Abstract
Purpose
Family businesses are on the rise and facing severe sustainability challenges. The overall purpose of this thesis is to examine the moderating role of technological resources in the relationship between marketing innovation and family business sustainability.
Design/methodology/approach
From a post-positivist perspective, this study utilized a quantitative approach and causal research design. 204 family businesses within the Accra Metropolitan Assembly were sampled for this study. Structural Equation Modeling (SMART PLS 4) was utilized for data analysis after a closed-ended questionnaire was used to gather data.
Findings
It was evidenced that marketing innovation has a positive significant effect on family business sustainability. Technological resources have a negative significant moderating effect on the relationship between marketing innovation and family business sustainability.
Originality/value
The originality of this study lies in examining the moderating effect of technological resources on the relationship between marketing innovation and family business sustainability in Ghana, where this phenomenon is less explored.
Keywords
Citation
Affran, S., Oppong, E.D.O. and Kolug, J.Y. (2024), "Examining the moderating role of technological resources on marketing innovation and family business sustainability", IIMBG Journal of Sustainable Business and Innovation, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 143-162. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSBI-01-2024-0003
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2024, Samuel Affran, Emma Doreen Otiwaa Oppong and Joseph Yenabil Kolug
License
Published in IIMBG Journal of Sustainable Business and Innovation. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
1. Introduction
Within the entrepreneurial ecosystem, most sects of business operations including sole-proprietorship, partnership and companies adopt a business culture that seeks to thrive for the profitability and sustainability of their businesses (Comin et al., 2020). In a contemporary business environment, family businesses are one of the most cherished business operations characterized by collaborative start-up capital, resource mobilization and operational flexibility (Calabrò et al., 2019). A family business is an operation where members of the same family hold ownership and control. It is noted by the participation of numerous family members in the management and decision-making process of the business (Calabrò et al., 2019). Family businesses can span various industries and sizes, ranging from small local enterprises to large multinational corporations (Erdogan, Rondi, & De Massis, 2020).
Just like other forms of businesses, family businesses depend on competent resources, innovation and management’s support to thrive for competitive advantage and long-term sustainability (Bashir & Farooq, 2019). Family businesses in their primitive stage depend on limited resources and the competence of members of the family for sustainability (Erdogan et al., 2020). Business sustainability refers to conducting business processes in a way that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of upcoming generations to meet their own needs (Nosratabadi et al., 2019). It involves integrating economic, environmental, and social considerations into business strategies and operations to create long-term value while minimizing negative impact on the business ecosystem.
Ghana’s Family businesses are vital to the country’s entrepreneurial landscape, contributing to economic growth, job creation and community development (Darko, Quarm, & Assan, 2019). Ghana’s Family businesses face unique challenges such as; lack of succession plan, limited access to finance and family conflict (Donkor, Donkor, & Kankam-Kwarteng, 2017.). Despite these challenges, family businesses also possess inherent strengths and opportunities that, when harnessed effectively, can lead to long-term success and sustainability (Muithi, 2018). For the year 2022, there has been an increase in family-owned businesses by 17%, contributing significantly to Gross Domestic Product (GDP), employment and poverty alleviation [National Board for Small Scale Businesses Industries]. Contrarily, 47% of family businesses in Ghana do not last within the first five years of existence and do not prepare for the next generation (Ghamloush, 2021).
Challenges leading to the collapse and decline of family-owned businesses may contribute to the government and other industry stakeholders not deriving much economic value from such businesses (Muithi, 2018). When businesses fail, economic growth and development variables such as employment, industrialization and revenue mobilization decline. As a result, it is essential to adopt policies and structures that are friendly to family-owned business sustainability, or else many individuals who depend on such businesses for employment may be denied work jobs (Ferraro & Marrone, 2016). Also, since the industry is built on the availability of substantial business firms, the collapse of such businesses will affect industry growth. Subsequently, government revenue mobilization efforts may be compromised because there wouldn’t be many businesses to tax (Ortiz, Carney, Duran, Braun, & Riutort, 2021).
Despite the available literature that supports the relationship between marketing innovation and business sustainability (Hanaysha, Al-Shaikh, Joghee, & Alzoubi, 2022; Pal & Nandy, 2019), there is scanty empirical evidence within the Ghanaian setting that has investigated the effect of marketing innovation and business sustainability from a family business perspective. As a result, there is a lack of conclusiveness on the best approach to be adopted by industry players (government, ministries, and investors) to sustain family-owned businesses in Ghana. Among orders include studies that have investigated marketing innovation and competitive advantage among manufacturing SMEs (Quaye & Mensah, 2019), innovation enhancement (Addae-Boateng & Dzisi, 2016), and competitive advantage strategies by family-owned SMEs (Agyapong, Ellis, & Domeher, 2016; Adomako, Amankwah‐Amoah, Danso, Konadu, & Owusu‐Agyei, 2019). However, there is not much literature evidence to examine how marketing innovation contributes to the sustainability of retailing family-owned businesses.
According to Lee, Suh, Roy, and Baucus (2019), technology is essential for business sustainability in a contemporary innovational market environment. Businesses that have supported their operations with technology can survive industry rivalry, customer convenience and business profitability (Zeebaree Sattar, Aqel, Qader, & Zebari, 2020). While businesses within developing countries lack openness to change and the desire to adopt modern technological resources (Skare & Soriano, 2021), businesses in developed countries continuously depend on technology to enhance their business operations (Skare & Soriano, 2021). Technology-inclined businesses are ready to meet generational customers with their products and services (Ramgade & Kumar, 2021). By implication, there is a higher possibility of business sustainability when technology is continuously used as a tool of innovation.
On this premise, this study seeks to fill the gap of less literature to support the moderating effect of technological resources on the relationship between marketing innovation and the sustainability of family businesses within the retailing sector in Ghana.
2. Literature
2.1 Resource base view theory
The Resource-Based theory focuses on a firm’s resources (tangible and intangible) as the primary source of sustainable competitive advantage. The RBV was initially introduced by Jay Barney in 1991 and it suggests that a firm’s unique bundle of resources, tangible or intangible assets, can provide a basis for creating value, achieving competitive advantage and generating superior performance.
The RBV suggests that to achieve a competitive advantage, firms should analyze and leverage their resources strategically (Jensen, Cobbs, & Turner, 2016). This involves identifying their unique resources and capabilities, understanding their strengths and weaknesses and aligning them with market opportunities. By effectively managing and deploying their resources, firms can develop core competencies, create barriers to entry, differentiate themselves from competitors and generate superior performance (Inkinen, 2016). The RBV has influenced various areas of strategic management research and practice, including firm performance, strategy formulation, strategic decision-making, innovation and organizational learning (Inkinen, 2016). It has been used to explain why some firms outperform others, identify sources of competitive advantage, guide resource allocation decisions and inform strategic choices (Gerhart & Feng, 2021).
In this context, the RBV theory is used to explain the relationship between marketing innovation, technological resources and family business sustainability such that, marketing innovation is considered an intangible resource (innovative marketing idea) and technological resources (tangible) that are unique and difficult for competitors to imitate hence, leading to business sustainability. By leveraging unique technological features, innovative products, unique price systems, distribution and promotional activities, family businesses can gain a sustainable competitive advantage.
2.2 Hypotheses development
2.2.1 Marketing innovation
Various definitions of marketing innovation have been identified. For instance, Medrano, Cornejo-Cañamares, and Olarte-Pascual (2020), refers to companies' allocation of efforts and resources toward implementing novel marketing strategies within their business operations as marketing innovation. Marketing innovation refers to the introduction of new or modification of existing marketing strategies, ideas and processes leading to a desired outcome (Moreira, Silva, Simões, & Sousa, 2012).
Kahn (2018) identifies three distinct dimensions of innovation: innovation as a mentality, innovation as a process, and innovation as an outcome. Marketing innovation, when viewed as an outcome, focuses on the desired results, such as product innovation, process innovation, business model innovation, supply chain innovation, and organizational innovation (Kahn, 2018). Marketing innovation is a process that focuses on how to organize innovation to achieve desired outcomes. This involves establishing an innovation process and a new product development process. Innovation as a mentality refers to the process of individuals inside an organization internalizing and embracing innovation. This involves creating a supportive corporate culture that fosters the growth and development of innovation (Kahn, 2018). Authors including; Pisano (2015), Quaye and Mensah (2019) and Kahn (2018) have opined that innovation is relevant for business success, hence, innovation has the tendency to contribute to family business sustainability.
Marketing innovation has a positive significant relationship with family business sustainability.
Authors such as; Quaye and Mensah (2019), Karlsson and Tavassoli (2016) have suggested on the multi-dimensions of marketing innovation. Hence, marketing innovation include; product innovation, pricing innovation strategies, new retail/placement innovation and promotional strategy. Product innovation in business sustainability refers to developing and introducing new products or improving existing ones, focusing on minimizing environmental impact, promoting social responsibility, and creating long-term sustainable value (Almaazmi, Alshurideh, Al Kurdi, & Salloum, 2021). Various studies have evidenced the importance of product innovation toward competitive advantage (Lee & Yoo, 2019; Qiu, Jie, Wang, & Zhao, 2020), market share expansion (Wang et al., 2021), and business sustainability (Hanaysha et al., 2022). The longevity of SMEs largely depends on the ability to modify products intermittently to meet market demands (Hanaysha et al., 2022; Quaye & Mensah, 2019; Zighan, Abuhussein, Al-Zu’bi, & Dwaikat, 2023).
There is a significant positive relationship between product innovation and family business sustainability.
Pricing innovation refers to the strategic approach adopted by a firm to modify and diversify its pricing methods through novel and alternative techniques (Quaye & Mensah, 2019). Pricing should not solely be based on cost recovery or profit maximization. Instead, it should reflect the value of the innovative and sustainable product to customers and the market (Meng, Li, Liu, Li, & Zhang, 2021). Striking a balance between sustainability, customer value and profitability is key to successful pricing strategies in the context of innovation and business sustainability (Ali & Anwar, 2021). Business operators must implement pricing strategies that align with the prevailing market season. Innovative pricing strategies involve considering customers' diverse characteristics and tailoring pricing offers to align with those characteristics (Lin & Chen, 2019). Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that adopt an innovative pricing strategy can foster customer loyalty, which contributes to developing a sustainable competitive advantage (Quaye & Mensah, 2019; Kang & Na, 2020; Ali & Anwar, 2021). Therefore, the study hypothesizes that;
There is a significant positive relationship between pricing innovation and family business sustainability.
Innovative retail refers to implementing novel sales channels utilized to vend goods and services to consumers (Lorente-Martínez, Navío-Marco, & Rodrigo-Moya, 2020). Novel approaches to retail may encompass initial franchising models, direct sales channels, exclusive retail operations, and product licensing arrangements with other vendors (Jokonya & Mugisha, 2019). Innovative retailing practices continuously evolve as technology advances and customer expectations change (Shankar et al., 2021). By embracing these innovations, retailers can create unique and engaging shopping experiences, build customer loyalty, and stay ahead in the competitive retail landscape (Abbas & Sağsan, 2019; Suominen, Seppänen, & Dedehayir, 2019; Zhang, Zhu, Zhou, & Zou, 2022). Based on this background, the study hypothesizes that;
There is a significant positive relationship between retail innovation and family business sustainability
Promotional innovation refers to developing and implementing creative and unconventional strategies to promote products or services, engage customers, and drive sales (Quaye & Mensah, 2019). By embracing creative and unconventional communication strategies, brands can stand out, capture attention and foster stronger connections with customers, ultimately driving business growth (Amin & Priansah, 2019). According to Mogaji, Soetan, and Kieu (2020), firms that do not engage constantly with their customers face out of business rapidly. Recently, businesses have resorted to social network sites such as Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram etc., to produce their products and services (Nurhandayani, Syarief, & Najib, 2019; Alatawy, 2022). Employing inventive promotional techniques such as branding, networking, and internet integration is crucial for maintaining a competitive edge in the market (Quaye & Mensah, 2019; Gil-Gomez, Guerola-Navarro, Oltra-Badenes, & Lozano-Quilis, 2020; Shehata & Montash, 2020). On this note, the study hypothesizes that;
There is a significant positive relationship between the promotion of innovation and family business sustainability.
2.2.2 Technological resources
Technological resources encompass a wide range of tools, equipment, systems, software, and infrastructure that organizations employ to effectively support their operational activities, foster innovation, and accomplish their desired goals. The resources encompass a diverse array of technological components that empower businesses to augment productivity, enhance efficiency, and maintain competitiveness in the era of digitalization (Kogan, Papanikolaou, Seru, & Stoffman, 2017).
There is a higher possibility of business sustainability when technology is continuously used to innovate the market (Saunila, Nasiri, Ukko, & Rantala, 2019). Skare and Soriano (2021) have argued that businesses within developing countries lack openness to change and lack the capacity to adopt modern technological resources in business operations. This is contrary to developed countries' businesses that continuously depend on technological resources to enhance their business operations. Technology-inclined businesses are ready to meet generational customers with their products and services (Ramgade & Kumar, 2021). Drawing from the assumptions of the resource-based theory, unique resources such as technology depict uniqueness in service delivery leading to competitive advantage and business longevity (Jensen et al., 2016). Various studies have suggested the moderating role of technology in the execution of business activities (Al-Khatib & Al-ghanem, 2022; Mao, Liu, Zhang, & Deng, 2016; Saeidi, Saeidi, Sofian, Nilashi, & Mardani, 2019).
Technological resources moderate the relationship between marketing innovation and family business sustainability.
Technology significantly drives business sustainability by enabling organizations to reduce their environmental footprint, enhance operational efficiency, and create innovative solutions (Khan, Razzaq, Yu, & Miller, 2021). By leveraging technology, businesses can improve their environmental performance, optimize resource utilization and enhance operational efficiency and foster innovation (Antoni, Jie, & Abareshi, 2020). Embracing sustainable technologies benefits the environment and contributes to cost savings, competitive advantage, and long-term business resilience (Haseeb, Hussain, Ślusarczyk, & Jermsittiparsert, 2019; Lee et al., 2019; Chege, Wang, & Suntu, 2020). Based on this; the study hypothesizes that;
Technological resources have a positive significant effect on family business sustainability
2.2.3 Family business sustainability
Family businesses exhibit distinct characteristics in terms of ownership, control, management structure, and values compared to non-family enterprises (Diéguez-Soto, López-Delgado, & Rojo-Ramírez, 2015). Family enterprises possess a distinct set of resources and competencies that arise from the relationships of the family, the business, and the individual family members (Jaskiewicz, Heinrichs, Rau, & Reay, 2016). Typically, family enterprises are owned by one or more family members, with at least two members of the original family being prominent shareholders (Fuentes-Lombardo & Fernández-Ortiz, 2012). Family members also hold a significant portion of the company’s stock, and there is partial ownership of the equity by the founding family (Diéguez-Soto et al., 2015).
Family involvement in determining the strategic direction is a significant characteristic of family-owned businesses. The individuals belonging to a lineage within the family possess a significant percentage of the voting shares in a company. Family firms are characterized by the presence of two or more family members serving as directors, or by having two or more directors who are related by family ties (Villalonga & Amit, 2006). A firm is classified as a family firm if the following conditions are met: family members hold managerial positions, one or more family members are responsible for managing the business, at least two members of the founding family are actively involved as key executives, the CEO is either the founder or a co-founder, and the company is controlled by the founding family (Villalonga & Amit, 2006).
The concept of family business sustainability pertains to the capacity of a business owned by a family to persist and prosper over successive generations (Nbabuife & Okoli, 2017). It controls the execution of strategies and adopts practices that guarantee the enterprise’s sustained prosperity and durability while safeguarding the longevity of the family business (Bozer, Levin, & Santora, 2017).
2.3 Conceptual framework
The conceptual framework for the study is an expression of the objectives set for the study and empirical evidence that supports the relationship between marketing innovation, technological resources, and family business sustainability (Quaye & Mensah, 2019; Saunila et al., 2019; Vidmar, Marolt, & Pucihar, 2021; Skare & Soriano, 2021; Ramgade & Kumar, 2021). Figure 1 gives a pictorial view of the proposed model.
3. Methodology
3.1 Context and target population
A quantitative approach was adopted to examine the moderating role of technological resources on the relationship between marketing innovation and family business sustainability in the Ghanaian context. The study focused on family-owned businesses registered with Ghana Enterprise Agency (GEA) and residing within the Accra Metropolitan Assembly. This study area is chosen due to the increasing number of family businesses and intensity of market competition among family businesses (Adamtey, Mensah, Obeng, & Africa, 2021).
3.2 Population and sampling
Preliminary contact with the Ghana Enterprise Agency (GEA) detailed that 1752 family-owned businesses exist within the Accra Metropolitan Assembly. Using Taro Yamane’s (1967) formula for sample size determination; n =
Where n = number of sample size, N = population size (1752), e = significance error (0.05).
Based on the outcome of the calculated sample size, the determined sample size for this study is 326. The target population (respondents) for this study included secretaries/administrators, managing directors and public relations officers (PROs). These respondents are considered credible to represent the business and better understand issues related to the study’s phenomenon. Taherdoost’s (2016) technique for simple random was used to select respondents; clearly define the population of interest (registered family-owned businesses in Accra Metropolitan Assembly), determine the sample size (Taro Yamane’s formula; 326), assign a unique identifier (number or label) to each individual or unit in the population and randomly select the sample using number tables, number allocation, and computer-generated random numbers. Finally, contact respondents in your study (physical and in-person). In all, 204 respondents out of 326 were actively involved in the survey representing 62.5% response rate.
3.3 Data collection instrument
A structured questionnaire was used to collect data. The questions in a structured questionnaire are typically closed-ended and it is divided into sections (Nunan, Malhotra, & Birks 2020). Section A covers items that sought to measure the background information of the family businesses; succeeded generations, number of employees, years of operations, respondents’ positions, and family portfolio were assessed. In section B, the questionnaire adapted measures or items from previous studies: marketing innovation (Quaye & Mensah, 2019; Hanaysha et al., 2022), technological resources (Omar, Takim, & Nawawi, 2012), and sustainability (Coffman, 2014). See Table 1 for details of measurement items.
Validation of the instrument was ensured using face validity, content validity and pre-testing were ensured (Mumtaz et al., 2023). Face validity was assessed by assessing three marketing experts and two entrepreneurship experts with in-depth knowledge and publications in the area of study. They took measures to ensure that the chosen words were unambiguous and comprehensible within the context of the target population under investigation (Mumtaz et al., 2023). Content validity refers to the degree to which the measurement items are associated with a theory or model that provides the most accurate explanation for those items. Overlapping and word similarity were checked to ensure the items measured the appropriate constructs. Finally, pretesting of the instrument was ensured. Bell, Bryman, and Harley (2022) recommended that all items, regardless of whether instruments have been adopted or adapted, undergo pre-testing to ascertain the extent to which respondents have comprehended the questions or statements. In line with (Mumtaz et al., 2023), pretesting, informal pretesting, cognitive interviewing and debriefing were done on five (5) respondents from the target population. Respondents were asked to read the questionnaire to better understand the items thoroughly. The comprehension level of respondents was assessed based on the responses they gave to the researcher when questions on a particular item were asked. Items that were found to be ambiguous were restructured to simple English. Items with lengthy sentences were also shortened for simple explanations.
4. Data analysis and results
4.1 Background information of respondents
The analysis began with background information of respondents. The number of successive generations, year of operation, number of employees, family portfolio, and position/role in the business were assessed in assessing respondents' background information. In assessing the generations of succession, it was evidenced that approximately 10% (20 family businesses) have survived more than one generation. Most family businesses (184) are within the first generation representing 90%. It was evidenced that most of these family businesses have employees between 5 and 31 (149, 73%) and some have employees of 5 or less (55, 27%). The third background information investigated is the years of operations. Family businesses between 1 to 4 years of business operations dominate this study, representing 53% of the target population. This is followed by businesses that have operated for a maximum of 9 years and a minimum of 4 years, representing 34% of the targeted population. Finally, twenty-seven (27) family-owned businesses have operated for 10 years and above, representing 13% of the target population. The study examined the extent to which respondents have family ties with the businesses they work for. It was observed that more than half (108) of the targeted family businesses, representing 53% have their family members as their employees. 47% (96 respondents) of the employees have no family ties with the businesses under investigation. Lastly, it was evidenced that most of the respondents occupy managerial positions in the targeted family businesses. One-hundred and fifty-seven (157) of the respondents, representing 77% of the targeted business, occupy managerial positions, indicating that most participate in marketing innovation, technological innovation and sustainability decisions.
4.2 Partial least square-structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM)
Using Partial Least Square-Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) the relationship between market innovation, technological resources and family business sustainability was assessed. Measurement modeling followed by structural modeling were the two main procedural approaches to the analysis (Hair et al., 2021).
4.2.1 Measurement model
Factor loadings, construct reliability and construct validity were used in assessing the measurement model (Hair, Matthews, Matthews, & Sarstedt, 2017). From Table 2 loading values of 0.7 and above are recommended to show how well items represent the construct (Hair et al., 2021) (Consider Figure 2 for details of the measurement model). With Cronbach alpha and composite reliability threshold of 0.7 and above, the various constructs are considered reliable (Hair et al., 2021). Convergent validity using Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of above 0.5 (Hair, Risher, Sarstedt, & Ringle, 2019) and HTMT values less than 0.85 was used (Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2015) (See Table 3).
4.2.2 Structural model
Multicollinearity, coefficient of determination, path coefficient and model fitness are examined to assess the structural model (Hair et al., 2019). A model is considered not to have issues of multicollinearity when VIF values are less than 5 (Hair et al., 2017). From Table 4, there are no issues of multicollinearity.
The adjusted R-squared, commonly represented as R2_adj or R-squared adjusted, is a revised form of the R-squared (R2) metric that incorporates the influence of number of independent variables present in a regression model. The adjusted R2 statistic is a reliable indicator of the extent to which the independent factors elucidate the variation in the dependent variable. Results in Table 4 shows that adjusted R2 value of 0.631 (63.1%) of the variation in family business sustainability can be attributed to marketing innovation and technological resources. Q2 quantifies the predictive accuracy of a model in relation to the dependent variable when it employed for prediction purposes. A Q2 value > 0 for exogenic variables is chosen. As a result, the closer the Q2 to the adjusted R square, the better (Henseler et al., 2015). In this case, a better prognostic performance of the PLS-SEM model can be inferred (See Table 4).
The term “F-Square” refers to the change in the coefficient of determination (R-Square) that occurs when an external variable is excluded from the model (Hair et al., 2021). F2 value of 0.02, 0.15 and 0.35 indicates small, medium and large effects (Hair et al., 2017). From Table 4, effect sizes range from small to medium. Retail innovation has the least effect size. Whereas technological resource has the highest effect size.
Path coefficients assess the degree of relevance of one variable to the other using p-value (significance level), β value (direction of the path) and T-value (hypotheses testing) (Hair et al., 2019). All hypotheses with p-values less than 0.05 (p < 0.005) are considered statistically significant and with T values more than 1.96 are supported (Hair et al., 2017). From Table 5, supported hypotheses include; H1, H1a, H1b, H2 and H3. Hypotheses H1c and H1d were not supported because T values are less than 1.96 and p values above 0.05. Figure 3 gives details of the structural model for the study.
5. Discussion of results
In assessing the effect of marketing innovation on family business sustainability, the path coefficient, p-value and T values are the statistical matrices used to examine the relationship. Marketing innovation and family business have a positive relationship (0.298) at a p-value of 0.001. This implies that marketing innovation has a statistically significant effect on family business sustainability; hence, an increase in marketing innovation by 1% contributes to a 29.8% increase in family business sustainability. The positive relationship between marketing innovation and family business sustainability is supported by the assertion of many authors who have examined this relationship from the firm (Hanaysha et al., 2022) and customers’ level (Pal & Nandy, 2019). A value of 4.819 (more than 1.96) indicates that the Ghanaian family business setting supports the significant positive relationship between marketing innovation and family business sustainability.
The multiple dimensions of marketing innovation were assessed; product, price, retail, and promotion innovation. The relationship between product innovation and family business sustainability was assessed using the path coefficient values, p values and T values. With a path coefficient of 0.279, a p-value of 0.007 and T value of 2.701, the relationship between product innovation and family business sustainability is considered statistically significant (p-value <0.05) Again, the positive path coefficient value implies that a percentage increase in product innovation will contribute to a corresponding increase in family business sustainability by 27%.
Various disciplines and geographical jurisdictions have asserted the positive significant effect of product innovation and business sustainability. This result aligns with previous studies that have asserted the positive relationship between product innovation and business sustainability (Hanaysha et al., 2022; Quaye & Mensah, 2019; Zighan et al., 2023). This implies that family businesses tend to be sustained when marketing activities are aligned toward improving existing products and improving existing ones.
The relationship between price innovation and family business sustainability was found to be negative and insignificant with a path coefficient of −0.128, p-value of 0.095 and T value of 1.672. The negative relationship between price innovation and family business sustainability within the Ghanaian setting is inconsistent with previous studies that have established a positive relationship between price innovation and business sustainability (Quaye & Mensah, 2019; Kang & Na, 2020; Ali & Anwar, 2021). This phenomenon may occur as a result of contextual differences between Ghana and other countries where the assertions were made. The Ghanaian market is saturated with price-sensitive target groups hence, innovative price techniques that depict high prices may attract just a few portions of the target group.
The relationship between price innovation and family business sustainability was also found to be negative and non-significant with a path coefficient of −0.062, p-value of 0.3795 and T value of 0.880. The negative non-significant relationship between retail innovation and business sustainability is not in line with the findings of previous studies that have hypothesized that retail innovation is a predicting variable towards competitive advantage (Quaye & Mensah, 2019), sales performance (Abbas & Sağsan, 2019) and business sustainability (Suominen et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2022). This study asserts that retail innovation is not a predicting factor when considering family business sustainability.
Promotional innovation captures the extent to which contemporary communication strategies are adopted to create awareness of existing products and services (Quaye & Mensah, 2019). There is a positive significant effect of promotional innovation on sustainability among family businesses from the Ghanaian setting (path coefficient of 0.234, p-value of 0.007 and T value of 2.701). This suggests that family businesses have a higher tendency toward sustainability when innovative ways of promoting products and services are adopted. This assertion is consistent with the findings of previous studies (Quaye & Mensah, 2019; Gil-Gomez et al., 2020; Shehata & Montash, 2020), which have asserted that innovative communication prowess is a significant tool for business survival.
Technological resources change the direction of the relationship between marketing innovation and family business sustainability to an inverse one (path coefficient of −0.120 at a p-value of 0.000 and T value of 3.806). This result is inconsistent with previous studies that have suggested the availability of technological resources as having a positive moderating effect on marketing innovation and business sustainability (Al-Khatib & Al-ghanem, 2022; Mao et al., 2016; Saeidi et al., 2019). The results show that technological resources contribute to a positive result when it is measured directly on family business sustainability. On the other hand, when it interacts with marketing innovation, it leads to negative outcomes. This means that simultaneously applying both technology and marketing innovation will result in a negative outcome of 12% on family business sustainability.
The application of technological resources in business operations drives firms from the traditional marketing procedures to a modern paradigm of business operations (Khan et al., 2021) Business activities become faster and enhanced when technology is applied in business processes (Vidmar et al., 2021). By implication, family businesses can be sustained for years when business activities are entrenched with modern technological software and hardware. This assertion aligns with existing empirical evidence that has established the positive relationship between technological capacity and business sustainability (Antoni et al., 2020; Saunila et al., 2019; Vidmar et al., 2021). The results evidenced that technological resources and family businesses have a positive relationship (0.415) at a p-value of 0.000 and a T value of 4.819 (more than 1.96). This implies that the availability of technological resources has a statistically significant effect on family business sustainability; hence, an increase in technological resources by 1% contributes to a 41.5% increase in family business sustainability.
5.1 Theoretical and managerial implications
This study extends knowledge in using resource-based theories to evaluate the relationship between marketing innovation, technological resources and family business sustainability within the Ghanaian family business fraternity where studies are few. Based on the resource base theory, marketing innovation is considered a unique intangible resource that is difficult to imitate by competitors. Hence, marketing innovation using product innovation and promotion innovation significantly contributes to family businesses. This result implies that product and promotional innovation are key marketing innovation practices that the management of family businesses can adopt to sustain their businesses. Again, the availability of technological resources is considered unique tangible resources that allow family businesses to continuously evolve, adapt to market dynamics and remain relevant in the face of challenges and disruptions. It enables them to create value for customers, differentiate themselves from competitors, and ensure that businesses are sustained for a long period.
Although both marketing innovation and technological resources contribute has impact on family business sustainability, it is evidenced that technological resources have the greatest impact, hence, management and stakeholders should consider a family business environment characterized by contemporary technological systems. Also, when technological resources interact with marketing innovation it leads to a decline in family business sustainability. This implies that the application of both tangible (TR) and intangible (MI) simultaneously has a negative impact in the long run. This implies management and stakeholders of family businesses such that, in the short run, family businesses should independently concentrate on either marketing innovation strategies or technology-oriented business. A combination of these two in the short run will weaken business sustainability because both are considered high-cost incentives to the business.
5.2 Conclusion
Marketing innovation is a crucial phenomenon in sustaining family businesses. According to the findings of this study, two main marketing innovation activities should not be downplayed when it comes to business family business sustainability, thus, product innovation and promotion innovation. This result is consistent with evidence from previous studies such as Quaye and Mensah (2019) and Kahn (2018). Product innovation refers to substantial modifications in a product’s design and packaging form or style while maintaining the product’s fundamental functionality and user characteristics. On the other hand, promotion refers to the implementation of substantial modifications in media strategies and symbolic representations that deviate from the organization’s established practices or pre-existing methods.
Also, the study concludes that technological resource is a significant factor in moderating marketing innovation and family business sustainability. However, in the short run, it contributes to a decline in business sustainability when interacting with marketing innovation. This result is consistent with the assumptions of the resource-based view theory which suggests the existence of rare and unique resources to gain competitive advantage (Barney, 1991; Jensen et al., 2016). However, in the long run, firms should possess dynamic capabilities to seize, sense and transform resources into opportunities (Teece, 2016). In a nutshell, the availability of technological resources is significant, however, family firms would need to have the ability to turn those technological resources into opportunities for future gains.
5.3 Suggestions for further studies
The study was limited to investigating the targeted group using a quantitative approach. Future researchers can adopt an exploratory approach to investigate this phenomenon from a qualitative perspective using interviews to get in-depth knowledge. The study moderated the relationship between marketing innovation and family business sustainability. Future research may consider mediating technological resources on the relationship between marketing innovation and family business sustainability. The study focused on using cross-sectional data to analyze the study’s phenomenon. Future researchers may consider examining the phenomenon for a long period.
Figures
Figure 1
Conceptual framework for the study
Figure 2
PLS-SEM measurement model output
Figure 3
PLS-SEM structural model output
Measurement items and sources
| Construct | Measurement items | Number of items | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Product Innovation | This firm supports innovation ideas | 5 | Hanaysha et al. (2022), Quaye and Mensah (2019) |
| There is quick response to market demands | |||
| There is intermittent product lines | |||
| Regular product improvement suitable for market demands | |||
| There is significant changes to product and packaging | |||
| Price Innovation | Price is user-centered | 4 | Quaye and Mensah (2019) |
| Pricing corresponds to the product’s value | |||
| There are sales incentives such as coupons and discounts for customers | |||
| Price is relatively affordable as compared to competitors | |||
| Retail Innovation | There are various distribution channels | 4 | Hanaysha et al. (2022), Quaye and Mensah (2019) |
| Flexibility in outsourcing products and services | |||
| There is quicker delivery system | |||
| Electronic systems support our delivery process | |||
| Promotion Innovation | There is an active promotional activity to create awareness of products and services | 5 | Quaye and Mensah (2019) |
| There is a strong social media presence for the firm’s products and services | |||
| Versatile communication strategies are available | |||
| Customer feedback is encouraged | |||
| There is a strong mantra that positions the firm in the minds of customers | |||
| Technological Resources | There is hardware to support technological innovation | 5 | Omar et al. (2012) |
| There are experts to enhance technology | |||
| There is software to support technological innovation | |||
| There are support systems such as Internet and database | |||
| The firm has a website | |||
| Family Business Sustainability | The business has a clear vision and mission | 7 | Coffman (2014) |
| There is a structured succession plan for the next generation | |||
| The business has an updated strategic plan | |||
| There is a formal employee retention plan | |||
| Business is independent of family relations | |||
| There is an active advisory board | |||
| There are at least one non-family member on the board |
Source(s): Field data using SMART PLS 4 (2023)
Outer loadings, Cronbach Alpha, Composite reliability and AVE
| Constructs | Loading value | Cronbach’s alpha | Composite reliability (rho_a) | Average variance extracted (AVE) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product Innovation | ||||
| Prod1 | 0.887 | |||
| Prod2 | 0.906 | |||
| Prod3 | 0.908 | |||
| Prod4 | 0.878 | |||
| Prod5 | 0.839 | 0.930 | 0.931 | 0.782 |
| Price Innovation | ||||
| Prx1 | 0.830 | |||
| Prx2 | 0.911 | |||
| Prx3 | 0.942 | |||
| Prx4 | 0.930 | 0.925 | 0.925 | 0.818 |
| Promotion Innovation | ||||
| Prom1 | 0.878 | |||
| Prom2 | 0.836 | |||
| Prom3 | 0.713 | |||
| Prom4 | 0.840 | |||
| Prom5 | 0.774 | 0.869 | 0.888 | 0.656 |
| Retail Innovation | ||||
| Reta1 | 0.821 | |||
| Reta2 | 0.862 | |||
| Reta3 | 0.889 | |||
| Reta4 | 0.831 | 0.873 | 0.874 | 0.725 |
| Technological Resources | ||||
| TechR1 | 0.889 | |||
| TechR2 | 0.853 | |||
| TechR3 | 0.735 | |||
| TechR4 | 0.715 | |||
| TechR5 | 0.693 | 0.839 | 0.852 | 0.610 |
| Family Business Sustainability | ||||
| FBS1 | 0.654 | |||
| FBS2 | 0.827 | |||
| FBS3 | 0.755 | |||
| FBS4 | 0.760 | |||
| FBS5 | 0.796 | |||
| FBS6 | 0.763 | |||
| FBS7 | 0.788 | 0.882 | 0.893 | 0.585 |
Source(s): Field data using SMART PLS 4 (2023)
HTMT results
| FBS | Prod | Prom | Prx | Reta | TechR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FBS | ||||||
| Prod | 0.709 | |||||
| Prom | 0.733 | 0.823 | ||||
| Prx | 0.571 | 0.837 | 0.809 | |||
| Reta | 0.652 | 0.813 | 0.821 | 0.708 | ||
| TechR | 0.823 | 0.617 | 0.698 | 0.550 | 0.712 |
Source(s): Field data using SMART PLS 4 (2023)
Predictive diagnostic of constructs
| Constructs | VIF | F2 | R2 | Adjusted R2 | Q2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product Innovation | 3.192 | 0.046 | |||
| Price Innovation | 2.152 | 0.028 | |||
| Retail Innovation | 3.171 | 0.022 | |||
| Promotion Innovation | 3.551 | 0.030 | |||
| Technological Resources | 2.169 | 0.250 | |||
| Family Business Sustainability | 0.635 | 0.631 | 0.622 |
Source(s): Field data using SMART PLS 4 (2023)
Path coefficient and hypotheses diagnostics
| s/n | Hypotheses | Path coefficient (O) | Standard deviation (STDEV) | T Statistics (|O/STDEV|) | p Values | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multiple Dimensions | ||||||
| H1a | Prod → FBS | 0.279 | 0.081 | 3.425 | 0.001 | Supported |
| H1b | Prom → FBS | 0.234 | 0.087 | 2.701 | 0.007 | Supported |
| H1c | Prx → FBS | −0.128 | 0.077 | 1.672 | 0.095 | Not supported |
| H1d | Reta → FBS | −0.062 | 0.071 | 0.880 | 0.379 | Not supported |
| Unit Dimension | ||||||
| H1 | Marketing Innovation → Family Business Sustainability | 0.298 | 0.062 | 4.819 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H2 | Technological Resources → Family Business Sustainability | 0.415 | 0.066 | 6.323 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H3 | Technological Resources x Marketing Innovation → Family Business Sustainability | −0.120 | 0.031 | 3.806 | 0.000 | Supported |
Source(s): Field data using SMART PLS 4 (2023)
Declaration of conflicting of interest: The authors declare no potential conflict of interest with respect to the research, authorship and publication of this article.
Funding: This study did not depend on any external funding.
References
Abbas, J., & Sağsan, M. (2019). Impact of knowledge management practices on green innovation and corporate sustainable development: A structural analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 229(12), 611–620. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.024.
Adamtey, R., Mensah, J. V., Obeng, G., & Africa, G. G. (2021). Making cities resilient in Ghana: The realities of slum dwellers that confront the Accra metropolitan assembly. Journal of Sustainable Development, 11(1), 1–14. doi: 10.5539/jsd.v14n1p70.
Addae-Boateng, S., & Dzisi, S. G. (2016). Innovation enhancement in family business SMEs in Ghana. International Journal of Innovation Science, 12(15), 43–55.
Adomako, S., Amankwah‐Amoah, J., Danso, A., Konadu, R., & Owusu‐Agyei, S. (2019). Environmental sustainability orientation and performance of family and non-family firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(6), 1250–1259. doi: 10.1002/bse.2314.
Agyapong, A., Ellis, F., & Domeher, D. (2016). Competitive strategy and performance of family businesses: Moderating effect of managerial and innovative capabilities. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 28(6), 449–477. doi: 10.1080/08276331.2016.1217727.
Al-Khatib, A. W., & Al-ghanem, E. M. (2022). Radical innovation, incremental innovation, and competitive advantage, the moderating role of technological intensity: Evidence from the manufacturing sector in Jordan. European Business Review, 34(3), 344–369. doi: 10.1108/ebr-02-2021-0041.
Alatawy, K. S. (2022). The role social media marketing plays in customers’ purchase decisions in the context of the fashion industry in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Business and Management, 17(1), 45–61. doi: 10.5539/ijbm.v17n1p117.
Ali, B. J., & Anwar, G. (2021). Marketing Strategy: Pricing strategies and its influence on consumer purchasing decision. International Journal of Rural Development, Environment and Health Research, 5(2), 26–39. doi: 10.22161/ijreh.5.2.4.
Almaazmi, J., Alshurideh, M., Al Kurdi, B., & Salloum, S. A. (2021). The effect of digital transformation on product innovation: A critical review. International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Systems and Informatics, 12(8), 731–741. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-58669-0_65.
Amin, M., & Priansah, P. (2019). Marketing communication strategy to improve tourism potential. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute-Journal (BIRCI-Journal), 2(4), 160–166. doi: 10.33258/birci.v2i4.575.
Antoni, D., Jie, F., & Abareshi, A. (2020). Critical factors in information technology capability for enhancing firm's environmental performance: Case of Indonesian ICT sector. International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, 12(2), 159–181. doi: 10.1504/ijasm.2020.107907.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. doi: 10.1177/014920639101700108.
Bashir, M., & Farooq, R. (2019). The synergetic effect of knowledge management and business model innovation on firm competence: A systematic review. International Journal of Innovation Science, 11(3), 362–387. doi: 10.1108/ijis-10-2018-0103.
Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2022). Business research methods. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Bozer, G., Levin, L., & Santora, J. C. (2017). Succession in family business: Multi-source perspectives. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 24(4), 753–774. doi: 10.1108/jsbed-10-2016-0163.
Calabrò, A., Vecchiarini, M., Gast, J., Campopiano, G., De Massis, A., & Kraus, S. (2019). Innovation in family firms: A systematic literature review and guidance for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(3), 317–355. doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12192.
Chege, S. M., Wang, D., & Suntu, S. L. (2020). Impact of information technology innovation on firm performance in Kenya. Information Technology for Development, 26(2), 316–345. doi: 10.1080/02681102.2019.1573717.
Coffman, B. A. (2014). The family business succession model: An exploratory analysis of factors impacting family business succession preparedness. United States of America: Kansas State University Press.
Comin, L. C., Aguiar, C. C., Sehnem, S., Yusliza, M. Y., Cazella, C. F., & Julkovski, D. J. (2020). Sustainable business models: A literature review. International Journal of Benchmarking, 27(7), 2028–2047. doi: 10.1108/bij-12-2018-0384.
Darko, K., Quarm, E., & Assan, V. (2019). Market orientation, competitive advantage and sustainability of family business in Ghana. Doctoral dissertation. University of Ghana.
Diéguez-Soto, J., López-Delgado, P., & Rojo-Ramírez, A. (2015). Identifying and classifying family businesses. Review of Managerial Science, 9(11), 603–634. doi: 10.1007/s11846-014-0128-6.
Donkor, J., Donkor, G. N. A., & Kankam-Kwarteng, C. (2017). Strategic planning and family business performance in Ghana: Moderating role of IT capability. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 23(2), 1–12.
Erdogan, I., Rondi, E., & De Massis, A. (2020). Managing the tradition and innovation paradox in family firms: A family imprinting perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(1), 20–54. doi: 10.1177/1042258719839712.
Ferraro, H., & Marrone, J. (2016). Examining employment relationship activities in family business research. Journal of Family Business Management, 6(3), 210–224. doi: 10.1108/jfbm-01-2016-0001.
Fuentes-Lombardo, G., & Fernández-Ortiz, R. (2012). Why internationalize? The case of family business. International Journal of Business and Management Tomorrow, 2(2), 1–18.
Gerhart, B., & Feng, J. (2021). The resource-based view of the firm, human resources, and human capital: Progress and prospects. Journal of Management, 47(7), 1796–1819. doi: 10.1177/0149206320978799.
Ghamloush, G. (2021). Succession Success in family Business in Ghana. Doctoral dissertation. Walden University.
Gil-Gomez, H., Guerola-Navarro, V., Oltra-Badenes, R., & Lozano-Quilis, J. A. (2020). Customer relationship management: Digital transformation and sustainable business model innovation. Economic Research, 33(1), 2733–2750. doi: 10.1080/1331677x.2019.1676283.
Hair, J. F. Jr, Matthews, L. M., Matthews, R. L., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-sem: Updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107–123. doi: 10.1504/ijmda.2017.10008574.
Hair, J. F. Jr, Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., Ray, S., & Ray, S. (2021). Evaluation of reflective measurement models. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 33(11), 75–90.
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. doi: 10.1108/ebr-11-2018-0203.
Hanaysha, J. R., Al-Shaikh, M. E., Joghee, S., & Alzoubi, H. M. (2022). Impact of innovation capabilities on business sustainability in small and medium enterprises. FIIB Business Review, 11(1), 67–78. doi: 10.1177/23197145211042232.
Haseeb, M., Hussain, H. I., Ślusarczyk, B., & Jermsittiparsert, K. (2019). Industry 4.0: A solution towards technology challenges of sustainable business performance. Social Sciences, 8(5), 142–154. doi: 10.3390/socsci8050154.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
Inkinen, H. (2016). Review of empirical research on knowledge management practices and firm performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(8), 14–25.
Jaskiewicz, P., Heinrichs, K., Rau, S. B., & Reay, T. (2016). To be or not to be: How family firms manage family and commercial logics in succession. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(4), 781–813. doi: 10.1111/etap.12146.
Jensen, J. A., Cobbs, J. B., & Turner, B. A. (2016). Evaluating sponsorship through the lens of the resource-based view: The potential for sustained competitive advantage. Business Horizons, 59(2), 163–173. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2015.11.001.
Jokonya, O., & Mugisha, C. (2019). Factors influencing retail SMEs adoption of social media for digital marketing. European Conference on Social Media, 11(4), 145–164.
Kahn, K. B. (2018). Understanding innovation. Business Horizons, 61(3), 453–460. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2018.01.011.
Kang, S., & Na, Y. K. (2020). Effects of strategy characteristics for sustainable competitive advantage in sharing economy businesses on creating shared value and performance. Sustainability, 12(4), 13–27. doi: 10.3390/su12041397.
Karlsson, C., & Tavassoli, S. (2016). Innovation strategies of firms: What strategies and why?. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(12), 1483–1506. doi: 10.1007/s10961-015-9453-4.
Khan, S. A. R., Razzaq, A., Yu, Z., & Miller, S. (2021). Industry 4.0 and circular economy practices: A new era business strategies for environmental sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(8), 4001–4014. doi: 10.1002/bse.2853.
Kogan, L., Papanikolaou, D., Seru, A., & Stoffman, N. (2017). Technological innovation, resource allocation, and growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 13(2), 665–712. doi: 10.1093/qje/qjw040.
Lee, J., Suh, T., Roy, D., & Baucus, M. (2019). Emerging technology and business model innovation: The case of artificial intelligence. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 5(4), 44–67. doi: 10.3390/joitmc5030044.
Lee, K., & Yoo, J. (2019). How does open innovation lead competitive advantage? A dynamic capability view perspective. International Journal of Dynamic Entrepreneurship, 14(11), 13–31. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223405.
Lin, B., & Chen, Y. (2019). Does electricity price matter for innovation in renewable energy technologies in China?. Energy Economics, 78(5), 259–266. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2018.11.014.
Lorente-Martínez, J., Navío-Marco, J., & Rodrigo-Moya, B. (2020). Analysis of the adoption of customer facing InStore technologies in retail SMEs. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 57(7), 102–125. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102225.
Mao, H., Liu, S., Zhang, J., & Deng, Z. (2016). Information technology resource, knowledge management capability, and competitive advantage: The moderating role of resource commitment. International Journal of Information Management, 36(6), 1062–1074. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.07.001.
Medrano, N., Cornejo-Cañamares, M., & Olarte-Pascual, C. (2020). The impact of marketing innovation on companies’ environmental orientation. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 35(1), 1–12. doi: 10.1108/jbim-10-2018-0319.
Meng, Q., Li, M., Liu, W., Li, Z., & Zhang, J. (2021). Pricing policies of dual-channel green supply chain: Considering government subsidies and consumers' dual preferences. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 26(6), 1021–1030. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2021.01.012.
Mogaji, E., Soetan, T. O., & Kieu, T. A. (2020). The implications of artificial intelligence on the digital marketing of financial services to vulnerable customers. Australasian Marketing Journal, 12(8), 34–51.
Moreira, J., Silva, M. J., Simões, J., & Sousa, G. (2012). Drivers of marketing innovation in Portuguese firms. Amfiteatru Economic Journal, 4(31), 195–206.
Muithi, F. M. (2018). Factors affecting the sustainability of family businesses in Ghana after the exit of first generation of founding family members. Ghana: Doctoral Dissertation.
Mumtaz, A. M., Ramayah, T., Jun-Hwa, C., Hiram, T., Francis, C., & Tathuei, C. (2023). Addressing common method bias, operationalization, sampling, and data collection issues in quantitative research: Review and recommendation. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modelling, 12(9), 43–61.
Nbabuife, E. K., & Okoli, I. E. (2017). Succession planning and sustainability of selected family-owned businesses in Anambra State, Nigeria. European Journal of Business and Management, 9(34), 155–167.
Nosratabadi, S., Mosavi, A., Shamshirband, S., Zavadskas, E. K., Rakotonirainy, A., & Chau, K. W. (2019). Sustainable business models: A review. Sustainability, 11(6), 16–33. doi: 10.3390/su11061663.
Nunan, D., Malhotra, N. K., & Birks, D. F. (2020). Marketing research. UK: Pearson.
Nurhandayani, A., Syarief, R., & Najib, M. (2019). The impact of social media influencer and brand images to purchase intention. Journal of Management Applications, 17(4), 650–661.
Omar, R., Takim, R., & Nawawi, A. H. (2012). Measuring of technological capabilities in technology transfer (TT) projects. Asian Social Science, 8(15), 199–211. doi: 10.5539/ass.v8n15p211.
Ortiz, M., Carney, M., Duran, P., Braun, M., & Riutort, J. (2021). Inheritance tax, shareholder protection, and the market value of family firms: A cross‐country analysis. Global Strategy Journal, 11(3), 434–467. doi: 10.1002/gsj.1394.
Pal, B., & Nandy, M. (2019). Innovation and business sustainability (IBS): Empirical evidence from Indian pharmaceutical industry. AI EDAM, 33(2), 117–128. doi: 10.1017/s0890060419000040.
Pisano, G. P. (2015). You need an innovation strategy. Harvard Business Review, 93(6), 44–54.
Qiu, L., Jie, X., Wang, Y., & Zhao, M. (2020). Green product innovation, green dynamic capability, and competitive advantage: Evidence from Chinese manufacturing enterprises. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(1), 146–165. doi: 10.1002/csr.1780.
Quaye, D., & Mensah, I. (2019). Marketing innovation and sustainable competitive advantage of manufacturing SMEs in Ghana. Management Decision, 57(7), 1535–1553. doi: 10.1108/md-08-2017-0784.
Ramgade, A., & Kumar, A. (2021). Changing trends of hospitality industry: Emergence of millennials and gen Z as future customers and their influence on the hospitality industry. Vidyabharati International Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 12(1), 336–342.
Saeidi, P., Saeidi, S. P., Sofian, S., Nilashi, M., & Mardani, A. (2019). The impact of enterprise risk management on competitive advantage by moderating role of information technology. Computer Standards and Interfaces, 63(4), 67–82. doi: 10.1016/j.csi.2018.11.009.
Saunila, M., Nasiri, M., Ukko, J., & Rantala, T. (2019). Smart technologies and corporate sustainability: The mediation effect of corporate sustainability strategy. Computers in Industry, 108(14), 178–185. doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2019.03.003.
Shankar, V., Kalyanam, K., Setia, P., Golmohammadi, A., Tirunillai, S., Douglass, T., … Bull, J. (2021). How technology is changing retail. Journal of Retailing, 97(1), 13–27. doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2020.10.006.
Shehata, G. M., & Montash, M. A. (2020). Driving the internet and e-business technologies to generate a competitive advantage in emerging markets: Evidence from Egypt. Information Technology and People, 33(2), 389–423. doi: 10.1108/itp-10-2017-0360.
Skare, M., & Soriano, D. R. (2021). How globalization is changing digital technology adoption: An international perspective. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, 6(4), 222–233. doi: 10.1016/j.jik.2021.04.001.
Suominen, A., Seppänen, M., & Dedehayir, O. (2019). A bibliometric review on innovation systems and ecosystems: A research agenda. European Journal of Innovation Management, 22(2), 335–360. doi: 10.1108/ejim-12-2017-0188.
Taherdoost, H. (2016). Sampling methods in research methodology; how to choose a sampling technique for research. Journal of Quantitative Studies, 11(5), 55–71.
Teece, D. J. (2016). Dynamic capabilities and entrepreneurial management in large organizations: Toward a theory of the (entrepreneurial) firm. European Economic Review, 86(17), 202–216. doi: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2015.11.006.
Vidmar, D., Marolt, M., & Pucihar, A. (2021). Information technology for business sustainability: A literature review with automated content analysis. Sustainability, 13(3), 11–19. doi: 10.3390/su13031192.
Villalonga, B., & Amit, R. (2006). How do family ownership, control and management affect firm value?. Journal of Financial Economics, 80(2), 385–417. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2004.12.005.
Wang, K., Tan, R., Peng, Q., Sun, Y., Li, H., & Sun, J. (2021). Radical innovation of product design using an effect solving method. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 15(5), 54–71.
Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An introductory analysis. New York: Harper and Row.
Zeebaree, M., Sattar, S., Aqel, M., Qader, A. N., & Zebari, D. (2020). Impact of innovation technology in enhancing organizational management. International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 9(5), 11–24.
Zhang, Z., Zhu, H., Zhou, Z., & Zou, K. (2022). How does innovation matter for sustainable performance? Evidence from small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Business Research, 143(41), 251–265. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.08.034.
Zighan, S., Abuhussein, T., Al-Zu’bi, Z. B., & Dwaikat, N. Y. (2023). A qualitative exploration of factors driving sustainable innovation in small-and medium-sized enterprises in Jordan. Journal of Enterprising Communities, 45(87), 32–45.
Further reading
Li, G., Wang, X., Su, S., & Su, Y. (2019). How green technological innovation ability influences enterprise competitiveness. Technology in Society, 59(11), 101–136. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.04.012.
Mura, L. (2020). Innovations and marketing management of family businesses: Results of empirical study. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Knowledge, 8(2), 56–66. doi: 10.37335/ijek.v8i2.118.
Acknowledgements
The authors are much grateful for effort of all referees used in this study. The suggestions in the articles helped in shaping this article.