Sustainable resilience strategy: unleash the micro-businesses’s potential in the digitalization and sustainability era

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual Model with underpinning theory ‘Strategic Management Theory’ (Wheelen et al., 2018).

Table 1. Variable Operationalization.

Variable	Indicators and Item question	Scale	References
Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO). The five main dimensions of EO include (1) the tendency to act independently; (2) willingness to innovate; (3) daring to take risks, (4) the tendency to be aggressive towards competitors; and (5) relatively proactive towards market opportunities (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996)	Autonomy (AU): Our business has independence in turning ideas into reality.	Numerical scale 1-7 (Very low - very high)	(Ferreras-Méndez et al., 2021; Goaill and Al-Hakimi, 2021; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Nasution et al., 2021)
	Innovativeness (INN): Periodically, our business always releases new products	Numerical scale 1-7 (Never - always)
	Risk-taking (RT): Our business dares to take high-risk decisions.	Numerical scale 1-7 (Never - always)
	Pro-active (PA): In all situations, our business always takes the initiative rather than sitting around waiting.	Numerical scale 1-7 (Never - always)
	Competitive Aggressiveness (CA): Our business aggressively seizes market opportunities or other potential opportunities.	Numerical scale 1-7 (Never - always)
Entrepreneurial Competencies (EC). Entrepreneurial tasks that lead to firm performance are related to six competency areas. These areas are opportunity, relationship, conceptual, organizing, strategic, and commitment competencies (Man and Lau, 2000)	Opportunity Competences (OPC): Our business is always looking for business opportunities through promotional and marketing activities.	Numerical scale 1-7(Very passive – very active)	(Man and Lau, 2000)
	Relationship Competencies (RC): Our business always builds relationships with existing and potential customers/partners/business associations.	Numerical scale 1-7 (Very passive – very active)
	Conceptual Competencies (CCC): Searching for solutions to business problem always considers different points of view.	Numerical scale 1-7 (Never - always)
	Organizing Competencies (ORC): Preparation of plans, allocation of resources, and supervision in business are always realized well.	Numerical scale 1-7 (Never - always)
	Strategic Competencies (STC): Business goals are set formally and flexibly so that they can be achieved realistically.	Numerical scale 1-7 (Never - always)
	Commitment Competencies (CMC): Since its inception, during times of crisis, even in conditions of tight competition, business commitments have remained firmly upheld.	Numerical scale 1-7 (Very low – very high)
Sustainable Development Goals Challenges Orientation (SDG_CO). The composition of a comprehensive sustainability orientation, among other things, such as generating awareness, confidence, intelligence related to existing and future opportunities or initiatives, taken for social, environmental and economic progress (Horak et al., 2018,The Ministry of National Development Planning, 2020)	Social pillar orientation (SDG_SO): One or several social benefits for society (including: health, welfare, gender equality, education, poverty or hunger) is one of the considerations for achievements in our business operations.	Numerical scale 1-7 (Very unsure - very confident)	(Nuseir and Aljumah, 2022,Horak et al., 2018)
	Environmental pillar orientation (SDG_ENO): One or several benefits to the environment (including the preservation of clean water, responsible production and consumption, preservation of water/land/sustainable city ecosystems) is one of the considerations for achievements in our business operations.	Numerical scale 1-7 (Very unsure - very confident)
	Economic pillar orientation (SDG_ECO): One or several economic benefits for society (including: decent work and community economic growth, innovation, cooperation, or clean energy) is one of the considerations for achievements in our business operations.	Numerical scale 1-7 (Very unsure - very confident)
	Law and governance pillar orientation (SDG_LGO): One or several benefits related to law such as peace, justice, or strengthening institutions is one of the considerations for achievements in our business operations.	Numerical scale 1-7 (Very unsure - very confident)
	Overall SDG_CO (OSDG): Overall, our business tends to consider SDGs integrated into business operations.	Numerical scale 1-7 (Very unsure - very confident)
Sustainable Resilience Strategy (SRS). The sustainable resilience of MSMEs can be measured through the aspects of survival, continuity and re-orientation (Ahmed et al., 2022). Proposed dimensions by authors: Synergy.	Survival (SU): When a crisis occurs, our business has the ability to adapt to the situation so that it can solve problems in creative ways.	Numerical scale 1-5 (Very slow – very fast)	(Alberti et al., 2018, Heizer et al., 2020, Branicki et al., 2018,Liu et al., 2022)
	Synergize (SY): Our business easily gained access to the resources needed to address constraints during the crisis	Numerical scale 1-5 (Strongly disagree – strongly agree)
	Continuity (CO): Our business continues to strive to stay connected with market developments and access resources to maintain business continuity, for example by utilizing digital technology	Numerical scale 1-5 (Strongly disagree – strongly agree)
	Re-orientation (REO): Our business carries out several re-orientations related to input, process and output so that it can be integrated with the demands of fulfilling the SDGs	Numerical scale 1-5 (Strongly disagree – strongly agree)
Digital Technology Adoption (DTA). Adoption of digital technology to increase competitiveness, including by fulfilling digitalization prerequisites such as the internet and its devices (Urdu et al., 2019), as well as adoption in business operations such as customer service processes, production, marketing, sales and supply chain management (Al-Allak, 2010; Jha et al., 2022; Lang et al., 2022; Ristyawan, 2020; Sharma et al., 2022; Tamvada et al., 2022)	Internet Access (IA): Fulfillment of digitalization requirements in the form of providing internet access	Numerical scale 1-5 (None – Very strong)	(Al-Allak, 2010; 2010; Jha et al., 2022; Urdu et al., 2019, Tamvada et al., 2022,Ristyawan, 2020)
	Internet Infrastructure (II): Fulfillment of digitalization requirements in the form of providing devices connected to the internet network such as computers/mobiles	Numerical scale 1-5 (None – Very complete)
	IT-based Sales & Marketing (IT_SM): Use of digital technology in the sales and marketing process	Numerical scale 1-5 (Never – always)
	IT-based Customer Service (IT_CS): The use of digital technology in customer service	Numerical scale 1-5 (Never – always)
	IT-based Product Development (IT_PD): The use of digital technology in product development efforts	Numerical scale 1-5 (Never – always)
	IT-based Decision Making (IT_DM): The use of digital technology in searching for information as a source of fast and accurate decision making	Numerical scale 1-5 (Strongly disagree – strongly agree)
	IT_based Knowledge Management (IT_KM): Use of digital technology in knowledge management	Numerical scale 1-5 (Strongly disagree – strongly agree)
	IT-based SCM (IT_SCM): Use of digital technology in supply chain management	Numerical scale 1-5 (Never – always)
Sustainable Entrepreneurship Practices (SEPRAC) as an entrepreneurial activity that carries out two constructs simultaneously, namely: ‘which must be sustainable’ and ‘which must be developed’ (Shepherd and Patzelt, 2011).	Sustained Nature (SN): Through efforts to achieve successful business, our business also plays a role in preserving nature/earth/a variety of living creatures/ecosystems	Numerical scale 1-5 (Strongly disagree – strongly agree)	(Shepherd and Patzelt, 2011)
	Sustained Life Support Sources (SLSS): Through efforts to achieve successful business, our business also plays a role in preserving the environment that supports human life, such as land life such as reducing plastic waste/pollution, marine/river life.	Numerical scale 1-5 (Strongly disagree – strongly agree)
	Sustained Communities (SCOM): Through efforts to achieve successful business, our business also plays a role in preserving local wisdom, history, norms or cultural values.	Numerical scale 1-5 (Strongly disagree – strongly agree)
	Developed Economic Gain (DEG): Through efforts to achieve successful business, our business also plays a role in developing the economy of business people, or the economy of the surrounding community.	Numerical scale 1-5 (Strongly disagree – strongly agree)
	Developed Non-economic Gain to Individuals (DNEI): Through efforts to achieve successful business, our business also plays a role in developing education, gender equality, obtaining equal opportunities, developing survival or life expectancy.	Numerical scale 1-5 (Strongly disagree – strongly agree)
	Developed Non-economic Gain to Society (DNES): Through efforts to achieve successful business, our business also plays a role in developing social ties and relationships between communities, developing regional prosperity and security, and so on.	Numerical scale 1-5 (Strongly disagree – strongly agree)
	Overall SEPRAC (OSEPRAC): Overall our business activities practice sustainable entrepreneurship.	Numerical scale 1-5 (Strongly disagree – strongly agree)
Sustainable Business Performance (SBPERF). Business performance measurement has evolved from a focus on economic profits to economic and non-economic profits as long as they are linked to sustainability issues (Le, 2022; Shepherd and Patzelt, 2011)	Sales growth (SG): In our business, there is sales growth over time.	Ratio scale 1-5 (None – very high)	(Shepherd and Patzelt, 2011,Le, 2022)
	Profit growth (PG): In our business, there is profit growth over time	Ratio scale 1-5 (None – very high)
	Market share growth (MSG): In our business, there has been market share growth over time.	Ratio scale 1-5 (None – very high)
	Resources Efficiency (RE): In our business, resource usage savings occur over time.	Numerical scale 1-5 (Very low – Very high)
	Environment Contribution (EC): In our business, the contribution to environmental conservation increases over time (for example: reduction of plastic waste, waste, water pollution).	Numerical scale 1-5 (Very unsure – very confident)
	Social Contribution (SC): In our business, there is growth in contributions to social welfare.	Numerical scale 1-5 (Very low – Very high)
	Overall SBPERF (OSBPERF): Overall, our business has good sustainable entrepreneurial (economic, and non-economic: social and environmental) performance.	Numerical scale 1-5 (Very unsure – very confident)

Table 2. Demographic profile.

	Count	Percentage
MSMEs fields
Craft	18	4.72%
Fashion	36	9.45%
Food and Beverage	244	64.04%
Trading	50	13.12%
Others	33	8.66%
MSMEs current active workforce
1-4 workers (micro business scale)	335	87.93%
5-19 workers (small business scale)	43	11.29%
20-99 workers (medium business scale)	3	0.78%
MSMEs age
< =5 years	266	69.82%
6-10 years	86	22.57%
11-15 years	18	4.72%
16-20 years	4	1.05%
21-25 years	6	1.57%
> =25 years	1	0.26%
Grand Total	381	100.00%

Table 3. Descriptive and Normality Statistics.

Cosntruct	Item Code	Mean	Standard deviation	Excess kurtosis	Skewness
EO	AU	5.898	1.303	1.785	−1.303
	INN	5.165	1.675	−0.170	−0.765
	RT	4.640	1.731	−0.513	−0.438
	PA	5.465	1.536	0.792	−1.085
	CA	5.076	1.643	−0.080	−0.742
EC	OPC	5.635	1.403	0.726	−1.071
	RC	5.856	1.362	1.941	−1.438
	CCC	5.787	1.225	1.538	−1.136
	ORC	5.462	1.346	0.777	−0.871
	STC	5.601	1.323	1.146	−1.024
	CMC	5.969	1.252	2.449	−1.486
SDGCO	SDGSO	5.680	1.372	1.378	−1.191
	SDGENO	5.604	1.417	0.834	−1.053
	SDGECO	5.780	1.246	1.532	−1.137
	SDGLGO	5.522	1.521	0.639	−1.025
	OSDG	5.546	1.429	0.898	−1.024
SRS	SU	3.982	0.979	0.575	−0.891
	SY	3.866	0.994	0.079	−0.647
	CO	4.163	0.972	0.385	−1.020
	REO	3.898	1.010	0.122	−0.744
DTA	IA	4.396	0.886	2.503	−1.638
	II	4.003	1.207	0.268	−1.102
	ITSM	4.118	1.106	0.626	−1.183
	ITCS	4.079	1.067	0.444	−1.056
	ITPD	4.210	1.018	1.314	−1.343
	ITDM	4.265	0.920	1.237	−1.262
	ITKM	4.354	0.850	1.795	−1.367
	ITSCM	4.021	1.027	−0.016	−0.845
SEPRAC	SN	4.173	0.959	0.426	−1.016
	SLSS	4.218	0.957	0.210	−1.025
	SCOM	4.276	0.934	1.322	−1.274
	DEG	4.367	0.808	1.875	−1.335
	DNEI	4.168	0.957	0.832	−1.098
	DNES	4.223	0.934	1.377	−1.255
	OSEPRAC	4.333	0.876	1.640	−1.338
SBPERF	SG	3.824	0.927	0.091	−0.517
	PG	3.785	0.931	0.131	−0.499
	MSG	3.829	0.919	0.038	−0.510
	RE	3.688	0.975	−0.156	−0.417
	EC	3.811	1.028	−0.281	−0.562
	SC	3.919	0.991	−0.072	−0.680
	OSBPERF	3.979	0.977	0.412	−0.839

Table 4. Construct Validity of Formative Indicators: Redundancy analysis, Collinearity assessment, and Significance & relevance assessment.

Construct	Item Code	Std. Beta*	VIF	Outer weight	Outer loadings	t-value	p-value
SDGCO	SDGECO	0.791	2.183	0.291	0.853	2.271	0.012
	SDGENO		2.439	0.235	0.838	2.109	0.017
	SDGLGO**		2.228	0.160	0.788	1.558	0.060
	SDGSO		2.253	0.468	0.916	3.660	0.000
SEPRAC	SN	0.793	2.892	0.290	0.810	3.404	0.000
	SLSS**		3.054	0.104	0.757	1.135	0.128
	SCOM**		2.513	−0.072	0.705	0.782	0.217
	DEG		2.238	0.462	0.890	5.340	0.000
	DNEI*		2.996	0.079	0.830	1.075	0.141
	DNES		3.246	0.298	0.871	3.547	0.000
SBPERF	SG**	0.833	3.445	0.142	0.796	1.589	0.056
	PG**		3.915	−0.085	0.738	0.855	0.196
	MSG		3.285	0.237	0.766	2.246	0.012
	RE**		2.194	0.071	0.724	0.946	0.172
	EC		2.268	0.415	0.889	4.630	0.000
	SC		2.895	0.379	0.915	3.975	0.000

Note: p < 0.05 (one-tailed test). *Standardized beta: the value of relationship between formative construct and its global item, indicating as convergent validity. ** The items were insignificant outer weight, but their outer loading was high (>0.5), so they were retained in the model.

Table 5. Indicator reliability, internal consistency reliability, and convergent validity of reflective indicators.

Item code ← Construct	Outer loadings	rho_a	rho_c	AVE
AU ← EO	0.739	0.795	0.857	0.546
CA ← EO	0.769
INN ← EO	0.751
PA ← EO	0.738
RT ← EO	0.694
CCC ← EC	0.839	0.923	0.938	0.715
CMC ← EC	0.830
OPC ← EC	0.857
ORC ← EC	0.851
RC ← EC	0.817
STC ← EC	0.877
CO ← SRS	0.786	0.852	0.896	0.684
REO ← SRS	0.870
SU ← SRS	0.831
SY ← SRS	0.819
IA ← DTA	0.699	0.927	0.933	0.636
II ← DTA	0.669
ITCS ← DTA	0.852
ITDM ← DTA	0.817
ITKM ← DTA	0.797
ITPD ← DTA	0.838
ITSCM ← DTA	0.847
ITSM ← DTA	0.840

Table 6. Discriminant validity: Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) Statistics.

	DTA	EC	EO	SRS
DTA
EC	0.591
EO	0.586	0.842
SRS	0.715	0.766	0.721

HTMT value < 0.85.

Table 7. Discriminant validity: Fornell and Larcker Criterion.

	DTA	EC	EO	SRS
DTA	0.798
EC	0.555	0.845
EO	0.509	0.725	0.739
SRS	0.635	0.683	0.595	0.827

Note: Bolded is the square root of AVEs, whereas the off diagonals are correlations.

Table 8. Statistical remedy: full collinearity testing.

	VIF	Decision
DTA → dummy variable	1.623	There’s no collinearity in the model because of the VIF value <10 [95, 96] or VIF < 5 [79] or VIF < 3.3 [90]
EC → dummy variable	2.989
EO → dummy variable	1.769
SBPERF → dummy variable	1.732
SDGCO → dummy variable	2.010
SEPRAC → dummy variable	1.666
SRS → dummy variable	2.377

Table 9. R²-adjusted increases percentage.

	R-Square Adjusted
	SRS	DTA	SEPRAC	SBPERF
Full model without marker variable	0.502	0.402	0.518	0.590
Full model with marker variable	0.501	0.401	0.522	0.591
Percentage of increases R^2-adjusted	−0.20%	−0.25%	0.77%	0.17%

Note: The R² adjusted increases <10%, indicates CMV doesn’t exists in the model.

Table 10. Collinearity Assessment.

	DTA	SBPERF	SEPRAC	SRS	Decision
DTA		1.682	1.676		There’s no collinearity in the model because the value of VIF <10 (Chin, 1998; Henseler et al., 2009) or VIF < 5 (Hair et al., 2011) or VIF < 3.3 (Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2006)
EC				2.540
EO				2.278
SDGCO			1.524	1.986
SEPRAC		1.468
SRS	1.000	2.069	2.179

Figure 2. Hypothesized path.

Construct: R-Square adjusted; Inner model: path coefficients (t-value); p ≤ 0.05 (one-tailed test).

Table 11. Summary of hypothesized testing (direct effects) - confidence interval bias corrected.

Hypo theses	Path	Std. Beta	Std. Error	t-value	p-value	Bias	5.00%	95.00%	Decision
H1	EO → SRS	0.156	0.067	2.314	0.010	−0.005	0.051	0.271	Supported
H2	EC → SRS	0.441	0.097	4.535	0.000	0.003	0.286	0.603	Supported
H3	SDGCO → SRS	0.191	0.076	2.506	0.006	0.005	0.062	0.310	Supported
H4	SDGCO → SEPRAC	0.556	0.056	9.955	0.000	0.010	0.442	0.632	Supported
H5	SRS → DTA	0.635	0.040	16.047	0.000	0.002	0.560	0.691	Supported
H6	SRS → SEPRAC	0.199	0.066	3.029	0.001	−0.004	0.092	0.307	Supported
H7	SRS → SBPERF	0.389	0.066	5.883	0.000	−0.003	0.279	0.496	Supported
H8	DTA → SEPRAC	0.059	0.052	1.134	0.128	−0.001	−0.024	0.146	Not supported
H9	DTA → SBPERF	0.030	0.048	0.640	0.261	0.000	−0.044	0.110	Not supported
H10	SEPRAC → SBPERF	0.461	0.070	6.557	0.000	0.006	0.331	0.566	Supported

p ≤ 0.05 (one-tailed test).

Table 12. Deterministic coefficients of latent variable.

	R-square adjusted	Decision
		(Chin, 1998)	(Hair et al., 2011)
DTA	0.400	moderate	moderate
SBPERF	0.591	almost strong	moderate
SEPRAC	0.516	almost strong	moderate
SRS	0.502	almost strong	moderate

Table 13. Effect size (f²) assessment.

	f-square	Decision (Hair et al., 2011)
EO → SRS	0.022	small effect
EC → SRS	0.155	medium effect
SDGCO → SRS	0.037	small effect
SRS → DTA	0.672	large effect
SDGCO → SEPRAC	0.423	large effect
SRS → SEPRAC	0.075	small effect
SRS → SBPERF	0.275	medium to large effect
SEPRAC → SBPERF	0.367	large effect
DTA → SEPRAC	0.004	small effect
DTA → SBPERF	0.001	small effect

Table 14. PLS-Predict.

Construct	Item Code	Q²predict	PLS-SEM_RMSE	LM_RMSE	Conclusion
DTA	IA	0.140	0.824	0.836	High predictive power
	II	0.065	1.170	1.197
	ITCS	0.202	0.956	0.973
	ITDM	0.256	0.795	0.799
	ITKM	0.214	0.756	0.773
	ITPD	0.191	0.919	0.930
	ITSCM	0.204	0.919	0.942
	ITSM	0.179	1.005	1.023
SRS	CO	0.252	0.843	0.852	Medium predictive power
	REO	0.390	0.791	0.792
	SU	0.400	0.761	0.752
	SY	0.262	0.856	0.862
SEPRAC	DEG	0.410	0.622	0.622	Medium predictive power
	DNEI	0.348	0.775	0.781
	DNES	0.358	0.750	0.747
	SCOM	0.284	0.792	0.799
	SLSS	0.239	0.837	0.829
	SN	0.279	0.817	0.796
SBPERF	EC	0.352	0.830	0.838	Medium predictive power
	MSG	0.260	0.794	0.776
	PG	0.263	0.803	0.788
	RE	0.246	0.849	0.864
	SC	0.346	0.805	0.807
	SG	0.293	0.782	0.769

Figure 3. Empirical model of Indonesia’s Micro-Business Sustainable Business Performance.

Wheelen, T. L., Hunger, J. D., Hoffman, A. N., & Bamford, C. E. (2018). Strategic Management and Business Policy: Globalization, Innovation, and Sustainability (15th ed.). Pearson.

 Google Scholar

Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construcy and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172. https://doi.org/10.2307/258632

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ferreras-Méndez, J. L., Olmos-Peñuela, J., Salas-Vallina, A., & Alegre, J. (2021). Entrepreneurial orientation and new product development performance in SMEs: The mediating role of business model innovation. Technovation, 108(February 2020), 102325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102325

 Google Scholar

Goaill, M. M., & Al-Hakimi, M. A. (2021). Does absorptive capacity moderate the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and supply chain resilience? Cogent Bus. Manag, 8(1) https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1962487

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nasution, M. D. T. P., Rafiki, A., Lubis, A., & Rossanty, Y. (2021). Entrepreneurial orientation, knowledge management, dynamic capabilities towards e-commerce adoption of SMEs in Indonesia. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 12(2), 256–282. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-03-2020-0060

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Man, T. W. Y., & Lau, T. (2000). Entrepreneurial Competencies of SME Owner/Managers in The Hongkong Services Sector: A Qualitative Analysis. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 08(03), 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218495800000139

 Google Scholar

Horak, S., Arya, B., & Ismail, K. M. (2018). Organizational sustainability determinants in different cultural settings: A conceptual framework. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(4), 528–546. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2018

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

The Ministry of National Development Planning. (2020). SDGs: Economics Pillar., 2nd ed.

 Google Scholar

Nuseir, M. T., & Aljumah, A. (2022). The impact of entrepreneur orientation on sustainable entrepreneurship among SMEs in the UAE: mediating effects of the sustainability orientation and bricolage behaviours of entrepreneurs. International Journal of Trade and Global Markets, 16(1/2/3), 250–264. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTGM.2022.128134

 Google Scholar

Ahmed, A. E., Ucbasaran, D., Cacciotti, G., & Williams, T. A. (2022). Integrating psychological resilience, stress, and coping in entrepreneurship: A critical review and research agenda. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 46(3), 497–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587211046542

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Alberti, F. G., Ferrario, S., & Pizzurno, E. (2018). Resilience: Resources and strategies of SMEs in a new theoretical framework. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 15(2), 165–188. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLIC.2018.091969

 Google Scholar

Heizer, J., Render, B., & Munson, C. (2020). Operations Management: Sustainability and Supply Chain Management (13th ed.). Pearson Education.

 Google Scholar

Branicki, L. J., Sullivan-Taylor, B., & Livschitz, S. R. (2018). How entrepreneurial resilience generates resilient SMEs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 24(7), 1244–1263. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-11-2016-0396

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Liu, X., Wu, X., Wang, Q., & Zhou, Z. (2022). Entrepreneurial mindfulness and organizational resilience of Chinese SMEs during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of entrepreneurial resilience. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(October), 992161.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.992161

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Urdu, D., Pesce, M., Kirova, M., Soma, K., Bogaardt, M.-J., Poppe, K., Thurston, C., Monfort Belles, C., Wolfert, S., & Beers, G. (2019). Research for AGRI Committee - Impacts of the digital economy on the food chain and the CAP. Cohesion Policy in the outermost regions - European Parliament, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2018)629192

 Google Scholar

Al-Allak, B. (2010). Evaluating the adoption and use of internet-based marketing information systems to improve marketing intelligence (The Case of Tourism SMEs in Jordan). International Journal of Marketing Studies, 2(2), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijms.v2n2p87

 Google Scholar

Jha, R. S., P. R., Sahoo, & Smrutirekha. (2022). Relevance of disruptive technologies led knowledge management system and practices for MSME. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, 321(February), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5987-4_15

 Google Scholar

Lang, L. D., Behl, A., Phuong, N. N. D., Gaur, J., & Dzung, N. T. (2022). Toward SME digital transformation in the supply chain context: the role of structural social and human capital. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 53(4), 448-466. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-12-2021-0525

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ristyawan, M. R. (2020). An Integrated Artificial Intelligence and Resource Base View Model for Creating Competitive Advantage. GATR Journal of Business and Economics Review, 5(1), 28–37. https://doi.org/10.35609/jber.2020.5.1(4)

 Google Scholar

Sharma, P. N., Liengaard, B. D., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., & Ringle, C. M. (2022). Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence:A Comment on ‘Recent Developments in PLS. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 44(1), 123–134. [Online]. Available https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357689538.

 Google Scholar

Tamvada, J. P., Narula, S., Audretsch, D., Puppala, H., & Kumar, A. (2022). Adopting new technology is a distant dream? The risks of implementing Industry 4.0 in emerging economy SMEs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 185(July), 122088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122088

 Google Scholar

Shepherd, D. A., & Patzelt, H. (2011). The new field of sustainable entrepreneurship: studying entrepreneurial action linking ‘what is to be sustained’ with ‘what is to be developed. Entrep. Theory Pract, 35(1), 137–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00426.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Le, T. T. (2022). How humane entrepreneurship fosters sustainable supply chain management for a circular economy moving towards sustainable corporate performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 368(February), 133178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133178

 Google Scholar

Chin, W. (1998). Structural Equation with Latent Variables. John Willey & Sons.

 Google Scholar

Henseler, J., Ringle., & C. M., Sinkovics. (2009). The Use of Partial Least Square Path Modeling in International Marketing. Adv. Int. Mark, 20, 277–319.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-PM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202

 Google Scholar

Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration. British Journal of Management, 17(4), 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00500.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

N/A. The interested readers can contact the first author’s email directly for data availability.