Innovation and dimensions of sustainable development: mediating role of ICTs

Figures & data

Figure 1. Study model.

Table 1. Questionnaire development for ICTs and innovation.

Variables	Items	Code	Source	Alpha
Use of information and communication technology (ICTs)	owning computers	ICT1	Wu et al., 2018 Thacker et al., 2019	0.896
	Using computers	ICT2
	internal network	ICT3
	external network	ICT4
	using the Internet	ICT5
	Using modern technology	ICT6
	Spending on communications technology	ICT7
Innovation	Innovation and renewal of production	INV1	Silvestre & Ţîrcă, 2019 (Abbas et al., 2020)	0.909
	Innovation and renewal of products	INV2
	Innovation and renewal of administrative systems	INV3
	Innovation and renewal in the field of communication	INV5
	Funding of applied research projects	INV6
	Benefit from the results and outputs of scientific and applied research	INV7

Table 2. Questionnaire development for dimensions of sustainable development.

Variables	Items	Code	Source	Alpha
Economic dimension	Encouraging investment in sustainable infrastructure and technologies.	ECD1	(Polasky et al., 2019) (Rossi et al., 2020) (Schlaile et al., 2017)	0.903
	Adopting sustainable supply chain management practices.	ECD2
	Promoting responsible production and consumption patterns.	ECD3
	Implementing strategies to reduce waste and resource consumption.	ECD4
	Supporting local communities and economies.	ECD5
	Emphasizing long-term profitability over short-term gains.	ECD6
Social dimension	Ensuring fair labor practices and safe working conditions.	SOD1	(Chams & García-Blandón, 2019). (Watson et al., 2017). (Fridhi, 2021)	0.823
	Promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace.	SOD2
	Providing access to education, healthcare, and other basic services.	SOD3
	Supporting community development initiatives.	SOD4
	Engaging in philanthropic activities.	SOD5
	Fostering partnerships and collaborations with local organizations.	SOD6
Environmental dimension	Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating climate change impacts.	END1	(Abbas and Sağsan, 2020). (Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, 2010). (Kirchherr et al., 2017). (Sovacool et al., 2022).	0.915
	Protecting and restoring ecosystems and biodiversity.	END2
	Implementing sustainable water management practices.	END3
	Reducing pollution and minimizing waste generation.	END4
	Promoting renewable energy sources.	END5
	Incorporating circular economy principles into business operations	END6

Table 3. Profile of respondents (N = 407).

Variables	Category	Frequency	Percentage %
Gender	Male	275	67.5
	Female	132	32.5
Age	30 years & below	102	25
	31–40 years	115	28.3
	41–50 years	142	35
	Above 51 years	48	11.7
Education level	Less than bachelor	115	28.3
	Bachelor	178	43.7
	Masters degree	81	20
	Doctoral degree	33	8
Sector	Public Institutions	265	65
	Private Institutions	142	35
Regions	Al-Jouf region	109	26.6
	Mecca region	81	20
	Hail region	55	13.4
	Northern border region	85	21
	Riyadh region	77	19

Figure 2. Output loading of factors.

Table 4. Internal reliability and convergent validity.

Variables	Items	Loadings	Alpha Cronbach CA	Composite reliability CR	Average variance values AVE
Use of information and communication technology (ICTs)	ICT1	0.688	0.900	0.904	0.629
	ICT2	0.721
	ICT3	0.700
	ICT4	0.879
	ICT5	0.880
	ICT6	0.848
	ICT7	0.851
Innovation	INV1	0.780	0.899	0.902	0.625
	INV2	0.799
	INV3	0.838
	INV4	0.732
	INV5	0.757
	INV6	0.828
	INV7	0.790
Economic dimension	ECD1	0.856	0.903	0.917	0.673
	ECD2	0.883
	ECD3	0.867
	ECD4	0.899
	ECD5	0.861
	ECD6	0.848
Social dimension	SOD1	0.749	0.823	0.848	0.566
	SOD2	0.802
	SOD3	0.750
	SOD4	0.743
	SOD5	0.685
	SOD6	0.720
Environmental dimension	END1	0.785	0.915	0.920	0.702
	END2	0.741
	END3	0.831
	END4	0.742
	END5	0.797
	END6	0.806

Source: Prepared by researchers based on Smart PLS 4 outputs.

Table 5. The results of the discriminant validity of the items (Fornell-Larcker criterion).

	ECD	END	ICT	INV	SOD
ECD	0.820
END	0.755	0.838
ICT	0.304	0.322	0.849
INV	0.299	0.318	0.793	0.890
SOD	0.410	0.411	0.647	0.678	0.752

Source: Prepared by researchers based on Smart PLS 4 outputs.

Table 6. HTMT discriminatory validity test.

	ECD	END	ICT	INV	SOD
ECD
END	0.830
ICT	0.327	0.351
INV	0.321	0.347	0.643
SOD	0.458	0.469	0.677	0.712

Source: Prepared by researchers based on Smart PLS outputs.

Table 7. Criteria for the study model structural fit.

Variables	R-Square	R-Square Adjusted	Variance Explained	Explanatory Power F2
ECD	0.690	0.688	High	0.588
END	0.505	0.502	High	0.316
SOD	0.476	0.474	High	0.215
ICT	0.673	0.672	High	/

Table 8. Results of GOODNESS-OF-FIT.

	Saturated model	Estimated model
SUMMER	0.070	0.071
d_ULS	3.799	4.011
d_G	0.953	0.987
Chi-square	2229.145	2279.767
NFI	0.911	0.955

Table 9. Hypothesis testing.

Relationship	β	t-Value	Significance level P	Decision
HP1: INV -> SOD	0.461	4.970	0.000	Hypothesis Accepted**
HP2: INV -> ECD	0.146	1.783	0.113	Hypothesis Rejected*
HP3: INV -> END	0.162	1.731	0.142	Hypothesis Rejected*
HP4: INV -> ICT	0.849	52.955	0.000	Hypothesis Accepted**

Significant at P** = < 0.01, p*<0.05.

Table 10. Indirect effects.

Relationship	Indirect effect			Bootstrapped confidence interval		Decision
	Path Coeff	t-Value	Significance level P	2.5%	97.5%
HP5: INV ->ICT-> SOD	0.153	1.904	0.047	0.006	0.303	Partial mediation
HP6: INV ->ICT-> ECD	0.156	1.831	0.037	0.016	0.320	Full mediation
HP7: INV ->ICT-> END	0.217	2.693	0.007	0.059	0.372	Full mediation

Significant at P** = < 0.01, p*<0.05.

Wu, J., Guo, S., Huang, H., Liu, W., & Xiang, Y. (2018). Information and communications technologies for sustainable development goals: State-of-the-art, needs and perspectives. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 20(3), 2389–2406. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2018.2812301

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Thacker, S., Adshead, D., Fay, M., Hallegatte, S., Harvey, M., Meller, H., O’Regan, N., Rozenberg, J., Watkins, G., & Hall, J. W. (2019). Infrastructure for sustainable development. Nature Sustainability, 2(4), 324–331. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0256-8

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Silvestre, B. S., & Ţîrcă, D. M. (2019). Innovations for sustainable development: Moving toward a sustainable future. Journal of Cleaner Production, 208, 325–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.244

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Abbas, J., Zhang, Q., Hussain, I., Akram, S., Afaq, A., & Shad, M. A. (2020). Sustainable innovation in small, medium enterprises: The impact of knowledge management on organizational innovation through a mediation analysis using SEM approach. Sustainability, 12(6), 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062407

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Polasky, S., Kling, C. L., Levin, S. A., Carpenter, S. R., Daily, G. C., Ehrlich, P. R., Heal, G. M., & Lubchenco, J. (2019). Role of economics in analyzing the environment and sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(12), 5233–5238. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1901616116

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rossi, E., Bertassini, A. C., Ferreira, C. D., Neves do Amaral, W. A., & Ometto, A. R. (2020). Circular economy indicators for organizations considering sustainability and business models: Plastic, Textile and electro-electronic cases. Journal of Cleaner Production, 247, 119137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119137

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schlaile, M., Urmetzer, S., Blok, V., Andersen, A., Timmermans, J., Mueller, M., Fagerberg, J., & Pyka, A. (2017). Innovation Systems for transformations towards Sustainability? taking the normative dimension seriously. Sustainability, 9(12), 2253. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122253

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chams, N., & García-Blandón, J. (2019). On the importance of sustainable human resource management for adopting sustainable development goals. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 141, 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.006

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Watson, R., Wilson, H. N., Smart, P., & Macdonald, E. K. (2017). Harnessing difference: A capability‐based framework for stakeholder engagement in environmental innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(2), 254–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12394

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fridhi, B. (2021). Retracted article: Social entrepreneurship and social enterprise phenomenon: Toward a collective approach to social innovation in Tunisia. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 10(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-021-00148-6

 Google Scholar

Hockerts, K., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2010). Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids—theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in Sustainable Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 481–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.07.005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127, 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sovacool, B. K., Newell, P., Carley, S., & Fanzo, J. (2022). Equity, technological innovation and sustainable behaviour in a low-carbon future. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(3), 326–337. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01257-8

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar