and L.T.; formal analysis, N.H.P.; investigation N.H.P., S.F. and L.T.; writing—original
draft preparation, N.H.P.; writing—review and editing, N.H.P., S.F. and L.T.; visualization, N.H.P. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or
in the decision to publish the results.
References
1.
Bican, P.M.; Brem, A. Digital Business Model, Digital Transformation, Digital Entrepreneurship: Is There a Sustainable “Digital”?
Sustainability 2020,12, 5239. [CrossRef]
2.
Gavrila Gavrila, S.; de Lucas Ancillo, A. Spanish SMEs’ Digitalization Enablers: E-Receipt Applications to the Offline Retail
Market. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021,162, 120381. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3.
Cohen, B.; Winn, M.I. Market Imperfections, Opportunity and Sustainable Entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur.
2007
,22, 29–49.
[CrossRef]
4.
Torkkeli, L.; Saarenketo, S.; Salojärvi, H.; Sainio, L.-M. Sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility in Internationally
Operating SMEs: Implications for Performance. In Value Creation in International Business; Marinova, S., Larimo, J., Nummela, N.,
Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Germany, 2017; pp. 359–373. ISBN 978-3-319-39368-1.
5.
Rasmussen, E.; Petersen, N.H. Handbook of Research on Business Model Innovation through Disruption and Digitalization; IGI Global:
Hershey, PA, USA, 2023.
6.
Unruh, G.; Kiron, D.; Kruschwitz, N.; Reeves, M.; Rubel, H.; Meyer Zum Felde, A. Investing For a Sustainable Future: Investors Care
More About Sustainability than Many Executives Believe; MIT Sloan Management Review: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016.
7. Fraser, M.; Haigh, L.; Soria, A.C. The Circularity Gap Report 2023; Circle Economy: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023.
8.
Denicolai, S.; Zucchella, A.; Magnani, G. Internationalization, Digitalization, and Sustainability: Are SMEs Ready? A Survey on
Synergies and Substituting Effects among Growth Paths. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021,166, 120650. [CrossRef]
9.
Freeman, S.; Hutchings, K.; Lazaris, M.; Zyngier, S. A Model of Rapid Knowledge Development: The Smaller Born-Global Firm.
Int. Bus. Rev. 2010,19, 70–84. [CrossRef]
10.
McCann, J.E. Patterns of Growth, Competitive Technology, and Financial Strategies in Young Ventures. J. Bus. Ventur.
1991
,6,
189–208. [CrossRef]
11.
Kirchherr, J.; Reike, D.; Hekkert, M. Conceptualizing the Circular Economy: An Analysis of 114 Definitions. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 2017,127, 221–232. [CrossRef]
12.
Popovi´c, A.; Radivojevi´c, V. The Circular Economy: Principles, Strategies and Goals. Econ. Sustain. Dev.
2022
,6, 45–56. [CrossRef]
13.
Sitadewi, D.; Yudoko, G.; Okdinawati, L. Bibliographic Mapping of Post-Consumer Plastic Waste Based on Hierarchical Circular
Principles across the System Perspective. Heliyon 2021,7, e07154. [CrossRef]
14.
Elkington, J. Towards the Sustainable Corporation: Win-Win-Win Business Strategies for Sustainable Development. Calif. Manage.
Rev. 1994,36, 90–100. [CrossRef]
15. Rowley, J.; Baregheh, A.; Sambrook, S. Towards an Innovation-type Mapping Tool. Manag. Decis. 2011,49, 73–86. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023,15, 14120 10 of 10
16.
Francis, D.; Bessant, J. Targeting Innovation and Implications for Capability Development. Technovation
2005
,25, 171–183.
[CrossRef]
17.
Sawney, M.; Wolcott, R.C.; Arroniz, I. The 12 Different Ways for Companies to Innovate. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev.
2006
,47, 75.
[CrossRef]
18.
Verhoef, P.C.; Broekhuizen, T.; Bart, Y.; Bhattacharya, A.; Qi Dong, J.; Fabian, N.; Haenlein, M. Digital Transformation: A
Multidisciplinary Reflection and Research Agenda. J. Bus. Res. 2021,122, 889–901. [CrossRef]
19.
Adams, R.; Jeanrenaud, S.; Bessant, J.; Denyer, D.; Overy, P. Sustainability-Oriented Innovation: A Systematic Review:
Sustainability-Oriented Innovation. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2016,18, 180–205. [CrossRef]
20.
Toft, K.H.; Rüdiger, M. Mapping Corporate Climate Change Ethics: Responses among Three Danish Energy Firms. Energy Res.
Soc. Sci. 2020,59, 101286. [CrossRef]
21. Pucker, K.P. Overselling Sustainability Reporting. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2012,99, 134–143.
22.
Geissdoerfer, M.; Vladimirova, D.; Evans, S. Sustainable Business Model Innovation: A Review. J. Clean. Prod.
2018
,198, 401–416.
[CrossRef]
23.
Nosratabadi, S.; Mosavi, A.; Shamshirband, S.; Kazimieras Zavadskas, E.; Rakotonirainy, A.; Chau, K.W. Sustainable Business
Models: A Review. Sustainability 2019,11, 1663. [CrossRef]
24.
Clauss, T. Measuring Business Model Innovation: Conceptualization, Scale Development, and Proof of Performance: Measuring
Business Model Innovation. RD Manag. 2017,47, 385–403. [CrossRef]
25.
Schallmo, D.; Williams, C.A.; Boardman, L. Digital Transformation of Business Models—Best Practice, Enablers, and Roadmap.
Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2017,21, 1740014. [CrossRef]
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.
Content uploaded by Lasse Torkkeli
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lasse Torkkeli on Sep 25, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
