1. Introduction

Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) are currently facing major challenges in configuring their resources and capabilities in a comprehensive manner to operate in a dynamic environment, while also considering the need to develop competitive advantages (Barney, 2001). Key among these challenges is business digitalization, driven by growing demands for data availability, and by the need to keep pace with globalization and rapid technological change (Füller et al., 2022; McAfee & Brynjolfsson, 2012). At the same time, environmental pressures require the implementation of Green Management (GM), referring to practices systematically employed by firms and their suppliers to protect, preserve and restore the environment. GM typically addresses issues such as carbon emissions, the use of natural resources, waste, water and energy management, recycling, and many other concerns (OECD, 2024; Ambec & Lanoie, 2008; Shu et al., 2020).

In this article, we conceptualize digitalization as the use of digital technologies to generate information with the aim of reviewing intra- and inter-organizational decision-making processes and structures (Holmström et al., 2019; Lafuente & Sallan, 2024). A related concept that is gaining momentum is Digital Orientation (DO), defined as "an organization's guiding principle to pursue digital technology-enabled opportunities to achieve competitive advantage. It encompasses the dimensions of digital technology scope, digital capabilities, digital ecosystem coordination, and digital architecture configuration" (Kindermann et al., 2021).

There is evidence that DO with green characteristics improves Innovation Performance (IP) when mediated by digital business models, reflected in benefits such as reduced transaction costs, improved operational efficiency, and integration with partners in the green digital ecosystem, in areas such as digital technology and green innovation (Yin et al., 2024). Moreover, DO drives firms' operational efficiency and promotes sustainability through green-oriented innovations (Ning et al., 2023). It also contributes to the generation of more solid competitive advantages when directed toward green innovation (Le et al., 2024).

Additionally, recent evidence highlights that digital technologies and Artificial Intelligence (AI) platforms are reshaping collaboration patterns and enabling new forms of strategic ecosystems, which help firms overcome resource and institutional constraints (Vaillant et al., 2025). Likewise, studies show that digital competencies disrupt traditional co-innovation configurations, making vertical (value chain) and horizontal (industry) collaborations more optimal than institutional ones, while institutional partnerships remain essential for firms with lower digital capabilities (Lafuente et al., 2023).

Although prior research has shown that digitalization drives innovation (Martínez-Falcó et al. 2024; Rojas-Cabezas et al., 2026) and that green management enhances performance (Wei & Sun, 2021), both phenomena are often examined in isolation. This fragmentation limits the understanding of the potential synergies that may emerge when digital and green strategies are jointly implemented in SMEs (Xie et al., 2022; Bag et al., 2022). Then, given the increasing convergence between digitalization and sustainability, it is pertinent to ask: Does digital orientation act as a catalyst for green management to enhance firm performance? While the effect of digital orientation on innovation and that of green management on performance have been individually examined (Yin et al., 2024; Kindermann et al., 2021), their combined impact remains underexplored, despite calls for integrating digital and green strategies to strengthen innovation outcomes (Bag et al., 2022; Al Halbusi et al., 2023)

This gap is particularly significant in emerging economies and the manufacturing sector. On the one hand, in emerging economies, particularly in Latin America, SMEs face additional structural challenges, such as institutional voids, limited access to financing, and technological gaps, which increase the complexity of simultaneously advancing digital transformation and sustainability initiatives (Rojas-Cabezas et al., 2024a; Sabando-Vera et al., 2025). On the other hand, the manufacturing sector both contributes significantly to gross domestic product and generates high environmental impacts in the Latin American region (Sabando-Vera et al., 2025).

In this context, examining DO and its relationship with GM in Latin America is particularly relevant, given the heterogeneous institutional environments across the region and the significant gaps and lags in its digital ecosystem (Acs et al., 2022). Although there is marked internal heterogeneity (with countries such as Chile, Costa Rica, and Uruguay exhibiting relatively stronger performance), the region remains behind the United States and Canada, where digital ecosystems are more mature and follow different configuration priorities (Acs et al., 2022).

Furthermore, Acs et al. (2022) indicate that in Latin America, the digital ecosystem is primarily driven by entrepreneurship in digital technologies and by dynamics associated with digital platforms, rather than by a consolidated digital citizenship and well-established regulatory structures, as observed in the United States and Canada. This configuration places greater responsibility on firms to develop digital capabilities internally to respond to market demands, and manufacturing SMEs are no exception.

Overlooking this interrelation is not only an academic shortcoming but also undermines the ability of firms and policymakers to design practical innovation and sustainability strategies. Consequently, it remains unclear how digital orientation can leverage green management to foster improved innovation outcomes.

Consequently, the analysis of the relationship between DO and performance can generate strategic alternatives to address modern environmental (Zhang et al., 2025) and that digital strategic orientation is positively associated with innovation-related challenges (Yin et al., 2024). The mere use of digital technologies is now a necessary condition for businesses but is not sufficient to ensure success. Hence the relevance of DO (Kindermann et al., 2021). Although empirical evidence has linked digital green strategic orientation to IP (Khin & Ho, 2020; Yin et al., 2024) and to sustainable performance (Zhang et al., 2025), the effect of GM as a mediating mechanism in this relationship, and specifically in manufacturing SMEs in developing countries, remains a highly topical line of inquiry, given the potential role of the manufacturing sector with regard to environmental impact.

Although some studies link digitalization and green management to innovation performance and corporate outcomes in general (Zhou & Zhao, 2025; AlKoliby et al., 2024), empirical research jointly analyzing the relationship between DO and IP, and particularly the mediating role of GM, in manufacturing SMEs remains limited. To address this gap, our investigation seeks to answer the following research questions: Does digital orientation have a positive association with SMEs' innovation performance? Does green management mediate the relationship between digital orientation and innovation performance?

The study is based on a dataset collected by the Iberoamerican SME Observatory (ISO). The final sample includes information on 4270 manufacturing SMEs across 16 Latin American countries, and the analysis is based on a partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) approach. The empirical results confirm that DO is positively related to the IP of the analyzed SMEs, and that GM positively mediates this relationship. Albeit modest, this effect is statistically significant.

This study contributes to the literature by extending research on DO from a firm-level perspective, specifically within manufacturing SMEs. While studies such as Acs et al. (2022) analyze the digital ecosystem at the country level -identifying differences and gaps from a macro and institutional perspective- the present research adopts a micro-level approach focused on firms' internal capabilities. Additionally, the study extends the analysis of DO to the green management dimension in a context characterized by structural constraints and weaknesses in the digital ecosystem, thereby providing new insights into the mechanisms through which digital orientation influences innovation performance under conditions of resource scarcity (Sabando-Vera et al., 2025).

From a practical perspective, this study offers relevant implications for managers and decision-makers in manufacturing SMEs, as well as for public policymakers interested in promoting sustainable development in Latin America. The findings suggest that DO is a strategic tool with positive effects on innovation performance, and that green management operates as a mediating mechanism in this relationship, despite the absence of strong green policies and persistent inequalities in digital infrastructure (Acs et al., 2022). Accordingly, firms can implement digital capabilities at the organizational level to complement broader public policy initiatives in both digital and environmental domains.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the literature review and hypotheses, Section 3 describes the methodology used in the empirical analysis, Section 4 analyzes the results, Section 5 contains the discussion, and Section 6 concludes with the key findings and suggestions for future research.

2. Literature Review

According to the resource-based view of the firm (RBV), competitiveness is determined by the possession of resources and the ability to transform them into capabilities (Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1991, 2001) that are unique due to differentiating characteristics such as durability, transferability, replicability and transparency (Wernerfelt, 1984). Modern challenges facing firms, such as sustainability, digitalization and globalization, among others, demand not only the development of competitive advantages, but also their adequate configuration to shield the firm against imitation (Warner & Wager, 2019).

Digital Orientation (DO) can generate valuable, inimitable and non-substitutable capabilities that enable firms to acquire and leverage strategic resources through the use of technologies such as big data and automation, among many others, as this enhances strategic decision-making (McAfee & Brynjolfsson, 2012) and strengthens knowledge absorption (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990) by facilitating data collection and structuring (Kindermann et al., 2021).

Meanwhile, Green Management (GM) helps minimize a company's environmental footprint and promotes sustainability through practices such as the development of eco-friendly products, more efficient and responsible resource use, recycling, and optimized consumption of raw materials (Peng & Li 2008; Shu et al., 2016). In addition to its ecological benefits, environmental innovation is positively recognized and rewarded by capital markets, resulting in higher company valuations and improved financial metrics such as returns on assets (ROA) and investment (ROI). Evidence also shows that GM positively influences Innovation Performance (IP) (Rojas-Cabezas et al., 2024b) by fostering a culture of proactivity and strategic foresight, as well as creating barriers to entry for potential competitors (Farza et al., 2021). In short, GM contributes to sustained competitive advantage.

3. Methodology

4. Empirical Results

5. Discussion

The results show that digital orientation is positively and significantly related to innovation performance. At the same time, green management acts as a mediating mechanism in this relationship, albeit with a more negligible effect than the direct impact of DO. These findings are consistent with prior research indicating that firms with higher levels of DO develop capabilities that foster product and process innovation, for example, by strengthening organizational learning and integrating external knowledge (Kindermann et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2024). Moreover, technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT), sensors, and artificial intelligence enable the generation of real-time data that supports the identification of innovation opportunities and activities.

These results can be further interpreted through the framework proposed by Nambisan et al. (2017), who argue that innovation in digital environments is open, dynamic, and continuously evolving. One of their key propositions suggests that digitalization enables dynamic problem-solution matching. In this sense, digital orientation equips manufacturing SMEs with flexible, data-driven capabilities that allow them to identify and address complex challenges, including those related to environmental issues.

The evidence from this study confirms that digital orientation and green management, when combined, have a significant impact on innovation performance in manufacturing SMEs. This finding aligns with prior research, which shows that digitalization drives green innovation by enhancing absorptive capacity and resource integration, while also highlighting the need for greater conceptual clarity regarding the role of digital transformation in reshaping business models (Rojas-Segura et al., 2023).

This finding is consistent with recent discussions on the configuration of digital ecosystems and platform economies, which highlight the need for SMEs to embed digitalization within broader institutional and policy frameworks that support competitiveness and sustainability (Lafuente et al., 2023). Thus, our results reinforce the idea that digital orientation not only improves operational efficiency but also constitutes a key catalyst for environmentally responsible innovation practices.

In this sense, DO equips firms to identify and combine "problems/needs" with "solutions/technologies"; GM introduces environmental criteria that reconfigure those matches (which solutions are accepted or discarded and how they are implemented); and IP emerges from the sequence of these matchings as they are made and remade over time. This mechanism is consistent with recent views of dynamic problem-solution matching in digital innovation (Nambisan et al., 2017). In this regard, our evidence suggests that DO allows firms to respond to environmental and institutional pressures through green innovations, using resources such as IoT, big data and artificial intelligence to identify changes in regulations, as well as consumer tastes and preferences, thereby providing valuable information for making timely strategic decisions on matters such as green products, environmentally friendly processes, reduction of water usage, waste minimization, and even supplier requirements (Zhang et al., 2025).

The results of our study can also be connected to the idea that DO endows firms with critical resources for monitoring their own management practices, in waste reduction, for example. While this is likely aimed at operational efficiency, at the same time it may also raise awareness of the firm's environmental footprint, as companies with a strong green DO can plan and implement digital technologies not only to be more efficient but also to achieve environmental goals, such as emissions reductions (Yin et al., 2024).

Similarly, the evidence from our article could be interpreted through the work of Li et al. (2022), who used clustering, decision trees and data mining to analyze the influence of different configurations of enterprise digitalization on green IP. They found that advanced digitalization positively impacts green innovation through more efficient communication, more effective knowledge integration, and lower innovation implementation costs.

Finally, the results allow us to nuance the debate on contextual contingencies. While research in developed economies has shown that technological turbulence amplifies the positive effect of digital orientation on environmental performance (Bendig et al., 2023), evidence from China indicates that digitalization does not automatically ensure sustainable performance, as it depends on institutional factors and firms' commitment to the green agenda (Yin et al., 2024). In this sense, our study contributes to demonstrating that, despite resource scarcity and structural vulnerabilities, the combination of digital and environmental capabilities provides a strategic pathway to strengthen innovation and sustainable competitiveness in Latin America. This finding also responds to recent calls to clarify conceptual and theoretical frameworks on digital transformation (Rojas-Segura et al., 2023) and to rethink innovation management in an increasingly digital world (Nambisan et al., 2017).

6. Conclusions, Implications, Limitations and Future Research Directions

References

1. Acs, Z. J., Lafuente, E., & Szerb, L. (2022). A note on the configuration of the digital ecosystem in Latin America. TEC Empresarial, 16(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.18845/te.v16i1.5926
2. Al Halbusi, H., Soto-Acosta, P., Popa, S., & Hassani, A. (2023). The role of green digital learning orientation and big data analytics in the green innovation-sustainable performance relationship. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, 12886-12896. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2023.3277078
3. AlKoliby, I. S. M., Abdullah, H. H., & Suki, N. M. (2024). Linking knowledge application, digital marketing, and manufacturing SMEs’ sustainable performance: The mediating role of innovation. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15, 6151-6177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01157-4
4. Ambec, S., & Lanoie, P. (2008). Does it pay to be green? A systematic overview. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(4), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2008.35590353
5. An, S., Gu, Y., Pan, L., & Yu, Y. (2024). Supply chain digitalization and firms’ green innovation: Evidence from a pilot program. Economic Analysis and Policy, 84, 828-846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2024.09.024
6. Bag, S., Dhamija, P., Bryde, D. J., & Singh, R. K. (2022). Effect of eco-innovation on green supply chain management, circular economy capability, and performance of small and medium enterprises. Journal of Business Research, 141, 60-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.011
7. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
8. Barney, J. B. (2001). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27(6), 643-650. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700602
9. Bendig, D., Schulz, C., Theis, L., & Raff, S. (2023). Digital orientation and environmental performance in times of technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 188, 122272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122272
10. Castillo-Esparza, M. M. G. C., Maldonado-Guzmán, G., & Mejía-Trejo, J. (2024). Green business strategy and its effect on financial performance: The mediating role of corporate social responsibility. Tec Empresarial, 18(2), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.18845/te.v18i2.7134
11. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553
12. Dijkstra, T. K., & Henseler, J. (2015). Consistent partial least squares path modeling. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 297-316. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26628355
13. Ezzi, F., & Jarboui, A. (2016). Does innovation strategy affect financial, social and environmental performance? Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science, 21(40), 14-24. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jefas.2016.03.001
14. Farza, K., Ftiti, Z., Hlioui, Z., Louhichi, W., & Omri, A. (2021). Does it pay to go green? The environmental innovation effect on corporate financial performance. Journal of Environmental Management, 300, 113695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113695
15. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
16. Füller, J.; Hutter, K.; Wahl, J.; Bilgram, V.; & Tekic, Z. (2022). How AI revolutionizes innovation management-perceptions and implementation preferences of AI-based innovators. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 178, 121598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121598
17. García, D., Gómez-Guillamón, A.D., Hansen, P.B., Leiva, J.C., Meroño, A., Sánchez, G. & Somohano, F.M. (2022). Digitalización y Desarrollo Sostenible de La Mipyme En Iberoamérica. FAEDPYME. https://faedpyme.es/informes/informe-mipyme-2022-digitalizacion-y-desarrollo-sostenible-de-la-mipyme-en-iberoamerica/
18. González-Estrada, E., & Cosmes, W. (2019). Shapiro-Wilk test for skew normal distributions based on data transformations. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 89(17), 3258-3272. https://doi.org/10.1080/00949655.2019.1658763
19. Gopalakrishnan, S. & Bierly, P. E. (2006). The impact of firm size and age on knowledge strategies during product development: a study of the drug delivery industry. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53(1), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2005.861807
20. Guo, Q., Geng, C., & Yao, N. (2023). How does green digitalization affect environmental innovation? The moderating role of institutional forces. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(6), 3088-3105. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3288
21. Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLSSEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review 26(2), 106-121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128
22. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2018). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
23. Harymawan, I. (2018). Why do firms appoint former military personnel as directors? Evidence of loan interest rate in militarily connected firms in Indonesia. Asian Review of Accounting, 26(1), 2-18. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARA-07-2016-0086
24. Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. & Sinkovics, R.R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. New Challenges to International Marketing (Advances in International Marketing), 20, 277-319. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014
25. Holmström, J., Holweg, M., Lawson, B., Pil, F. K., & Wagner, S. M. (2019). The digitalization of operations and supply chain management: Theoretical and methodological implications. Journal of Operations Management, 65(8), 728-734. https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.1073
26. Khin, S. & Ho, T.C. (2020). Digital technology, digital capability and organizational performance: A mediating role of digital innovation, International Journal of Innovation Science, 11(2), 177-195. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-08-2018-0083
27. Kindermann, B., Beutel, S., Garcia de Lomana, G., Strese, S., Bendig, D., & Brettel, M. (2021). Digital orientation: Conceptualization and operationalization of a new strategic orientation. European Management Journal, 39(5), 645-657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2021.01.009
28. Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101
29. Lafuente, E., & Sallan, J. M. (2024). Digitally powered solution delivery: The use of IoT and AI for transitioning towards a solution business model. International Journal of Production Economics, 277, 109383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2024.109383
30. Lafuente, E., & Vaillant, Y. (2023). Greater co-innovation and innovation efficiency through greening. Journal of Cleaner Production, 428,139516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139516
31. Lafuente, E., Vaillant, Y., & Rabetino, R. (2023). Digital disruption of optimal co-innovation configurations. Technovation, 125, 102772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102772
32. Le, T. T., Nhu, Q. P. V., Bao, T. B. N., Thao, L. V. N., & Pereira, V. (2024). Digitalisation driving sustainable corporate performance: The mediation of green innovation and green supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 446, Article 141290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.141290
33. Li, H., Tang, H., Zhou, W., & Wan, X. (2022). Impact of enterprise digitalization on green innovation performance under the perspective of production and operation. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 971971. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.971971
34. Liao, Z. (2016). Temporal cognition, environmental innovation, and the competitive advantage of enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 1045-1053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.021
35. Lin, R. J., Tan, K. H., & Geng, Y. (2013). Market demand, green product innovation, and firm performance: Evidence from Vietnam motorcycle industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 40, 101-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.01.001
36. López-Fernández, M. C., Serrano-Bedia, A. M., & Pérez-Pérez, M. (2016). Entrepreneurship and family firm research: A bibliometric analysis of an emerging field. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(2), 622-639. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12161
37. Maldonado-Guzmán, G. & Pinzón-Castro, S. Y. (2022). Financial resources, eco-innovation and sustainability performance in automotive industry. Tec Empresarial, 16(2), 34-54. https://doi.org/10.18845/te.v16i2.6169
38. Martínez Falcó, J., Sánchez-García, E., Marco-Lajara, B. & Akram, U. (2024). Digital transformation and green innovation performance: unraveling the role of green knowledge sharing and top management environmental awareness, Internet Research, 1066-2243. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-11-2023-1016
39. McAfee, A., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2012). Big data: The management revolution. Harvard Business Review, 90(10), 60-68.
40. Meng, X. H., Zeng, S. X., Xie, X. M., & Qi, G. Y. (2016). The impact of product market competition on corporate environmental responsibility. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33(1), 267-291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-015-9450-z
41. Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., & Song, M. (2017). Digital innovation management. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 223- 238. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26629644
42. Ning, J., Jiang, X., & Luo, J. (2023). Relationship between enterprise digitalization and green innovation: A mediated moderation model. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 8(1), 100326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2023.100326
43. Neumann, T. (2021). Does it pay for new firms to be green? An empirical analysis of when and how different greening strategies affect the performance of new firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 317, 128403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128403
44. Núñez, E., Leiva, J. C., & Mora-Esquivel, R. (2025). Innovation, green management and SME performance: evidence from Latin American manufacturing firms. Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEFAS-02-2025-0057
45. OECD/Eurostat. (2018). Oslo manual 2018: Guidelines for collecting, reporting and using data on innovation (4th ed.). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304604-en
46. OECD (2024). Environment at a Glance Indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/ac4b8b89-en
47. Peng, Y. S., & Lin, S. S. (2008). Local responsiveness pressure, subsidiary resources, green management adoption and subsidiary’s performance: Evidence from Taiwanese manufacturers. Journal of Business Ethics, 79, 199-212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9382-8
48. Podsakoff, P. M., Podsakoff, N. P., Williams, L. J., Huang, C., & Yang, J. (2024). Common method bias: It’s bad, It’s complex, It’s widespread, and It’s Not Easy to Fix. In Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 11(1), 17-61. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110721-040030
49. Porter, M. E., & Heppelmann, J. E. (2014). How smart, connected products are transforming competition. Harvard Business Review, 92(11), 64-88.
50. Qiao, P., Liu, S., Fung, H.-G., & Wang, C. (2024). Corporate green innovation in a digital economy. International Review of Economics and Finance, 92, 870-883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2024.02.073
51. Rehman, S. U., Kraus, S., Shah, S. A., Khanin, D., & Mahto, R. V. (2021). Analyzing the relationship between green innovation and environmental performance in large manufacturing firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 163, 120481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120481
52. Ren, S., Yang, X., Hu, Y., & Chevallier, J. (2022). Emission trading, induced innovation and firm performance. Energy Economics, 112, 106157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106157
53. Rojas-Cabezas, G., Mora-Esquivel, R., Márquez, N., Chacón-Espejo, S., Nocetti-Núñez, V., & Leiva, J. C. (2024a). The influence of institutional context in the relationship between green management, perceived barriers to sustainability and innovation performance in SMEs. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 37(4), 654-679. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARLA-07-2024-0158
54. Rojas-Cabezas, G., Mora-Esquivel, R., Álvarez, N. M., Chacón-Espejo, S., Nocetti-Nuñez, V., & Leiva, J. C. (2024b). Green management, perceived barriers to sustainability, and innovation performance in Latin American SMEs. International Journal of Business Environment, 15(3-4), 429-450. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBE.2024.139669
55. Rojas-Cabezas, G., Viquez-Paniagua, A. G., Núñez, E., & Muñoz-Cisterna, V. (2026). Digitalization in manufacturing SMEs: the role of digital resources, barriers and innovation performance in Ibero-America. Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRJIAM-07-2025-1757
56. Rojas-Segura, J., Faith-Vargas, M., & Martinez-Villavicencio, J. (2023). Conceptualizing digital transformation using semantic decomposition. TEC Empresarial , 17(3), 63-75. https://doi.org/10.18845/te.v17i3.6850
57. Sabando-Vera, D., Montalván-Burbano, N., Parrales-Guerrero, K., Yonfá-Medranda, M., & Plaza-Úbeda, J. A. (2025). Growing a greener future: A bibliometric analysis of green innovation in SMEs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 212, 123976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2025.123976
58. Shu, C., Zhao, M., Liu, J., & Lindsay, W. (2020). Why firms go green and how green impacts financial and innovation performance differently. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 37, 795-821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-018-9630-8
59. Shu, C., Zhou, K. Z., Xiao, Y., & Gao, S. (2016). How green management influences product innovation in China: The role of institutional benefits. Journal of Business Ethics, 133, 471-485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2401-7
60. Vaillant, Y., Lafuente, E., & Vendrell-Herrero, F. (2025). AI platforms as cooperation enablers favoring the development of strategic situating capabilities within solution delivery ecosystems. Journal of Product Innovation Management, in press. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12807
61. Vithessonthi, C., & Tongurai, J. (2015). The effect of leverage on performance: Domestically-oriented versus internationallyoriented firms. Research in International Business and Finance, 34, 265-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2015.02.016
62. Vo-Thai, H. C., & Tran, M. L. (2025). Green innovation strategies in Vietnamese enterprises: leveraging knowledge management and digitalization for sustainable competitiveness. Journal of Knowledge Management, 29(4), 1055-1091. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2024-0642
63. Wang, C., Qiu, J., Chen, B., & Deng, X. (2024). Green finance, green culture and corporate green management innovation: Evidence from Chinese listed companies. Finance Research Letters, 67, 105774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2024.105774
64. Warner KSR & Wäger, M. (2019). Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: an ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long Range Planning, 52(3), 326-349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.12.001
65. Wei, Z., & Sun, L. (2021). How to leverage manufacturing digitalization for green process innovation: An information processing perspective. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 121(5), 1026-1044. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-08-2020-459:contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}
66. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207
67. Xie, X., Hoang, T. T., & Zhu, Q. (2022). Green process innovation and financial performance: The role of green social capital and customers’ tacit green needs. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7, 100165. https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jik.2022.100165
68. Yan, C., & Wang, D. D. (2024). Digitalization and green innovation: A fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis based on 30 provinces in China. Chinese Management Studies, 19(6), 1852-1872. https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-05-2024-0302
69. Yin, S., Yu, Y., & Zhang, N. (2024). The effect of digital green strategic orientation on digital green innovation performance: From the perspective of green digital business model innovation. Sage Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241261130
70. Zhang, X., Wang, W., Yang, L., Yu, Y., Zhu, T., & Teng, X. (2025). Does digital orientation improve the sustainable performance of agricultural enterprises in China? SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251329963
71. Zhao, Z., Liu, W., Ning, Y., & Yang, S. (2024). Can China go green through digitalization? Evidence from China’s listed firms. International Review of Economics & Finance, 94, 103398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2024.103398
72. Zhou, T., & Zhao, J. (2025). Corporate digitalization and innovation: The role of female executives. Finance Research Letters, 73, 106646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2024.106646