CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 261Technology Adoption and User BehaviourImpact of AI and Big Data on Business and SocietyERP Systems Implementation and Impact

Artificial Intelligence Adoption by SMEs to Achieve Sustainable Business Performance: Application of Technology–Organization–Environment Framework

Open access
Badghish, Saeed, Soomro, Yasir Ali·2024·Sustainability
DOI 10.3390/su16051864
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The primary purpose of this study was to investigate and present a theoretical model that identifies the most influential factors affecting the adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) by SMEs to achieve sustainable business performance in Saudi Arabia by integrating the Technology–Organization–Environment (TOE) framework. The authors utilized a quantitative method, using a survey instrument for this research. Data for this research were collected from managers working in six different sectors. Subsequently, based on company size, firms were divided into two groups, allowing multi-group analysis of small and medium-sized businesses to explore group differences. Hence, firm size played a moderating role in the conceptualized model. Data analysis was performed on SmartPLS 3, and the results suggest that dimensions of the TOE framework, such as relative advantage, compatibility, sustainable human capital, market and customer demand, and government support, play a significant role in the adoption of AI. Moreover, this study found a significant influence of AI on SMEs’ operational and economic performance. The multi-group analysis (MGA) results reveal significant group differences, with a medium-sized firm strengthening the relationship between relative advantage and AI adoption compared to small-size firms. The findings lead to practical implications for companies on how to increase the adoption of AI to help SMEs embrace their technological challenges in KSA and obtain sustainable business performance to contribute to the economy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/su16051864

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 130 · Cited by 261

Research works printed but not linked: 119

  1. Ho, L.T., Gan, C., Jin, S., and Le, B. (2022). Artificial intelligence and firm performance: Does machine intelligence shield firms from risks?. J. Risk Financ. Manag., 15. · DOI
  2. Zhang, 2021, Factors influencing the use of artificial intelligence in government: Evidence from China, Technol. Soc., 66, 101675, 10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101675 · DOI
  3. Khalid, 2020, Artificial intelligence learning and entrepreneurial performance among university students: Evidence from malaysian higher educational institutions, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., 39, 5417, 10.3233/JIFS-189026 · DOI
  4. Sestino, 2022, Leveraging artificial intelligence in business: Implications, applications and methods, Technol. Anal. Strat. Manag., 34, 16, 10.1080/09537325.2021.1883583 · DOI
  5. Chen, 2022, The impact of artificial intelligence on firm performance: An application of the resource-based view to e-commerce firms, Front. Psychol., 13, 884830, 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.884830 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Agarwal, 2021, Analysis of challenges in sustainable human resource management due to disruptions by Industry 4.0: An emerging economy perspective, Int. J. Manpow., 43, 513, 10.1108/IJM-03-2021-0192 · DOI
  7. Babina, 2024, Artificial intelligence, firm growth, and product innovation, J. Financ. Econ., 151, 103745, 10.1016/j.jfineco.2023.103745 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Bag, 2021, Role of institutional pressures and resources in the adoption of big data analytics powered artificial intelligence, sustainable manufacturing practices and circular economy capabilities, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang., 163, 120420, 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120420 · DOI
  9. Alekseeva, 2021, AI Adoption and Firm Performance: Management versus IT, Acad. Manag. Annu. Meet. Proc., 2021, 15935
  10. Mikalef, 2021, Artificial intelligence capability: Conceptualization, measurement calibration, and empirical study on its impact on organizational creativity and firm performance, Inf. Manag., 58, 103434, 10.1016/j.im.2021.103434 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Yu, 2020, Green human resource management and environmental cooperation: An ability-motivation-opportunity and contingency perspective, Int. J. Prod. Econ., 219, 224, 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.06.013 · DOI
  12. Baabdullah, 2021, SMEs and artificial intelligence (AI): Antecedents and consequences of AI-based B2B practices, Ind. Mark. Manag., 98, 255, 10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.09.003 · DOI
  13. Chen, 2021, Business intelligence capabilities and firm performance: A study in China, Int. J. Inf. Manag., 57, 102232, 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102232 · DOI
  14. Gherghina, C., Botezatu, M.A., Hosszu, A., and Simionescu, L.N. (2020). Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): The engine of economic growth through investments and innovation. Sustainability, 12. · DOI
  15. Ndiaye, 2018, Demystifying small and medium enterprises’ (SMEs) performance in emerging and developing economies, Borsa Istanb. Rev., 18, 269, 10.1016/j.bir.2018.04.003 · DOI
  16. Baeshen, 2021, Determinants of green innovation to achieve sustainable business performance: Evidence from SMEs, Front. Psychol., 12, 767968, 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.767968 · DOI
  17. Arbelo, 2018, Profit efficiency and its determinants in small and medium-sized enterprises in Spain, BRQ Bus. Res. Q., 21, 238, 10.1016/j.brq.2018.08.003 · DOI
  18. Akpan, 2021, Cutting-edge technologies for small business and innovation in the era of COVID-19 global health pandemic, J. Small Bus. Entrep., 33, 607, 10.1080/08276331.2020.1799294 · DOI
  19. Rawashdeh, 2023, Determinants of artificial intelligence adoption in SMEs: The mediating role of accounting automation, Int. J. Data Netw. Sci., 7, 25, 10.5267/j.ijdns.2022.12.010 · DOI
  20. Ghobakhloo, 2021, Digital transformation success under Industry 4.0: A strategic guideline for manufacturing SMEs, J. Manuf. Technol. Manag., 32, 1533, 10.1108/JMTM-11-2020-0455 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Balat, 2006, The position of oil in the middle east: Potential trends, future perspectives, market and trade, Energy Sources Part A Recover. Util. Environ. Eff., 28, 821
  22. Jurgenson, 2016, A comprehensive renewable energy program for Saudi Vision 2030, Renew. Energy Focus, 17, 182, 10.1016/j.ref.2016.08.006 · DOI
  23. Chatterjee, 2021, Understanding AI adoption in manufacturing and production firms using an integrated TAM-TOE model, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang., 170, 120880, 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120880 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Rehman, 2021, Analyzing the relationship between green innovation and environmental performance in large manufacturing firms, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang., 163, 120481, 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120481 · DOI
  25. Xie, 2019, Green process innovation, green product innovation, and corporate financial performance: A content analysis method, J. Bus. Res., 101, 697, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.010 · DOI
  26. Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovation, The Free Press.
  27. Zhang, 2020, Critical success factors of green innovation: Technology, organization and environment readiness, J. Clean. Prod., 264, 121701, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121701 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Kauffman, 2001, Economics and electronic commerce: Survey and directions for research, Int. J. Electron. Commer., 5, 5, 10.1080/10864415.2001.11044222 · DOI
  29. Chatterjee, 2002, Shaping up for e-commerce: Institutional enablers of the organizational assimilation of web technologies, MIS Q., 26, 65, 10.2307/4132321 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Hao, J., Shi, H., Shi, V., and Yang, C. (2020). Adoption of automatic warehousing systems in logistics firms: A technology–organization–environment framework. Sustainability, 12. · DOI
  31. Awa, 2016, A model of adoption determinants of ERP within T-O-E framework, Inf. Technol. People, 29, 901, 10.1108/ITP-03-2015-0068 · DOI
  32. Racherla, 2008, eCRM system adoption by hospitality organizations: A technology-organization-environment (TOE) framework, J. Hosp. Leis. Mark., 17, 30
  33. Low, 2011, Understanding the determinants of cloud computing adoption, Ind. Manag. Data Syst., 111, 1006, 10.1108/02635571111161262 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Oliveira, 2014, Assessing the determinants of cloud computing adoption: An analysis of the manufacturing and services sectors, Inf. Manag., 51, 497, 10.1016/j.im.2014.03.006 · DOI
  35. Amade, 2020, Understanding the determinants of GIT post-adoption: Perspectives from Mozambican institutions, Heliyon, 6, e03879, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03879 · DOI
  36. Malik, S., Chadhar, M., Vatanasakdakul, S., and Chetty, M. (2021). Factors affecting the organizational adoption of blockchain technology: Extending the technology–organization–environment (TOE) framework in the Australian context. Sustainability, 13. · DOI
  37. Ganguly, 2022, Understanding the challenges of the adoption of blockchain technology in the logistics sector: The TOE framework, Technol. Anal. Strat. Manag., 36, 457, 10.1080/09537325.2022.2036333 · DOI
  38. Satar, 2022, Factors of e-business adoption in small and medium enterprises: Evidence from Saudi Arabia, Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol., 2022, 2445624, 10.1155/2022/2445624 · DOI
  39. Aslam, W., and Jawaid, S.T. (2023). Green banking adoption practices: The pathway of meeting sustainable goals. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 1–26. · DOI
  40. Na, S., Heo, S., Han, S., Shin, Y., and Roh, Y. (2022). Acceptance model of artificial intelligence (AI)-based technologies in construction firms: Applying the technology acceptance model (TAM) in combination with the technology–organisation–environment (TOE) framework. Buildings, 12. · DOI
  41. Das, S.D., and Bala, P.K. (2023). What drives MLOps adoption? An analysis using the TOE framework. J. Decis. Syst., 1–37. · DOI
  42. Chen, 2023, Investigating the determinants of performance of artificial intelligence adoption in hospitality industry during COVID-19, Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag., 35, 2868, 10.1108/IJCHM-04-2022-0433 · DOI
  43. Frambach, 2002, Organizational innovation adoption: A multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research, J. Bus. Res., 55, 163, 10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00152-1 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Bond, 2011, Barriers and drivers to green buildings in Australia and New Zealand, J. Prop. Investig. Finance, 29, 494, 10.1108/14635781111150367 · DOI
  45. Williams, 2007, What is stopping sustainable building in England? Barriers experienced by stakeholders in delivering sustainable developments, Sustain. Dev., 15, 135, 10.1002/sd.308 · DOI
  46. Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press. [5th ed.].
  47. Lin, 2011, Determinants of green practice adoption for logistics companies in China, J. Bus. Ethic, 98, 67, 10.1007/s10551-010-0535-9 · DOI
  48. Grandon, 2004, Electronic commerce adoption: An empirical study of small and medium US businesses, Inf. Manag., 42, 197, 10.1016/j.im.2003.12.010 · DOI
  49. Alsheibani, S., Messom, C., and Cheung, Y. (2020). Re-Thinking the Competitive Landscape of Artificial Intelligence, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa Hamilton Library. · DOI
  50. Carayannis, 2006, Innovation diffusion and technology acceptance: The case of PKI technology, Technovation, 26, 847, 10.1016/j.technovation.2005.06.013 · DOI
  51. Bandi, R.K., Bose, A.K., and Saxena, A. (2015, January 4–6). Exploring Green IT Awareness and Adoption among Indian Students. Proceedings of the SIGMIS-CPR ‘15: 2015 Computers and People Research Conference, Newport Beach, CA, USA. · DOI
  52. Leonard, 1990, A Dual Methodology for Case Studies: Synergistic Use of a Longitudinal Single Site with Replicated Multiple Sites, Organ. Sci., 1, 248, 10.1287/orsc.1.3.248 · DOI · Paper page
  53. Ahuja, 2016, Adoption of BIM by architectural firms in India: Technology–organization–environment perspective, Arch. Eng. Des. Manag., 12, 311
  54. Howard, 2008, Building information modeling—Experts’ views on standardisation and industry deployment, Adv. Eng. Inform., 22, 271, 10.1016/j.aei.2007.03.001 · DOI
  55. Weng, 2011, Determinants of green innovation adoption for small and medium-size enterprises (SMES), Afr. J. Bus. Manag., 5, 9154
  56. Wang, 2020, How does green innovation affect supplier-customer relationships? A study on customer and relationship contingencies, Ind. Mark. Manag., 90, 170, 10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.07.008 · DOI
  57. Josephine, L.L.C., and Karin, O. (2017). A Technology-Organization-Environment Perspective on Eco-effectiveness: A Meta-analysis. Australas. J. Inf. Syst., 21. · DOI
  58. García-Machado, J.J., and Martínez-Ávila, M. (2019). Environmental performance and green culture: The mediating effect of green innovation. An application to the automotive industry. Sustainability, 11. · DOI
  59. Jun, 2021, Examining the determinants of green innovation adoption in SMEs: A PLS-SEM approach, Eur. J. Innov. Manag., 24, 67, 10.1108/EJIM-05-2019-0113 · DOI
  60. Aboelmaged, 2019, Absorptive capacity and green innovation adoption in SMEs: The mediating effects of sustainable organisational capabilities, J. Clean. Prod., 220, 853, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.150 · DOI
  61. Zailani, 2015, Green innovation adoption in automotive supply chain: The Malaysian case, J. Clean. Prod., 108, 1115, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.039 · DOI
  62. Naujokaitiene, 2015, Organizational support for employee engagement in technology-enhanced learning, SAGE Open, 5, 2158244015607585, 10.1177/2158244015607585 · DOI
  63. Clohessy, 2019, Investigating the influence of organizational factors on blockchain adoption: An innovation theory perspective, Ind. Manag. Data Syst., 119, 1457, 10.1108/IMDS-08-2018-0365 · DOI · Paper page
  64. Singh, 2019, Green innovation and organizational performance: The influence of big data and the moderating role of management commitment and HR practices, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang., 144, 483, 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.12.016 · DOI
  65. 2006, A review of determinant factors of environmental proactivity, Bus. Strat. Environ., 15, 87, 10.1002/bse.450 · DOI
  66. Sharma, 2022, Analysing the impact of sustainable human resource management practices and industry 4.0 technologies adoption on employability skills, Int. J. Manpow., 43, 463, 10.1108/IJM-02-2021-0085 · DOI
  67. Bag, 2021, Key resources for industry 4.0 adoption and its effect on sustainable production and circular economy: An empirical study, J. Clean. Prod., 281, 125233, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125233 · DOI
  68. Connelly, 2021, Working in the digitized economy: HRM theory & practice, Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev., 31, 100762
  69. Puhovichova, 2020, Changes of human resource management in the context of impact of the fourth industrial revolution, Industry 4.0, 5, 138
  70. Qahtani, 2023, Assisting artificial intelligence adoption drivers in human resources management: A mediation model, Acta Logist., 10, 141, 10.22306/al.v10i1.371 · DOI
  71. Sima, V., Gheorghe, I.G., Subić, J., and Nancu, D. (2020). Influences of the Industry 4.0 revolution on the human capital development and consumer behavior: A systematic review. Sustainability, 12. · DOI
  72. Wu, 2012, The effects of GSCM drivers and institutional pressures on GSCM practices in Taiwan’s textile and apparel industry, Int. J. Prod. Econ., 135, 618, 10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.05.023 · DOI
  73. Almada, 2018, Sustainable competitive advantage needs green human resource practices: A framework for environmental management, Rev. De Adm. Contemp., 22, 424, 10.1590/1982-7849rac2018170345 · DOI
  74. Yong, 2019, Nexus between green intellectual capital and green human resource management, J. Clean. Prod., 215, 364, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.306 · DOI
  75. Liao, 2019, Innovation intensity, creativity enhancement, and eco-innovation strategy: T he roles of customer demand and environmental regulation, Bus. Strategy Environ., 28, 316, 10.1002/bse.2232 · DOI
  76. Dhull, 2016, Drivers and barriers in green supply chain management adaptation: A state-of-art review, Uncertain Supply Chain Manag., 4, 61, 10.5267/j.uscm.2015.7.003 · DOI
  77. Soomro, 2019, Understanding the adoption of sadad e-payments: UTAUT combined with religiosity as moderator, Int. J. E-Bus. Res. (IJEBR), 15, 55, 10.4018/IJEBR.2019010104 · DOI
  78. Mensah, 2020, E-Government services adoption: An extension of the unified model of electronic government adoption, SAGE Open, 10, 2158244020933593, 10.1177/2158244020933593 · DOI
  79. Hojnik, 2016, The driving forces of process eco-innovation and its impact on performance: Insights from Slovenia, J. Clean. Prod., 133, 812, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.002 · DOI
  80. Haseeb, M., Hussain, H.I., Ślusarczyk, B., and Jermsittiparsert, K. (2019). Industry 4.0: A solution towards technology challenges of sustainable business performance. Soc. Sci., 8. · DOI
  81. Xue, M., Boadu, F., and Xie, Y. (2019). The Penetration of Green Innovation on Firm Performance: Effects of Absorptive Capacity and Managerial Environmental Concern. Sustainability, 11. · DOI
  82. Kotabe, 2003, Gaining from vertical partnerships: Knowledge transfer, relationship duration and supplier performance improvement in the U.S. and Japanese automotive industries, Strateg. Manag. J., 24, 293, 10.1002/smj.297 · DOI
  83. Bughin, J., Hazan, E., Ramaswamy, S., and Chu, M. (2017). Artificial Intelligence the Next Digital Frontier, McKinsey & Company. · DOI
  84. Du, 2007, The innovation decision: An economic analysis, Technovation, 27, 766, 10.1016/j.technovation.2007.05.008 · DOI
  85. Lin, 2010, The influences of environmental uncertainty on corporate green behavior: An empirical study with small and medium-size enterprises, Soc. Behav. Pers. Int. J., 38, 691, 10.2224/sbp.2010.38.5.691 · DOI
  86. Raymond, 2010, R&D as a determinant of innovation in manufacturing SMEs: An attempt at empirical clarification, Technovation, 30, 48, 10.1016/j.technovation.2009.05.005 · DOI
  87. Zenger, 1994, Explaining organizational diseconomies of scale in R&D: Agency problems and the allocation of engineering talent, ideas, and effort by firm size, Manag. Sci., 40, 708, 10.1287/mnsc.40.6.708 · DOI
  88. Vossen, 1998, Relative strengths and weaknesses of small firms in innovation, Int. Small Bus. J. Res. Entrep., 16, 88, 10.1177/0266242698163005 · DOI
  89. Sahin, 2006, Detailed review of Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory and educational technology-related studies based on Rogers’ theory, Turk. Online J. Educ. Technol.-TOJET, 5, 14
  90. Sia, 2004, Effects of Environmental uncertainty on organizational intention to adopt distributed work arrangements, IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., 51, 253, 10.1109/TEM.2004.830859 · DOI
  91. Beatty, 2001, Factors influencing corporate web site adoption: A time-based assessment, Inf. Manag., 38, 337, 10.1016/S0378-7206(00)00064-1 · DOI
  92. Chang, 2012, The determinants of green intellectual capital, Manag. Decis., 50, 74, 10.1108/00251741211194886 · DOI
  93. Bai, 2015, Green supply chain practices evaluation in the mining industry using a joint rough sets and fuzzy TOPSIS methodology, Resour. Policy, 46, 86, 10.1016/j.resourpol.2014.10.011 · DOI
  94. Zhang, 2020, Green innovation to respond to environmental regulation: How external knowledge adoption and green absorptive capacity matter?, Bus. Strategy Environ., 29, 39, 10.1002/bse.2349 · DOI
  95. Secker, 1995, Qualitative methods in health promotion research: Some criteria for quality, Health Educ. J., 54, 74, 10.1177/001789699505400108 · DOI · Paper page
  96. Hair, 2014, Corrigendum to “editorial partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance” [LRP 46/1-2 (2013) 1–12], Long Range Plan., 47, 392, 10.1016/j.lrp.2013.08.016 · DOI
  97. Fornell, 1981, Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error, J. Mark. Res., 18, 39, 10.1177/002224378101800104 · DOI · Paper page
  98. Henseler, 2012, Why generalized structured component analysis is not universally preferable to structural equation modeling, J. Acad. Mark. Sci., 40, 402, 10.1007/s11747-011-0298-6 · DOI
  99. Lin, C.-Y., Alam, S.S., Ho, Y.-H., Al-Shaikh, M.E., and Sultan, P. (2020). Adoption of green supply chain management among SMES in Malaysia. Sustainability, 12. · DOI
  100. Seyal, 2006, A Preliminary investigation of electronic data interchange adoption in Bruneian small business organizations, Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries., 24, 1, 10.1002/j.1681-4835.2006.tb00159.x · DOI
  101. Kousar, 2017, Technological factors and adoption of green innovation: Moderating role of government intervention: A case of SMEs in Pakistan, Pak. J. Commer. Soc. Sci. (PJCSS), 11, 833
  102. Alam, 2008, Factors affecting e-commerce adoption in the electronic manufacturing companies in Malaysia, Int. J. Commer. Manag., 17, 125, 10.1108/10569210710776503 · DOI
  103. Chou, 2012, Green practices in the restaurant industry from an innovation adoption perspective: Evidence from Taiwan, Int. J. Hosp. Manag., 31, 703, 10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.09.006 · DOI
  104. Hwang, B.-N., Huang, C.-Y., and Wu, C.-H. (2016). A TOE approach to establish a green supply chain adoption decision model in the semiconductor industry. Sustainability, 8. · DOI
  105. Zailani, 2014, Determinants and environmental outcome of green technology innovation adoption in the transportation industry in Malaysia, Asian J. Technol. Innov., 22, 286, 10.1080/19761597.2014.973167 · DOI
  106. 2006, Resource and capability constraints to innovation in small and large plants, Small Bus. Econ., 26, 257, 10.1007/s11187-005-2140-3 · DOI
  107. Cowden, 2015, Experience-based green board capital: Linking board of directors and firm environmental performance, J. Leadersh. Account. Ethics, 12, 16
  108. Ortega-Lapiedra, R., Marco-Fondevila, M., Scarpellini, S., and Llena-Macarulla, F. (2019). Measurement of the human capital applied to the business eco-innovation. Sustainability, 11. · DOI
  109. Singh, 2020, Green innovation and environmental performance: The role of green transformational leadership and green human resource management, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang., 150, 119762, 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119762 · DOI
  110. Karchegani, 2013, The relationship between intellectual capital and innovation: A review, Int. J. Bus. Manag. Stud., 2, 561
  111. Bai, 2019, The impacts of government R&D subsidies on green innovation: Evidence from Chinese energy-intensive firms, J. Clean. Prod., 233, 819, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.107 · DOI
  112. Huang, 2019, Loaning scale and government subsidy for promoting green innovation, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang., 144, 148, 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.04.023 · DOI
  113. Xie, 2020, Exploring an innovative pivot: How green training can spur corporate sustainability performance, Bus. Strat. Environ., 29, 2432, 10.1002/bse.2512 · DOI
  114. 2013, Green innovation and financial performance: An institutional approach, Organ. Environ., 26, 365, 10.1177/1086026613507931 · DOI
  115. Rezende, 2019, Take your time: Examining when green innovation affects financial performance in multinationals, J. Clean. Prod., 233, 993, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.135 · DOI
  116. Abdallah, 2017, The mediating role of product and process innovations on the relationship between knowledge management and operational performance in manufacturing companies in Jordan, Bus. Process. Manag. J., 23, 349, 10.1108/BPMJ-03-2016-0047 · DOI
  117. Acs, 1988, Innovation in large and small firms: An empirical analysis, Am. Econ. Rev., 78, 678
  118. Andries, P., and Stephan, U. (2019). Environmental innovation and firm performance: How firm size and motives matter. Sustainability, 11. · DOI
  119. 2010, Technological collaboration: Bridging the innovation gap between small and large firms, J. Small Bus. Manag., 48, 44, 10.1111/j.1540-627X.2009.00286.x · DOI

Authors
Badghish, S., & Soomro, Y. A.
Affiliations
King Abdulaziz University (SA)
Corresponding author
Soomro, Yasir Ali
ORCID
Venue
Sustainability
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2024-02-24
Volume
16
Issue
5
Pages
1864
ISSN
2071-1050 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/su16051864
OpenAlex
W4392164072
Cited by
261
References
130
Citations by year
2026: 140 · 2025: 92 · 2024: 29
FWCI
97.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
Ministry of Education and Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR), King Abdulaziz University (IFPDP-242-22)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Impact of AI and Big Data on Business and Society
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › ERP Systems Implementation and Impact
Keywords
artificial intelligence adoption, small and medium-sized enterprises, sustainable business performance, technology-organization-environment framework, relative advantage, compatibility, government support, firm size, moderating effect of firm size, Saudi Arabia

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review