s10490-022-09845-6

Asia Pacific Journal of Management
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-022-09845-6
Digitalisation, data‑driven dynamic capabilities

and responsible innovation: An empirical study of SMEs
in China
Yantai Chen1 · Jing Li1,2 · Jingwen Zhang1
Accepted: 13 August 2022

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature
2022
Abstract
Research on responsible innovation (RI) is essential and effective for developed
countries to achieve sustainable development goals; however, RI is still relatively
undiscussed in the emerging Asia–Pacific markets. With the rapid development of
big data-related technologies and their application, digital platforms have become
a dominant organisational form in the current industrial practice; SMEs have had
to conduct digital transformation and realise value creation by embedding the plat-
form ecosystem. However, this has given rise to irresponsible innovation practices.
Few studies have investigated the implementation or realisation of RI in emerging
market platforms. As the core of RI for the SMEs embedded in the platform is the
ecosystem view, which contemplates multiple actors engaging in value co-creation,
different from a single actor in existing studies, the sustainable development perfor-
mance of SMEs is one of the best evidence of the overall RI realisation of the whole
platform ecosystem. On the basis of these discussions, we construct a core theo-
retical model and combine it with existing literature and theories, mainly with RI,
dynamic capabilities theory, and neo-institutional theory. We empirically analyse
268 Chinese SMEs embedded in the platform. The results reveal that the data-driven
dynamic capabilities of SMEs can become the key driving force in improving their
sustainable development performance, thus guiding the platform enterprises’ RI
quality. In addition, digital regulatory pressure and digital customer pressure exert
a significant positive moderating effect on the association between RI quality and
sustainable development performance, which may be closely related to the infantile
stage of SMEs’ digital transformation in emerging Asia–Pacific markets.
Keywords Responsible innovation in emerging markets · Data-driven dynamic

capabilities · Platform ecosystem · Sustainable development performance ·
Institutional pressure
* Jing Li
345130795@qq.com
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Y. Chen et al.
In recent years, the concept of responsible innovation (RI), based on the Collingridge
dilemma or the ‘institutional void’ of negative externalities of emerging technolo-
gies, has become a global development concept after ‘sustainable development’
(Genus & Stirling, 2018). However, highly turbulent external environments cause RI
to become an issue characterised by tensions and contradictions (Pandza & Ellwood,
2013). Considering the specificity of the context of emerging Asia–Pacific econo-
mies, such as institutional transformation, the ‘compressed’ rapid informatisation,
and institutional complexity, RI remains a controversial topic (Hartley et al., 2019).
As an important member of the Asia–Pacific region, China has made outstanding
achievements in the transformation and upgrade of the traditional industries, rapid
rise of the platform economy, and digital transformation of enterprises over the past
10 years (Ramaswamy & Ozcan, 2018). Although the platform economy has con-
siderably promoted the value creation of enterprises, industries, and regions, the
distribution of valuable digital resources in the platform ecosystem remains unbal-
anced between system participants (Wang & Miller, 2020). This leads to unseen
dangers, such as some leading platforms requiring SMEs to choose only one of two
platforms, low-price dumping, vertical monopoly agreements, and big data–enabled
price discrimination against existing customers. These dangers not only directly lead
to chaotic market competition but also seriously violate the legitimate rights and
interests of platform stakeholders, resulting in the co-destruction of platform value,
which hinders the achievement of the overall platform goal. Therefore, the core
question of this paper is as follows:
How can the platform ecosystem realise the goal of RI in the context
of emerging Asia–Pacific markets?
Research on the RI of platform ecosystems is relatively scarce; however, discussion

of RI in the business field is increasing and covers topics such as product innovation
(Scuotto et al., 2022), organisational institutions (Owen et al., 2021), and enterprise
cooperation (Jarmai & Vogel-Pöschl, 2020). However, these studies focus on either
the guiding role of government supervision or the business model design or organi-
sation of platform enterprises (Singh et al., 2019), ignoring that stakeholder popula-
tion satisfaction or value evaluation is at the core of RI practices. Bacq and Aguilera
(2022) call on RI to be guided by stakeholder theory. The SMEs embedded in a plat-
form may therefore provide excellent RI research perspectives as complementors.
This paper thus explores the issue of RI in platform ecosystems from the perspective
of the embedded SMEs. However, because of relatively limited resources, SMEs
often face challenges when they carry out digital transformation, let alone directly
practise RI. Considering the close relationship between RI and sustainable develop-
ment performance (Wang & Miller 2020), SMEs can optimise platform ecosystems
by improving their sustainable development performance.
Although Eikelenboom and De Jong (2018) argued that improve the dynamic
capabilities of SMEs enhances their sustainable development performance. How-
ever, whether the dynamic capabilities of SMEs can be used to achieve platform
ecosystem RI in the context of digital transformation remains unclear. Moreover,
13
Digitalisation, data‑driven dynamic capabilities and…
big data has triggered huge changes in the enterprise business environment, prod-
uct, or service creation processes and the cognition and behaviour of executives and
employees (Nambisan et al., 2019), which is bound to fundamentally expand the
connotation, structure, and evolution process of data-driven dynamic capabilities
(Warner & Wäger, 2019). This is especially true in China, where the ‘compressed’
and rapid informatisation under the transformation system and the ‘top-down’ mode
of digital transformation have led SMEs to urgently cultivate data-driven dynamic
capabilities (Chen et al., 2022). Therefore, more research is warranted to investi-
gate how data-driven dynamic capabilities (Warner & Wäger, 2019) can be used to
achieve platform ecosystem RI in the context of digital transformation.
Two important factors related to cultivating data-driven dynamic capabilities for
SMEs cannot be ignored. One is the influence of the RI quality of platform enter-
prises on the cultivation of data-driven dynamic capabilities for SMEs. Because of
the network effect of the platform economy, the switch cost and the self-reinforcing
advantage of data enable platform companies to master a large value of underlying
commercial data (Nambisan et al., 2017), which is enough to affect the course of
other SMEs in the platform. The other is the impact of institutional pressure on the
construction of SMEs’ data-driven dynamic capabilities. The subtle bias of govern-
ment digital economic policies and the special preferences for customers for digital
products or services have markedly affected SMEs in the platform (Thompson &
Harris, 2021). However, studies focusing on the institutional topics of digital trans-
formation often have a Western bias by focusing on the institutions of relatively
mature markets and neglecting the situations in emerging countries or transition
economies.
In summary, for achieving the RI in platform ecosystems, we take SMEs embed-
ded in platforms as a unique research perspective to empirically examine how plat-
form leader-enterprises’ RI quality affects data-driven dynamic capabilities, which
in turn affect SMEs’ sustainable development performance and even the whole
process of RI of the platform ecosystem (Eikelenboom & De Jong, 2018). We also
focus on the moderating effect of institutional pressure on this association.
Our findings have the following contributions. First, our study expands the
research scope of RI in the business field, responding to Bacq and Aguilera’s (2022)
call to combine RI with the platform ecosystem theory under the digital economy
and take the SMEs embedded into platform in the emerging market as the research
subject, and further verifying the implementation of RI in the platform ecosystem
as a whole by exploring their sustainable development performance after embed-
ding the platform. To our knowledge, ours is the first empirical study on the impact
of platform enterprise RI quality on SMEs embedded in platforms from the per-
spective of platform ecosystems. Second, our study deepens the interpretation of the
theoretical connotation and influences the effect of data-driven dynamic capabili-
ties under the background of digital transformation. Expanding the existing research
of traditional dynamic capabilities theory (Teece, 2007) and the creatively expan-
sion of the data-driven dynamic capabilities (Chen et al., 2022), and based on 268
Chinese SMEs as research samples, this paper empirically analyses how Chinese
SMEs embedded into platforms use data-driven dynamic capabilities to influence
their sustainable development performance, effectively reflecting the RI issues of the
13
Y. Chen et al.
entire platform ecosystem. This is the first empirical study on data-driven dynamic
capabilities. Third, after considering neo-institutional theory, this paper discusses
the moderating effect of formal and informal institutional pressure during the digi-
tal transformation, including digital regulatory pressure and digital customer pres-
sure, to include multiple actors of the platform ecosystem in the context of emerging
Asia–Pacific markets. The big data-related technologies induce greater turbulence
in the whole ecosystem, influencing both formal and informal institutions. Our
research enriches the analysis connotation of neo-institutional theory and deepens
the mechanism of institutional pressure in the platform ecosystem.
Theoretical background and hypotheses
Research on RI from the perspective of the platform ecosystem
RI originates from the potential conflicts and contradictions between research liber-
alisation and scientific autonomy in terms of common interests, which highlights the
ambidexterity of technological innovation (Del Giudice et al., 2019), the mismatch
between scientific autonomy and social responsibility, the Colingridge Dilemma,
and the institutional voids in innovation governance (Owen et al., 2013). No con-
sensus definition of RI exists in any field (Wiarda et al., 2021). We define RI per the
European Commission’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme in 2013—an activity
that emphasises its essence through the collective management of existing science
and innovation to explore the future of innovation.
Many studies have transferred RI research perspective from natural science fields
to commercial ecosystem fields. For example, Scuotto et al. (2022) proposed a com-
bination of responsible improvements, product levels, and core dynamic capabili-
ties, which paves the way for faster growth and more sustainable competitive advan-
tages. Jarmai et al. (2020) discussed the meaning of cooperation based on RI theory,
believing that the success of a company is also a result of the development time and
energy to achieve mutual understanding and trusting relationships between partners,
as well as the willingness to change in collaborative partners. Iatridis and Schroeder
(2016) linked the practice of RI and corporate social responsibility, considering that
corporate responsibility tools have excellent potential in promoting the implementa-
tion of corporate RI in the industry. Owen et al. (2021) even treated RI as a social
object that sought legalisation and thought it was capable of breaking the existing
institutional logic related to research and innovation.
Although the literature is relatively scattered, it can be roughly summarised as fol-
lows. First, there are diverse actors of RI; RI cannot be realised by a single actor in
isolation and fragmentation (Gianni & Goujon, 2014). Second, the purpose of RI is
not to highlight personal achievements. It is designed to improve the degree of diver-
sification of democratic viewpoints that have been generated and meet the needs of
all types of social actors (Jarmai & Vogel-Pöschl, 2020). Therefore, the heterogene-
ity requirements of different stakeholders must be constructed rather than general-
ised. Third, the RI implementation path calls for value co-creation jointly. Inclusion-
ability is widely discussed as the core element of the RI theory architecture, which
13
emphasises the importance and necessity of participating in governance through the

greater scope of heterogeneous stakeholders (Owen et al., 2013), including public
participation, community involvement, and stakeholder involvement. These points
agree with the value propositions and research paradigms of the platform ecosystem.
Some scholars have paid attention to the sustainable development of platform eco-
systems (Geissinger et al., 2019), but few studies have compreghensively analysed
the RI issue of platform ecosystems.
The platform ecosystem is considered a commercial ecosystem based on platform
governance, meaning that it is a nested network that consists of leading platform
enterprises (i.e. platform owners) and their complementors (i.e. suppliers of comple-
mentary products or services) in which platform enterprises provide value through
infrastructure, control interactions between participating enterprises, and produce
complementary products to enhance platform value (Hannah & Eisenhardt, 2018).
We generally regard the platform ecosystem as a community of destiny centred on
the focal platform organisation, with multi-stakeholder entities working together to
create value. The value creation of the platform ecosystem is complex, especially for
RI; any disconnection in the value chain directly affects the responsible recognition,
uptake, and evaluation of the entire platform innovation process. Some scholars call
for more relevant practical (i.e. empirical) research on the process and results of RI
under the same framework to truly realise the global and dynamic RI of the platform
ecosystem (Lubberink et al., 2017).
Data‑driven dynamic capabilities of SMEs
Dynamic capabilities refer to an enterprise’s capabilities to integrate, build, and

reconfigure its internal and external competence in response to a rapidly changing
environment (Teece, 2007). It not only makes up for the deficiencies in the explana-
tory power of the static resource-based view in the context of resource heterogeneity
but also helps to understand the process by which an enterprise obtains and maintains
a competitive advantage in a turbulent environment (Helfat & Raubitschek, 2018).
This is especially important for SMEs, which face destructive challenges by emerging
breakthroughs, such as big data and related technologies (El-Kassar & Singh, 2019).
McAfee and Brynjolfsson (2012) put forward the concept of a ‘data-driven enter-
prise’. Wu et al. (2021) believe that being ‘data-driven’ means that enterprises use
high-quality data analysis for their business decisions. Tangible and massive data,
invisible corporate digital cultures, and the aggregation of digital talent resources
constitute the main focus of data drivers, promoting the competitive advantage
between the enterprise to adapt to the advantages presented by the ecosystem
(Orlando et al., 2021). The source of core competitive advantage has also trans-
formed from internal scarce resource configuration capabilities to external effective
correlation creation capabilities and dynamic capabilities to quickly respond to envi-
ronmental changes (Mikalef et al., 2018). In the era of big data and rapid changes in
the environment, if companies cannot effectively mobilise and use the company’s
resources and capabilities to deal with environmental dynamics, they may encounter
commercial failures.
13
Y. Chen et al.
The relationship between big data (data drivers) and dynamic capabilities has
consequently generated research interest among many scholars, who follow four
main theoretical perspectives. (1) On the basis of the resource-based view, big
data are essentially an important organisational resource, and the unique attributes
of multi-source heterogenesis make it a prerequisite for enterprises to broaden the
boundaries, precise matching and mining potential market value (Wamba et al.,
2015). (2) On the basis of the knowledge-based view, enterprise knowledge is con-
sidered a major contributor to the value creation of dynamic capabilities (Santoro
et al., 2019). Big data can increase enterprises’ channels to obtain dominant and
recessive new knowledge (Papa et al., 2020) and serve as important promoters of
corporate knowledge management (Caputo et al., 2021; Gressgård et al., 2014). (3)
On the basis of the evolutionary economics view, big data can improve the inter-
nal operation efficiency of an organisation, enable business model innovation and
change the system, culture, and structure of firms (Dubey et al., 2019), as well as
help transform traditional management decisions based on experience into those
based on data analysis, thus facilitating the formation of high-order dynamic capa-
bilities that determine the digital competitive advantage of enterprises. (4) From
the view of microscopic or micro-foundation, big data drivers have put forward
higher requirements for the digital skills of executives and individuals, which not
only enhance the overall human capital (Ransbotham et al., 2015) but also inspire
digital leadership (Singh et al., 2020). Finally, data drivers have strengthened the
social capital of top managers by changing the individual, between enterprises, and
between enterprises and external stakeholders.
Thus, big data can be deemed a heterogeneous resource for companies and a type
of knowledge based on big data analysis for the cultivation of abilities. When big
data impacts dynamic capabilities, it not only intensifies the turbulence and uncer-
tainty of the institutional environment but also drives changes in organisational
structure, organisational form, and executive cognition to varying degrees. There-
fore, we believe that for SMEs, data-driven dynamic capabilities need to be con-
structed, which is different from the classical dynamic capability proposed by Teece
(2007), but it is an extension of the results of Warner and Wäger (2019).
Digital transformation and neo‑institutional theory
Institutions constitute a rule of economic, political, and social relations within an

organisation, society, or country (Scott, 1995), which are defined as the regulations,
norms, and cognitions that can provide stability and significance for social behav-
iour. Neo-institutional theory states that enterprises’ strategic choice and market
behaviour depend not only on industry development and the special resources of an
enterprise, but also on institutional environments, such as the political and market
environments. Institutions provide standards and norms of behaviour for organisa-
tions and restrict their behavioural choices through convergence and cooperation
mechanisms (Di Maggio & Powell, 1983). Furthermore, to realise their potential
benefits, organisations cause institutional change through institutional entrepreneur-
ship and collective action (Jayanti & Raghunath, 2018).
13
However, several digital innovations have brought new roles, structures, prac-
tices, values, and a renewed combined effect of faith. These new roles, structures,
practices, values, and beliefs change, threaten, replace, or supplement groups; they
exist in the field of ecological systems, industries, or rules of the game, and they
have the power to dramatically change the environment (Hinings et al., 2018).
Therefore, digitised transformation is undoubtedly an institutional change that pro-
foundly influences an enterprise’s strategic choice and capability construction. For
emerging Asia–Pacific markets experiencing an economic digital transformation,
big data can have a stronger impact on institutional arrangements. This is mainly
because, as mentioned above, emerging markets experience the alternation and over-
lap of various old and new institutions, and many fields may have an institutional
blank or institutional logic diversity and dynamic. Some scholars have also used the
term ‘institutional complexity’ (Greenwood et al., 2011) to describe emerging mar-
kets. Therefore, in such an original background, the impact of big data on traditional
institutional arrangements undoubtedly has more impact on emerging Asia–Pacific
markets than on Western, developed markets.
We accordingly believe that neo-institutional theory and digital transformation
research are more relevant for emerging Asia–Pacific markets. Because the platform
ecosystem is essential component of the digitisation era, neo-institutional theory can
be used to explain its sustainable development (cf. Soublière & Gehman, 2020). We
respond to Gegenhuber et al.’s (2020) call for an empirical approach to the digital
transformation and institutional theory by incorporating institutional pressure theory
(Swaminathan & Wade, 2016) into the paper’s theoretical model and incorporating
large data-driven situations into research categories, further exploring the impact
of big data drives on external environments and the interaction between institutions
and enterprises.
Hypotheses
Data‑drivendynamic capabilities of SMEs, platform RI quality,

and sustainabilityperformance
Although SMEs have always been regarded as a special group that achieves sustain-
able development despite its challenges (Bos‐Brouwers, 2010), they remain the key
to creating employment and improving income distribution. They are also crucial
for emerging market countries, as they are responsible for a large share of resource
consumption, air, and water pollution, and waste generation in their development.
Eikelenboom and De Jong (2018) proposed that SMEs can simultaneously improve
the performance of the economy, society, and environment by building dynamic
capabilities, which is also applicable to the context of digital transformation. Spe-
cifically, we gather our analysis from digital sensing, seizing, and transformation
(Warner & Wäger, 2019).
Teece (2007: 1322) noted that sensing (or shaping) new opportunities (or threats)
is very much a scanning, creation, learning, and interpretative activity. However,
13
Y. Chen et al.
because of the lack of resources, experience, and other aspects of a turbulent envi-
ronment, SMEs have a much stronger need to scan the external environment and
find unexpected trends in time. Therefore, some studies have put forward the con-
cept of ‘digital sensing capabilities’, which can be understood as scanning the digi-
tal environment or using digital technologies (such as infrastructure, content, chan-
nels, services, and e-commerce applications). SMEs can accurately and efficiently
discover potential market opportunities and risks in digital transformation, integrate
data and information, improve enterprise digital strategies for accurate predictions,
and quickly respond to customer needs (Warner & Wäger, 2019) and further evalu-
ate and judge development trends. This ensures that SMEs undergoing digital trans-
formation can quickly adjust their sustainability initiatives according to market con-
cerns and improve their effectiveness and market performance.
After determining the opportunities to update technologically or capitalise on
niche markets, the companies must develop the capabilities in the form of products,
processes, or services to take advantage of such opportunities. The digital seizing
capabilities of SMEs can be deemed as the ability to evaluate the existing resources
of an organisation, efficiently allocate new and old resources, break through inno-
vative structural conventions, and dynamically match the external environment
by using various data intelligent systems, data platforms, and digital technologies
(Birkinshaw et al., 2018). Taking supply chain agility as an example, because of
the wide application of emerging digital technologies, SMEs can integrate custom-
ers’ social, environmental, and economic feedback into product design at the early
stage of the product life cycle. This ensures customers’ sense of product experience
and satisfaction as well as provides an overall and low-cost solution for the sustain-
able development of enterprises. On the other hand, the construction of digital agil-
ity enhances the permeability of internal and external boundaries so that SMEs can
continuously integrate other stakeholders’ sustainable development knowledge and
resources to complement each other and improve sustainable development perfor-
mance (Liu et al., 2020).
Finally, digital transforming capabilities refer to the capabilities of SMEs to rap-
idly innovate and respond to digital technologies to stimulate new value propositions
and operational excellence and develop digital strategies (Legner et al., 2017). In
the rapidly changing digital age, SMEs have only continuously strengthened their
adaptability to external economic, social, and environmental factors; they can obtain
and update rich resources, adjust operation processes, and reconstruct organisa-
tional practices to maintain and enhance their sustainable development performance.
Therefore, we hypothesise the following:
Hypothesis 1 The data-driven dynamic capabilities of SMEs positively affect their

sustainable development performance.
In addition, the platform enterprise, also known as the platform leader, builder,
and driver, could play a key role in platform ecosystem governance (Kretschmer
et al., 2022). This position not only entails functions of mission orientation,
innovation, empowerment, and benefit-sharing but also leads to the sustainable
13
development of the entire platform ecosystem through governance and reform, thus
realising value co-creation (Mcintyre & Srinivasan, 2017). In the past 10 years, the
rapid development of China’s platform economy has caused it to be inseparable
from platform leaders supported by the Internet. However, unregulated and irre-
sponsible leading platform enterprises are far more harmful to the participants and
even to society at large (e.g. Scholz, 2016). For example, Didi Chuxing’s "passen-
ger murder accident", Meituan’s takeaway and Hungry’s "Three No Restaurants",
Baidu’s "Bidding Ranking", and other vicious incidents occurred frequently enough
for more research to be conducted on the phenomenon of lack of corporate social
responsibility and alienation of platform corporate social responsibility. Unlike tra-
ditional enterprises, characterised by "multiple subjects, strong hazards and com-
plex governance", irresponsible innovation or operation by a platform enterprise
involves the platform enterprise itself, bilateral users on the platform, and the par-
ticipants in the entire platform ecosystem (Lintula et al., 2017); this situation may
cause value co-destruction, posing new challenges for RI. Responsible behaviour
in this study is measured using the RI quality (Wickson & Carew, 2014), which
refers to a series of resources and knowledge sharing, providing a level playing
field, and ultimately achieving value co-creation and sharing, rather than the ‘the
curse of bigness’ (Wu, 2018). The reason can be understood from the following
three aspects:
(1) The differentiated value creation logic of platform enterprises. Unlike the eco-
nomic value creation logic of traditional enterprises based on private attributes,
platform enterprises link bilateral users based on the Internet platform, and
provide a trustworthy, safe, and efficient education and interaction platform for
bilateral users entering the platform based on service-dominant logic (Prahald
& Ramaswamy, 2000), and obtain the link value of both supply and demand in
the market. At the same time, the unique unilateral network effects and cross-
side network effects of the two-sided market enable users on either side of the
platform enterprise to generate network externalities. This means that compet-
ing for the "attention" of bilateral users in the market has become the focus of
platform companies under private attributes to participate in market competi-
tion. However, platform companies remain dominated by private attributes; they
usually adopt the "winner takes all" competition logic, which is easy to lead to
vicious competition and irresponsible innovation behaviours such as "exclusive
transactions" (Chattergoon & Kerr, 2022), which leads to the loss of the overall
welfare of consumers.
(2) Enhanced oligopolistic market capabilities for platform firms. According to the
definition of oligopoly, when a platform-based enterprise occupies more than
50% of the data in a certain segment, and builds a relatively mature data col-
lection system to search and store new data, an oligopolistic market structure
is formed, and it has certain monopoly power (Chen & Miller, 2012). With
the enhancement of platform enterprises’ ability to collect and store various
types of data, the number of oligarchic manufacturers with large databases
increases. Moreover, the same-side or cross-side effect of platform enterprises
further strengthens the original network effect and enhance its monopoly power
13
Y. Chen et al.
(Eisenmann et al., 2006). In addition, the data analysis and processing capabili-
ties of industry-leading platform companies also constitute an important entry
barrier for the industry, become a source of market strength for manufacturers,
and affect effective market competition. Moreover, data analysis requires enter-
prises to invest a lot of resources, exert economies of scale, enhance the domi-
nance of leading enterprises, and strengthen the positive feedback mechanism
of enterprises (Cusumano et al., 2019). Online platform-based companies may
extend offline, and even achieve control over offline companies, which strengthen
monopoly.
(3) Monopoly transaction data of platform companies. Platform companies rely on
the nature of Internet personalised services to divide the buyer’s market into
independent individuals, cutting off consumers’ search behaviour, and buyers
may indiscriminately provide services under the inertia of a certain path depend-
ence (Stallkamp & Schotter, 2021). Network effects can easily lead to a situation
where one company dominates, supply, and demand may lose competitiveness
at the same time, and the platform becomes the only ‘informer’. When this
‘informer’ sells each commodity to a specific user, the platform can achieve the
‘choose one’ monopoly, severely impairing the traditional trading market and its
trading rules in the usual context (Xiao, 2022). The value creation of platform
enterprises depends on the interaction and transaction process of multiple direct
or indirect participants linked in the public field of the platform. Based on the
special same-side network effect and cross-side network effect, the irresponsible
innovation behaviour of platform companies may continue to deteriorate, thereby
amplifying the overall value creation and acquisition of each participant and even
the entire platform ecosystem. Therefore, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 2 High platform RI quality is more conducive to improving SMEs’ sus-

tainable development than low RI quality.
The rapid development of the platform economy has benefited numerous

SMEs and poor areas; Taobao Village is the best case. However, an uncontrolled
platform economy can considerably harm its participants and society. In China,
numerous platform-to-platform mergers and acquisitions in the capital market
signify that the platform economy is moving towards a monopoly (Wu, 2018).
Because of the platform leadership enterprise network effect, also known as the
long tail effect, high conversion costs, and competition methods are transformed,
the platform market is increasingly centralised. Some mega-platforms are sus-
pected of abusing their dominant market position by using various improper prac-
tices to compete, such as ‘choose between the two’, refusing to provide compatible
apps and discriminating against third-party apps, which increases the operating
costs of competitors and also damages fair competition and orderly operation of
the market (Lefebvre & Ple, 2012). Meanwhile, RI practices from the perspective
of ecosystems should consider all stakeholders. The irresponsible or low RI qual-
ity behaviour implemented by platform enterprises impairs the performance of
13
platform-based enterprises, platform ecosystem participants, and the RI value of

the entire platform ecosystem (Heidenreich et al., 2015). This problem is exacer-
bated for platform SMEs, which can experience operational troubles and a lack of
motivation and capabilities to improve their sustainable development performance
(Jiang et al., 2020).
The improvement of RI quality of platform enterprises enhances the effectiveness
of information and resources of platform SMEs. Although criticism of the static
characteristics of resources has led to the emergence of the concept of dynamic capa-
bilities, resources are still widely accepted as the foundation of enterprise dynamic
capabilities (Anand et al., 2010). Therefore, rich and diverse resources help platform
SMEs identify platform markets and opportunities in the digital market, reduce the
threat of uncertain environments, and effectively speculate customer preferences and
technical trends to take more effective action to seize digital market opportunities
(Kumar et al., 2020). In other words, the increased amount of effective resources
due to the improvement of RI quality of platform enterprises markedly enhance the
digital sensing and seizing capabilities of platform SMEs. In transition economies,
such as China, SMEs require fast and accurate forecasting of future trends to address
rapid economic development and changes.
Furthermore, to some extent, the increase in the variety and range of available
resources allows SMEs to create a broad resource base through the collaborative
combination of heterogeneous resources to develop complex data-driven dynamic
capabilities (Ciampi et al., 2021). Platform SMEs with more diverse types of
resources have more options for resource reorganisation, and the transformation and
reorganisation of digital resources enable them to create their imitable and irreplace-
able resources under the platform economy (Zhou & Li, 2010). This means that the
RI quality improvement of platform enterprises enhance the digital transformation
capabilities of platform SMEs. Moreover, the synergy and scale effects of different
resources can also reduce business operating costs (Cui & Jiang, 2012) and improve
capabilities building and restructuring efficiency.
Therefore, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 3 The data-driven dynamic capabilities of SMEs play an intermediary

role between platform RI quality and sustainability performance.
Moderating effect of neo‑institutional pressure
As a derivative concept of neo-institutional theory, institutional pressure refers to

the power that can promote organisational forms, structures, or behaviours to be
more reasonable and easier to obtain support from the perspective of new institu-
tional economics (Teo et al., 2003). Institutionalists believe that to be considered
‘legitimate’, enterprises must adopt similar management practices and strategies
under the guidance of institutional forces (Di Maggio & Powell, 1983). Therefore,
from the perspective of institutional pressure, the different strategic responses of
enterprises to incentives or constraints can be effectively analysed to further influ-
ence their market behaviour. However, instead of using traditional institutional fac-
tors, this research mainly focuses on digital regulatory and customer pressures in
13
Y. Chen et al.
digital transformation. While the digital institutional environment is made up of

many components (e.g. governments, trade associations, local communities, interest
groups, and activists), within the platform ecosystem of emerging Asia–Pacific mar-
kets, updated digital policies and digital consumers are the two main forces shaping
the rules in the digital institutional environment that are most valued by both plat-
form enterprises and platform SMEs (Liu et al., 2021; Swaminathan & Wade, 2016).
Therefore, tackles the influence of digital regulatory and customer pressures on digi-
tal transformation, which is mainly reflected in the moderating effect of platform
enterprises’ RI quality and its influence on platform SMEs’ data-driven dynamic
capabilities-building.
Moderating effect of digital regulatory pressure
Digital regulatory pressure refers to the pressure exerted by external laws, regula-
tions, and political forces related to digital transformation on enterprises’ strate-
gic choices (Wang et al., 2016), which is characterised by the terms ‘coercive’ and
‘inviolability’. In the context of digital transformation in emerging Asia–Pacific
markets, the impact of digital regulatory pressure on the platform ecosystem should
be considered first. The main reasons are twofold. On the one hand, digital innova-
tion can be far more challenging to existing institutional arrangements than other
innovations. Most emerging Asia–Pacific markets are in a turbulent period of insti-
tutional transformation, and their institutions in the emerging digital field often lack
clarity and perfection. Therefore, companies in the platform ecosystems of emerg-
ing Asia–Pacific markets are bound to face greater digital regulatory pressure.
For example, Airbnb was fined for operating exclusive rentals without the correct
licence (Scott, 2016), and Alibaba Group was fined 18.228 billion yuan for abusing
its dominant position in China’s online retail platform services market in 2021.1
On the other hand, because emerging Asia–Pacific markets are undergoing insti-
tutional transformation, decisions for digital transformation often have some unfa-
vourable characteristics; for example, the government is the leading force of digital
transformation rather than the enterprises themselves. Moreover, in some Confucian
cultural regions, traditional concepts such as top-down, collectivism, relational cul-
ture, and difference sequence pattern remain rooted in the thinking of enterprises
and their managers (Li et al., 2007). Therefore, the greater the uncertainty in the
digital environment, the more the number of companies choosing a policy conver-
gence strategy. This avoids illegal or illegitimate practices and allows enterprises
to deepen their ties with government agencies (Huy & Zott, 2019), which is critical
for the platform ecosystem; therefore, building institutional trust and promoting the
intensity of market interaction are uregently requried. In summary, the impact of
digital regulatory pressure on the digital transformation of enterprises in the plat-
form ecosystem can be significantly greater than in developed Western markets.
1
CNN,2021. China hits Alibaba with record $2.8 billion fine for behaving like a monopoly. https://editi
on.cnn.com/2021/04/10/tech/alibaba-china-record-fine/index.html
13
However, current studies on digital regulatory pressure do not always present a

linear relationship (Sukoco et al., 2018). This research may be related to the varied
content of digital policies and the level of digital regulatory pressure. We can dis-
cuss this roughly in terms of incentives and constraints.
Even if SMEs are embedded in the platform, they do not fully focus attention
and resources on the construction and improvement of data-driven dynamic capa-
bilities (Zhou et al., 2018). Thus, from the perspective of attention theory, when
the government introduces incentive policies for digital transformation, it greatly
attracts the attention of senior executives to digital transformation and stimulates
the internal vitality and subjective initiative of SMEs’ transformation (Shi & Weber,
2020). Then, entrepreneurs are encouraged to actively acquire and make full use of
the effective digital resources that overflow under the high platform RI quality and
lay the foundation for the improvement of the data-driven dynamic capabilities of
SMEs (Felin & Powell, 2016). The incentive policy is bound to more easily trigger
the convergence effect of enterprises, which improves the quality of RI of platform
enterprises and enhances the initiative and enthusiasm of digital transformation
of platform SMEs and bring benefits to the platform SMEs’ data-driven dynamic
capabilities construction. Therefore, we believe that the RI quality of platform enter-
prises can have a greater impact on platform SMEs’ data-driven dynamic capabili-
ties under higher incentive institutional pressure.
More stringent regulatory constraints can increase the illegal costs of platform com-
panies and alleviate innovative market failures to achieve the orderly economy of the
platform economy. This is especially true in emerging Asia–Pacific markets; with the
gradual improvement of the government (mainly platform enterprises) legal supervi-
sion, the same can be effective in curbing the corporate platform market monopoly,
which uses asymmetric information to earn profits through unfair competition, and
in enhancing the platform SMEs to RI satisfaction, which in turn builds data-driving
dynamic capabilities for SMEs to achieve sustainable development (Lütjen et al.,
2019). However, because the strong binding force of rules and regulations mainly
affects the behaviour or choices of the organisation through a punishment mechanism,
excessive digital regulatory pressure can not only deter platform leaders but also affect
SMEs’ motivation and enthusiasm for digital innovation to a certain extent. In addi-
tion, the literature has reached a virtual consensus that the needs of enterprises to build
dynamic capabilities are closely related to the dynamics, complexity, and uncertainty
of their external environment. An excessively high level of digital regulatory pres-
sure can cause the external environment of the enterprise to be too stable, which is
not conducive for SMEs in terms of the construction and improvement of data-driven
dynamic capabilities (Svahn et al., 2017). Finally, high institutional constraints can
make it relatively easy for every SME on the platform to acquire valuable resources
or knowledge, thus decreasing the differentiated competitive advantages of SMEs and
forcing them to shift their attention to other scarce resources rather than the RI qual-
ity of the platform enterprises. Therefore, too high punitive institutional pressure can
reduce the impact of platform enterprise RI quality on platform SMEs.
In summary, in an environment of medium-level digital regulatory pressure, the
improvement of platform RI quality is most relevant to the construction of SMEs and
the improvement of their data-driven dynamic capabilities. From this, we get H4.
13
Y. Chen et al.
Hypothesis 4 Digital regulatory pressure has an inverted U-shaped moderating role

in platform RI quality, affecting SMEs’ data-driven dynamic capabilities. In other
words, as digital regulatory pressure gradually increases, the impact of platform RI
quality on data-driven dynamic capabilities of SMEs first increases and then weakens.
Moderating effect of digital customer pressure
Digital customer pressure mainly comes from digital customers, including end-users
(that is, those who pay for the digital services, products, and experiences) and key
partners in data-driven supply chain management. Both parties expect enterprises
within the platform ecosystem to have a higher level of digitalisation (Dubey et al.,
2019; Skålén et al., 2015). This is mainly because in the context of digital trans-
formation, not only the enterprises undergo this transformation; end-users and sup-
ply chain partners’ digital cognition, digital knowledge, and digital demand also
undergo earth-shaking changes. Specific explanations can be made based on the fol-
lowing two aspects.
In the digital economic era, user demand presents highly variable, uncertain,
fuzzy, and complex characteristics; thus, traditional business thinking and patterns
are increasingly challenging to deal with, forcing companies into digital transfor-
mation (Hoornaert et al., 2017). More importantly, the buying habits, paths, and
cycles of traditional consumer market analysis aimed at numerous digital users are
not only changing but accelerating. Therefore, rapidly changing digital consumer
pressure can cause platform SMEs to pay more attention to how to perceive digital
consumer demand, how to better meet the demand of digital consumers to expand
market share, and how to implement agile transformation in a rapidly changing mar-
ket, while improvement of these capabilities is closely related to the RI quality of
platform enterprise (Wang & Miller, 2020).
Meanwhile, big data and user interactive innovation for the enterprise provide an
innovation environment, tools, and methods that can not only optimise the product
innovation process and morphology and increase the degree of common digital user
behaviour but also support the innovation of enterprises and encourage continuous
improvement environment by leveraging product innovation logic based on enter-
prise users (Coussement et al., 2017). Although the above process is advantageous
to enterprise product innovation, more can be done to enhance consumer satisfac-
tion. However, more and more consumers have transformed from ‘ordinary play-
ers’ to ‘special players’, enhancing the need for the enterprise innovation process,
innovation results, and the frequency of higher demand, which has created larger
digital customer pressure. In addition, because the revenue of platform companies
mainly comes from end-users, the willingness and decision-making of platforms
and consumers to apply a specific platform is significantly affected by factors such
as the quantity, quality, and innovation of the components of the complementor in
the platform (Cennamo et al., 2018). Therefore, to ascertain the overall cognitive
legitimacy of the platform and realise the value creation and diffusion of the plat-
form business model, platform companies are bound to continuously improve their
RI quality, thereby strengthening the impact on the data-driven dynamic capabilities
of platform SMEs.
13
Digitisation and related technologies also play a vital role in enterprises’ part-
ner-based supply chain management innovation. This is reflected in process intel-
ligence and data-driven decision-making models between the upstream and down-
stream of the supply chain (Nisar et al., 2020). For example, today, many enterprises
have become increasingly intelligent, requiring their supply chain partners to share
information promptly or directly transform intelligent processes to shorten delivery
time, coordinate production decisions, and realise real-time optimisation (Kusiak,
2017). Even in supply chain finance, to obtain financial support from platform enter-
prises, it is necessary to provide different types of data, such as internal data, per-
sonal data, social network data, stakeholder data, and third-party data, for platform
enterprises to comprehensively measure financial risks. Thus, because of the digital
pressure from supply chain partners, platform SMEs can be more active in digital
transformation in the platform ecosystem and can strengthen the focus on platform
companies’ RI quality, the utilisation of related spillover resources and the improve-
ment of their related capabilities.
Notably, in emerging Asia–Pacific markets, the consumer platform is developing
and extending to the industrial platform, with examples such as Haier and Xuzhou
Construction Machinery Group. Compared with the consumer platform, the indus-
trial platform focuses more on full-link integration based on the supply chain, and
its value creation involves not only market entry but also the integration of vari-
ous industrial links (Gawer & Cusumano, 2014). Scholars have even proposed that
the governance efficiency of the interactive enabled relationship has become a vital
evaluation indicator for industrial Internet platform companies. Therefore, greater
pressure from digital supply chain partners can cause industrial Internet platform
companies to pay more attention to platform governance issues, such as the RI issue,
to maximise the interactive mechanism of value co-creation and provide better con-
ditions for improving the capabilities of complementors within the platform. On the
basis of the above analysis, we derive H5:
Hypothesis 5 Digital customer pressure positively moderates platform RI quality,

affecting SMEs’ data-driven dynamic capabilities. That is, as digital customers’
pressure gradually increases, the impact of platform RI quality on the data-driven
dynamic capabilities of SMEs strengthens significantly.
We built a conceptual model (Fig. 1) and test the hypotheses using survey data
from 268 Chinese SME firms.
Methods
Participants & procedure
This paper intends to use the online survey method of the empirical method. Com-
pared with traditional paper-based surveys, online surveys have several advantages,
such as fast response time, cost-effectiveness, and no geographical boundaries
13
Y. Chen et al.
Platform Responsible Data-Driven Dynamic Sustainable Development

Innovation Quality Capabilities of SMEs Performance of SMEs
Fig. 1 The conceptual model
(Bhattacherjee, 2001). The main variables of this study are relatively mature, mainly
with RI, dynamic capabilities, and sustainable development performance. Our
research focuses on the new background of digital transformation. Through the online
survey method, we collected more evaluation and amount data of SMEs’ self-assess-
ment of platform RI, data-driven dynamic capabilities, and sustainable development.
In this case study, SMEs undergoing digital transformation are were chosen for
three reasons. First, in the technology industry, the relationship between resources,
knowledge, and dynamic capabilities and the relationship between dynamic capabili-
ties and sustainable performance can be closer (Rossi et al., 2020). Because China is
the largest manufacturing hub in the world, the technological upgrades and sustaina-
ble development of SMEs in China are of general significance to emerging economies
in the Asia–Pacific region. Although Chinese SMEs are undergoing a digital transfor-
mation, there are great differences in their development, as some have achieved their
goal of ‘Industry 3.0’ through information station from ‘Industry 1.0 and 2.0’. How-
ever, pioneering enterprises that have reached Industry 3.0 focus on applying tech-
nologies, such as big data and artificial intelligence, to their manufacturing, supply,
sales, and services. Second, China has committed to promoting RI and developing
digital economy governance. For example, the publication of the first Anti-Monopoly
Guide for Safe Economy in 2020, the Digital Transformation Partnership Action, and
the launch of the Zhejiang Fair Online system all reflect China’s RI efforts towards a
digital economy, and its practical path is expected to provide value.2 In the meantime,
China has experienced high economic growth and has led management scholars to
examine major business theories using Chinese examples (Sharma, 2016). Finally,
because of the dynamic market environment and increasing external turbulence
brought about by the continuous progress in their scientific and technological inno-
vation activities (Kumar et al., 2020), China’s manufacturing SMEs have become an
important background for RI research in the Asia–Pacific region, as China provides a
more valuable context than developed economies (Jiang et al., 2020).
2
Zhejiang Fair online system website.
http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2021-03/08/content_5591516.htm
13
Measures
Our questionnaire items are rated on a seven-point Likert scale (ranging from
1 = ‘strongly disagree’ to 7 = ‘strongly agree’). The variables are presented in
Appendix Table 9. Several control variables are included: firm age, firm size, market
turbulence, technology turbulence, and competitive intensity (Bagheri et al., 2019).
Analytic strategy
Our empirical research was conducted in three stages. First, we review the relevant
literature to further improve the research model and determine the relevant structure
and its possible operability. Second, the questionnaire was originally developed in
English and independently translated into Chinese by language experts to achieve
translation equivalence (Brislin, 1980). We conduct administer a preliminary test to
15 managers and 3 Chinese scholars familiar with this field. When they complete
the questionnaire, in-depth interviews are conducted to determine ambiguities, the
amount of time each participant required to complete the questionnaire, and issues
of interest to managers not included in the questionnaire. On the basis of the results
of these interviews, we make some amendments to the questionnaire. We then send
the final questionnaire to foreign experts for evaluation and investigation. Finally,
we distribute the questionnaire to the executives of 1000 SMEs in China through the
third-party professional investigation company, the website Wenjuanxing, which is
the largest platform for online surveys in China.
Three months later, the questionnaires are collected, and we verify and analyse
the first round of questionnaires before modifying them again. Subsequently, we dis-
tribute the revised questionnaire to the executives of 1000 SMEs in China. On the
basis of previous research, manufacturing enterprises with fewer than 50 full-time
employees are excluded. Finally, after 6 months of collection, we obtain samples
from 268 companies and use a structural equation model to study the relationships
between the variables.
Results
Measurement model
Non‑response biases
Our study estimates the problem of non-response biases by comparing the responses
of earlier and later respondents, as suggested by Armstrong and Overtonne (1977).
Accordingly, we compare the top 10% of the respondents and the bottom 10% of
the respondents in all key aspects. The average difference between the two groups
of respondents on each critical plane is not significant, indicating no obvious non-
response biases (Table 1).
13
Y. Chen et al.
Table 1 Non-response bias test Research variable Sample classification

(earlier and later)
t value P value
Platform RI quality (PRIQ) − .467 .643

Data-driven dynamic capabilities (DDC) − .609 .545
Sustainability performance (SP) − .815 .419
Digital regulatory pressure (DRP) .314 .755
Digital customer pressure (DCP) − .390 .698
Common method biases
We use the Harman single-factor test to assess any common method biases. The
principal component analysis reveals that the first principal component accounted
for 24.69% of the total variance (Table 2), which is lower than the critical point of
40%, indicating that most of the variations could not be explained by a single factor
and that the deviation from the common method was not severe. The confirmatory
factor analysis (Table 3) reveals that each fitting index of the four-factor benchmark
model was acceptable, indicating that the model was well adapted. Moreover, the
data-fitting index of the benchmark is better than that of the general competitive
models, indicating that high discrimination validity among the variables and no seri-
ous problems in terms of common method deviation.
Confirmatory factor analysis is used to evaluate the reliability and validity of the
questionnaire. All factor loads are significant (p < .001), the comprehensive reli-
ability of all structures is > .70, and the average variance (AVE) values extracted
are > .50, as recommended by Hair (2009). Furthermore, Cronbach’s α coefficient
is used to assess the reliability of the scale. The factor load of all the items is > .5,
and the Cronbach’s α value of each scale is > .7, indicating good reliability. Moreo-
ver, the composite reliability (CR) of each scale is > .7, indicating good convergence
validity. We follow Sun et al. (2019) by using the cross-loadings method to test dis-
criminant validity. Table 4 presents that all indicator loadings exceeded the cross-
loadings, confirming discriminant validity. Table 5 lists the descriptive statistics and
correlation coefficients of each variable. These results confirmed a significant posi-
tive correlation between the pairwise variables. A further collinearity test showed
that the variance expansion factors are 1.5 and 2.53, both of which are < 10, indicat-
ing that the multiple collinearity problem is not significant.
Structural model
We use the structural equation model to evaluate the relationships between the five
variables, RI quality of platform enterprises, data-driven dynamic capabilities of
SMEs, sustainable development performance of SMEs, and digital regulatory and
13
Table 2 Harman single factor test

Factor Characteristic value Coefficient of determination Accumulate coefficient of
determination
Factor 1 16.295 24.690 24.690

Factor 2 3.224 4.885 29.575
Factor 3 2.842 4.305 33.881
Factor 4 2.254 3.416 37.296
Factor 5 1.930 2.924 40.221
Factor 6 1.673 2.534 42.755
Factor 7 1.609 2.439 45.194
Factor 8 1.430 2.167 47.360
Factor 9 1.398 2.118 49.479
Factor 10 1.288 1.952 51.431
Factor 11 1.263 1.913 53.345
Factor 12 1.211 1.834 55.179
Factor 13 1.208 1.830 57.009
Factor 14 1.159 1.756 58.765
Factor 15 1.117 1.692 60.457
Factor 16 1.032 1.564 62.021
Table 3 Fitting index of χ2 df CFI TLI RMSEA

confirmatory factor analysis
Five-factor model 283.78 160 .945 .94 .05
Four-factor model 309.1 164 .936 .93 .06
Three-factor model 319.97 167 .932 .92 .06
Two-factor model 340.07 169 .925 .92 .06
One-factor model 355.78 170 .918 .91 .06
digital customer pressures. The results are presented in Table 6. In this study, the
bootstrap method is adopted.
The platform RI quality positively significantly predicted the data-driven dynamic
capabilities (β = .65, p < .001), as shown in Model 1. The data-driven dynamic capa-
bilities (β = .38, p < .001) and the RI of the platform (β = .51, p < .001) both signifi-
cantly predicted the sustainable development performance of the SMEs, as shown
in Model 2. Therefore, data-driven dynamic capabilities partially mediate the rela-
tionship between responsible platform innovation and the sustainable development
performance of SMEs.
To evaluate the moderating effect, we first examine the inverted U-shaped mod-
erating effect of digital regulatory pressure (β = .11, p = 1.121) between the plat-
form’s RI maturity and data-driven dynamic capabilities, as shown in Model 5. The
results reveal that the interactive term between the square of RI maturity and digital
13
Y. Chen et al.
Table 4 Loadings and cross- Constructs Items Loadings and Cross-loadings

loadings
DCP DDC DRP PRIQ SP
DCP DCP1 .761 .418 .416 .414 .425

DCP2 .764 .44 .389 .394 .46
DCP3 .81 .459 .492 .49 .495
DDC DDC1 .278 .642 .356 .368 .433
DDC2 .376 .661 .464 .455 .491
DDC3 .363 .643 .431 .451 .479
DDC4 .297 .595 .42 .491 .497
DDC5 .394 .642 .475 .452 .47
DDC6 .449 .712 .488 .521 .578
DDC7 .424 .656 .486 .402 .456
DDC8 .354 .529 .302 .33 .467
DDC9 .308 .688 .423 .446 .515
DRP DRP1 .327 .373 .686 .459 .431
DRP2 .46 .575 .759 .504 .574
DRP3 .455 .523 .744 .583 .566
DRP4 .33 .421 .693 .421 .427
PRIQ PRIQ1 .391 .522 .508 .749 .603
PRIQ2 .428 .506 .447 .703 .571
PRIQ3 .337 .438 .418 .688 .546
PRIQ4 .314 .387 .421 .587 .498
PRIQ5 .404 .442 .583 .67 .521
PRIQ6 .444 .525 .534 .712 .594
PRIQ7 .308 .404 .334 .631 .464
SP SP1 .399 .407 .321 .384 .496
SP10 .277 .424 .444 .519 .578
SP11 .408 .398 .354 .367 .506
SP12 .379 .364 .323 .339 .461
SP13 .386 .368 .385 .423 .549
SP14 .244 .337 .294 .262 .457
SP15 .359 .349 .368 .389 .448
SP16 .383 .398 .306 .383 .563
SP17 .294 .398 .272 .336 .525
SP18 .335 .358 .35 .392 .512
SP19 .251 .375 .339 .357 .525
SP2 .298 .385 .348 .335 .506
SP20 .388 .451 .454 .528 .596
SP21 .322 .434 .419 .431 .536
SP22 .364 .384 .354 .424 .483
SP23 .447 .492 .475 .56 .65
SP24 .203 .445 .374 .496 .564
SP25 .209 .375 .434 .476 .569
SP26 .307 .495 .469 .561 .684
13
Table 4 (Continued) Constructs Items Loadings and Cross-loadings

DCP DDC DRP PRIQ SP
SP27 .379 .488 .445 .57 .607

SP3 .251 .397 .295 .352 .483
SP4 .225 .407 .306 .29 .41
SP5 .246 .352 .331 .36 .464
SP6 .31 .415 .383 .384 .588
SP7 .388 .49 .532 .524 .616
SP8 .308 .461 .419 .522 .592
SP9 .296 .424 .36 .516 .557
The bold presents that all indicator loadings exceeded the

cross-loadings
regulatory pressure had no significant effect on data-driven dynamic capabilities.

Thus, we examine whether the process had a linear equation.
Then, we examine the linear moderating effect of digital regulatory pressure
between platform RI quality and data-driven dynamic capabilities, as shown in
Model 3. The results reveal that the interactive term (β = .13, p < .01) between the
platform RI quality and digital regulatory pressure positively significantly predicted
the data-driven dynamic capabilities. A simple slope test is conducted to analyse
the effect of platform RI quality on data-driven dynamic capabilities under differ-
ent digital regulatory pressures (M-1SD, M + 1SD). The results (Fig. 2a) reveal that
when the digital regulatory pressure is low (M-1SD), the platform RI quality had
a lower effect on the data-driven dynamic capabilities (B = .35, p < .05). When the
digital regulatory pressure is high (M + 1SD), the platform RI quality had a greater
effect on the data-driven dynamic capabilities (B = .48, p < .05).
Then, we examine the linear moderating effect of digital customer pressure
between platform RI quality and data-driven dynamic capabilities, as shown in
Model 4. The results (Table 6) reveal that the interactive term (β = .14, p < .01)
between platform RI quality and digital customer pressure positively significantly
predicted the data-driven dynamic capabilities. A simple slope test is conducted
to analyse the effects of platform RI maturity on data-driven dynamic capabilities
under different digital customer pressures (M-1SD, M + 1SD). The results (Fig. 2b)
reveal that when the digital customer pressure is low (M-1SD), the platform RI
quality has a lower effect on the data-driven dynamic capabilities (B = .40, p < .05).
When the digital customer pressure is high (M + 1SD), the platform RI quality has a
greater effect on the data-driven dynamic capabilities (B = .56, p < .05).
These results indicate that Hypotheses 1–3 and 5 are valid, whereas Hypothesis
4 is not. We have verified our general hypothesis, but the U-shaped relationship is
incorrect. This gives us a better direction to verify a linear regulation relationship
and whether the linear regulation relationship has been established. Through an
empirical test, we clariy our understanding of the moderating effect.
13
13
Table 5 Descriptive statistics
M SD CR AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Firm age 14.51 7.9 — — —

2. Firm size 114.93 42.41 — — .18** —
3. Market turbulence 5.48 .74 — — .06 − .001 —
4.Technology turbulence 4.95 .7 — — .03 .06 .52*** —
5. Competition intensity 4.84 .88 — — .13* .11 .33*** .38*** —
6. Platform RI quality 5.55 .75 .85 .5 − .002 .07 .46*** .33*** .16** .8
7. Digital dynamic capabilities 5.63 .68 .9 .74 − .09 − .004 .41*** .29*** .09 .70*** .81
8. Digital regulatory pressure 5.5 .83 .81 .52 .02 .11 .35*** .25*** .06 .67*** .65*** .69
9. Digital customer pressure 5.67 .86 .82 .6 − .08 .02 .42*** .33*** .14* .54*** .58*** .53*** .67
10. Sustainability performance 5.74 .59 .87 .7 − .04 − .007 .45*** .25*** .15* .79*** .75*** .67*** .57*** .9
M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation; CR = Composite Reliability; AVE = Average Variance Extracted

Average Variance Extracted (AVE) square roots are shown in bold on the correlation matrix diagonal
*
p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Y. Chen et al.
Table 6 Results
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Outcomes DDC SP DDC DDC DDC
Controls
Firm age − .08 (− 1.1819) − .01 (− .28) − .08 (− 1.955) − .05 (− 1.276) − .08 (− 1.997)
Firm size − .03 (− .702) − .04 (− 1.08) − .06 (− 1.376) − .04 (− .891) − .06 (− 1.403)
Market turbulence .10 (1.864) .09 (2.18*) .05 (1.040) .05 (0.888) .06 (1.145)
Technology turbulence .05 (0.920) − .09 (− 2.17*) .05 (1.003) .04 (0.798) .06 (1.232)
Competitive intensity − .05 (− 1.059) .04 (1.02) − .02 (− .363) − .04 (− .853) − .02 (− .515)
Independent Variables
Platform RI quality (PRIQ) .65 (13.158***) .51 (10.46***) .46 (7.95***) .53 (10.453***) .44 (6.849***)
Mediator
Data-driven dynamic capabilities (DDC) .38 (7.93***)
Moderator
Digital regulatory pressure (DRP) .37 (6.464***)
Digital customer pressure (DCP) .32 (5.942***)
Interactions
PRIQ x DRP .13 (2.785**) .20 (2.541*)
PRIQ x DCP .14 (2.985**)
PRIQ2 x DRP .11 (1.121)
Model Summary
Adjusted R-square .50 .71 .57 .56 .57
F-value 45.67*** 92.31*** 45.07*** 43.30*** 40.24***
***p < .001; **p < .010; *p < .050

Standardised coefficients are reported with (t value) in parentheses
13
Y. Chen et al.
aDigital regulatory pressure

4
3
Low data-driven dynamic
capabilities
1
Low Platform RI quality High Platform RI quality
b 4
Digital customer pressure
3
Low data-drvien dynamic
capbilities
1 Low Platform RI quality High Platform RI quality
Fig. 2 Graphical representation
Robustness tests
We use the double-check method by testing the first-edition questionnaires.

Although the specific items in the first and second questionnaires differ, they all
measure the same variables. Using the data from the first questionnaire for the same
test can verify the accuracy of our conclusions from different angles. Moreover, hav-
ing different items shows that our theory remains consistent under various measure-
ment contexts. The moderator for the first questionnaire (institutional pressure) is
also somewhat different from the moderators for the second questionnaire (digital
regulatory pressure and consumer pressure). The positive and significant impact of
the platform RI quality (β = .43, p < .001) on the sustainable development perfor-
mance of the SMEs is tested in Model 1 (Table 7). Model 2 reveals that the mediator
data-driven dynamic capabilities had a significant effect (β = .74, p < .001) on the
13
Table 7 Robustness tests

Model1 Model2 Model3
Outcomes DDC SDP DDC
Independent Variables
Platform RI quality (PRIQ) .43 (7.217***) .10 (2.159*) .35 (5.833***)
Mediator
Data-driven dynamic capabilities .74 (16.397***)
(DDC)
Moderator
Institutional pressure (IP) .331 (5.449***)
Interactions
PRIQ x IP .15 (2.439*)
Model Summary
Adjusted R-square .18 .62 .46
F-value 52.09*** 186.39*** 65.35***
***p < .001; **p < .010; *p < .050

Standardised coefficients are reported with (t value) in parentheses
relationship between the platform RI quality and the sustainable development per-
formance of SMEs. Model 3 reveals that institutional pressure (β = .15, p < .05) is
positively linear and positively moderate the relationship between the platform RI
quality and data-driven dynamic capabilities. The robustness results presented in
Table 7 are consistent with the theory of this paper and are qualitatively similar to
the findings reported in Table 6.
Discussion
The importance of RI in business has been studied extensively (Scuotto et al., 2022;
Owen et al., 2021; Jarmai & Vogel-Pöschl, 2020), but these studies often ignore
the frontier scenarios of platform innovation ecosystems, lack more effective dia-
logue with stakeholder theory (Bacq & Aguilera, 2022), and the intermediate path
and dynamic mechanism of how RI affects the performance of sustainable develop-
ment remains unknown. Therefore, by fusing dynamic capabilities and institutional
theories, we take the key players of the platform ecosystem – SMEs—as a research
perspective, exploring the impact of platform RI quality on data-driven SME sus-
tainable development performance, and the mediating effect of SME dynamic capa-
bilities. Meanwhile, the regulatory effect of institutional pressure is further consid-
ered, which provided a new perspective for the study of RI. We empirically assess
Hypotheses 1–5 through an empirical analysis of 268 Chinese SMEs embedded in
the platform. This chapter discusses the main findings and their different contribu-
tions to related theories.
The main finding of this study is that the RI quality of platform enterprises
can have a significant positive impact on the data-driven sustainable development
13
Y. Chen et al.
performance of SMEs. This further confirms that RI, as indicated in the literature,
needs to meet the heterogeneous needs of different stakeholders, rather than gener-
alising the needs (Jarmai & Vogel-Pöschl, 2020). On this basis, this research crea-
tively embeds the RI theory into a platform ecosystem situation with the character-
istics of the symbiosis of multiple interests. Further strengthen the core position of
the concepts of inclusiveness and value co-creation in the RI theoretical framework,
and provide feasible solutions for the sustainable development of the platform eco-
system. In addition, we also broke the lack of proper and unified standards in RI
research, standardized and substantiated the RI quality of platform enterprise based
on Wickson and Carew, (2014).
At the same time, the final data results reveal that the dynamic capabil-
ity building of SMEs is the key “mediator” for the RI quality of the platform
leader to affect the sustainable development performance of SMEs. This is
mainly because when SMEs face disruptive challenges brought about by emerg-
ing breakthroughs such as big data and its related technologies (El-Kassar &
Singh, 2019), dynamic capabilities can help SMEs integrate, build, and recon-
figure internal and external capabilities (Mikalef et al., 2018; Teece, 2007) to
quickly adapt to external uncertainties and gain sustainable competitive advan-
tage (Helfat & Raubitschek, 2018). This is especially important for SMEs with
insufficient resources, experience, knowledge, and capabilities (El-Kassar &
Singh, 2019). Moreover, because big data has a global impact on dynamic capa-
bilities, including institutional environment, organisational structure, organisa-
tional form, and high-level cognition (Warner & Wäger, 2019), we cannot sim-
ply use traditional methods to measure dynamic capabilities, but need to embed
data-driven specific content into the connotation and dimensions of dynamic
capabilities. We use empirical data to support the special value of data-driven
dynamic capabilities, which is a major advance in the research and application
of dynamic capabilities in the field of big data.
Finally, the study also found that digital regulatory pressure and digital customer
pressure are important moderators of the relationship between platform RI quality
and SMEs’ data-driven dynamic capabilities. This is mainly because big data tech-
nologies and applications such as ABCD have profoundly affected the entire innova-
tion ecosystem of the platform and SMEs, including the system environment, the
innovative model of the enterprise organization, and the cognition and behavior of
the executive/individual/individual, and these are precisely the cause of corporate
dynamic capabilities (Hinings et al., 2018; Greenwood et al., 2011). We discussed
the new changes in the cause of data-driven dynamic capabilities and its connota-
tion, and expanded the connotation of dynamic capabilities in traditional non-digital
situations. Moreover, our conclusions respond to Gegenhuber et al.’s (2020) empiri-
cal call for research on the correlation between digital transformation and institu-
tional theory, extending Swaminathan and Wade’s (2016) research on institutional
pressure to the field of platform ecosystem, and further confirm the positive mod-
erating relationship between digital customer stress levels and platform RI quality
and data-driven dynamic capabilities. However, the moderating effect of digital
regulatory pressure proved stronger in terms of platform RI quality and data-driven
dynamic capabilities, rather than in an inverted U-shape, as assumed by H4. This
13
may be because China is currently in the primary stage of digital transformation,

and favourable policy guidance has greatly enhanced SMEs’ willingness and capa-
bilities in digital transformation (Shi & Weber, 2020). This can encourage SMEs to
more actively acquire, use, and transform effective digital resources that overflow
under high platform RI quality, and the acquisition of these resources can be a solid
foundation for their dynamic capabilities. In other words, under the current pres-
sure of the government’s push-type system, SMEs may more actively acquire, use,
and transform the effective digital resources that overflow under the high quality of
platform RI, which can be a solid foundation for their dynamic capability building
(Felin & Powell, 2016). The inverted U-shaped effect may be seen in a few years,
indicating market maturity (Lütjen et al., 2019).
Theoretical contributions
As the first contribution, we extend the empirical study of RI in the platform ecosys-
tem. In the past, although some studies have discussed RI issues in business envi-
ronments (Owen et al., 2021), the RI implementation of platform ecosystems under
digital transformation has largely been ignored. In addition, this paper responds in
time to Bacq and Aguilera’s (2022) call for a more productive dialogue between
RI and stakeholder theory. Although most of the research conclusions confirmed
that stakeholders and society should be considered the core of practice RI (Jarmai
& Vogel-Poschi, 2020), ours may be the first paper to discuss RI practices from
the perspective of platform ecosystem stakeholders, with a focus on the empirical
study of RI. Although some scholars have associated sustainable development goals
with RI practice (Wang & Miller, 2020), this paper has contributed to the empirical
research between them. Many studies have focused on Western developed countries
and lacked an in-depth exploration of RI issues in emerging Asia–Pacific markets
(Hartley et al., 2019). On the basis of the above findings, this research takes China’s
platform SMEs as the research perspective, focuses on discussing the influencing
factors of their sustainable development performance while implementing digital
transformation embedded in the platform, and regards the ssustainable development
of platform SMEs as an essential verification of the overall RI realisation of the plat-
form ecosystem.
Meanwhile, to further examine the impact of platform companies on the sus-
tainable development of platform SMEs, we introduce the concept of RI quality
(Wickson & Carew, 2014) to understand a series of responsible and fair competitive
behaviours of platform enterprises. Because the concept of RI quality is also more
novel, our research has not only expanded RI quality research scope but also made
a breakthrough in research methods. The final result shows that the RI quality of
platform enterprises has a significant positive impact on the sustainable develop-
ment performance of platform SMEs. Higher RI quality can bring better resources
and knowledge to SMEs embedded in the platform, thus improving their data-driven
dynamic capabilities and, in turn, sustainable development performance. This is
undoubtedly a good manifestation of the overall RI implementation of the platform
ecosystem.
13
Y. Chen et al.
As a second contribution, we observe the importance of data-driven dynamic

capabilities in the transformation of the RI value of platform leaders into the sustain-
able development of SMEs. Studies have investigated the direct impact of leading
platform enterprises in the development of SMEs within the platform (Geissinger
et al., 2019), but have ignored RI and sustainable development issues. Our research
shows that the cultivation and improvement of SMEs’ data-driving dynamic capabil-
ities may be a key intermediary of platform RI quality in SMEs’ sustainable devel-
opment performance. At present, some scholars have studied dynamic capabilities,
strategy, and innovation in digital contexts, but most have focused on digital indus-
tries or digital platform companies and are less concerned with changes in dynamic
capabilities in data-driven situations. We focus on digital sensing, digital seizing,
digital transforming, and empirical support for the construction of the data-driven
dynamic capabilities of SMEs to help improve sustainable development, which is
consistent with findings of Eikelenboom and De Jong (2018). We utilise the quan-
titative method to test the driving factors of the data-driven dynamic capabilities
of SMEs and their effects on sustainable development performance, extending the
research background on Western European cases by Warner and Wäger (2019) to an
Asia–Pacific context.
Through the important drivers of platform-leading enterprise RI quality as
the dynamic capabilities of SMEs, the development of dynamic capabilities is
extended to the RI field. In view of the multi-important identity overlap between
platform leaders and the non-unbalanced distribution of platform resources
(Nambisan et al., 2017), our research results reflect the fact that the data-driven
dynamic capabilities of SMEs are based on available effective digital resources
(Jiang et al., 2020) and related platform knowledge development. This is con-
sistent with the research conclusions of dynamic capabilities in the traditional
field (Cui & Jiang, 2012) and expands the research situation and research field of
dynamic capabilities.
As the third contribution, we respond to Gegenhuber et al.’s (2020) call for an
empirical approach to digital transformation and institutional theory and expand
the embedding and application of neo-institutional theory in the context of digital
transformation, which studies the effects of external institutional pressure on organi-
sations. Scott (1995) believed that institutions have multiple interpretation dimen-
sions, which are a persistent social structure composed of symbolic elements, social
activities, and material resources; thus, the speed of institutional change is relatively
slow. However, in the context of digital transformation, the rapid reshaping of tra-
ditional industries and fields by digital institutions further challenges the existing
power structure and meaning system due to rapid changes in digital technologies
and models.
The essence of dynamic capabilities is to explore the problem of enterprises and
environmental interaction; thus, the related role of digital system pressure should
be taken into consideration when further exploring the impact of platform RI qual-
ity and the data-driven dynamic capabilities of platform SMEs. Companies often
adopt strategies and behaviours that are discharged from the system to obtain sup-
port and resources in the institutional environment (Di Maggio & Powell, 1983).
SMEs in emerging economies embedded in platform companies, which usually
13
have effective resources and knowledge, can gain access to the platform ecosys-
tem. However, this does not mean that SMEs must have the capabilities to absorb,
digest, and use resources and knowledge. Instead, we empirically test the mod-
erating effect of institutional pressure induced by digital technologies, including
digital regulatory pressure and digital customer pressure (Swaminathan & Wade,
2016), on RI quality of platform firms and data-driven dynamic capabilities build-
ing of SMEs embedded into the platform. We find that digital customer pressures
moderate the role between platform enterprise RI quality and the construction of
data-driven dynamic capabilities of SMEs embedded in the platform. This shows
that the number of digital customer pressures for SMEs in the digital economy can
increase significantly as consumers’ digital characteristics and suppliers’ demands
for digital agility change rapidly. To respond quickly to market changes and avoid
being eliminated, the platform SMEs can be more motivated to actively absorb,
dig, and learn related digital transformation resources and knowledge; improve the
recognition of the importance of digital transformation; and regard digital trans-
formation as a master project of enterprises. Meanwhile, to obtain the cognitive
legitimacy of digital consumers and realise the sustainable development of the
platform, platform enterprises will constantly improve RI quality as the pressure
of digital consumers increases. Therefore, we conclude that the increase in digital
consumer pressure deepens the relationship between the RI quality of platform
enterprises and the data-driven dynamic capability building of SMEs embedded in
the platform.
By contrast, we have not received relevant data support for the prediction of digi-
tal regulatory pressure. We did not find an inverted U-shaped moderating effect of
digital regulatory pressure; however, we identified a significant positive moderating
effect as digital customer pressure. This indicates that with the increasing supervi-
sion of the Chinese government on digital transformation, the influence of the RI
quality of platform enterprises on the data-driven dynamic capability building of
SMEs can be further strengthened (Zhou et al., 2018). More importantly, there is
currently no evidence that the government’s digital regulatory pressure has a nega-
tive impact on the platform ecosystem. We posit one possible explanation: because
China is in the initial stage of digital transformation, the government and relevant
departments provide some incentive and preferential treatment to encourage enter-
prises’ digital transformation, including resources, finance, and taxation, human
resources, and financing. Therefore, at this stage, the more intensive the govern-
ment’s policies on digital transformation, the more obvious their benefits to SMEs
on the platform, which in turn stimulate the initiative of SMEs in digital transfor-
mation. For platform enterprises, relatively loose digital supervision has led to
many negative effects, which have resulted in negative effects on some stakehold-
ers. Therefore, at this stage, stricter digital supervision of platform enterprises not
only conforms to the development law of the platform economy but also plays a
vital role in guiding the sustainable development of the platform ecosystem. Thus,
the current digital regulatory pressure can have an absolute forward effect on the
relationship between platform enterprise RI quality and the construction of platform
SMEs’ data-driven dynamic capabilities.
13
Y. Chen et al.
Managerial implications
Our findings have interesting practical implications for management. First, SMEs
that seek to embed into some competitive platform ecosystems could promote their
sustainable development performance by establishing their data-driven dynamic
capabilities. The improvement in the overall performance of SMEs in economic,
social, and environmental contexts directly affects the realisation of RI in the plat-
form ecosystem. This improvement can benefit SMEs seeking to climb the value
chain and enhance the legitimacy of their stakeholders while also improving their
performance in sustainable development. Our results reveal that SMEs can build up
their data-driven capabilities in three domains: digital sensing, digital seizing, and
digital transforming. The data-sensing capabilities of SMEs could be established by
digital scouting and digital scenario planning to take advantage of unexpected trends
in a rapidly changing environment in real time. In addition, during digital trans-
formation, SMEs need to further form their digital strategic thinking to reduce the
threat of path dependence and new knowledge and to gain a competitive advantage
in the digital war. Digital seizing capabilities are embodied in strategic agility, such
as making rapid decisions under conditions of deep uncertainty to seize windows of
opportunity in technology and policies (Volberda et al., 2018). Digital transforming
capabilities involve the adoption or transformation of technology, intra-organisation
and cross-border collaboration, and continuous updating of a company’s digital
culture (Karimi & Walter, 2016). Moreover, the digital capabilities of employees
and effective interactions with new partners are key to forming digital transforming
capabilities.
Second, although the current concept of platform leadership is not uniformly
accepted, there are multiple leadership styles, such as technical leadership, busi-
ness leadership, and comprehensive leadership (Cusumano et al., 2020). How-
ever, as concepts mainly with RI and sustainable development have been increas-
ingly considered, many scholars have begun to realise that the pursuit of purely
technical value or purely commercial benefit could easily lead to deviations in
platform leaders’ decision-making and behaviour, as well as the co-destruction
of platform values (Laud et al., 2019). Therefore, platform leaders must pay more
attention to the ethical compliance, positive orientation, continuity of relation-
ships, and long-term goals of the platform. For example, the Green Mountain
Project of the Meituan platform represents a good link between merchants (e.g.
takeaway restaurants and life service providers), consumers, and riders in solving
problems related to plastic packaging and meal box recycling during the takea-
way process (Guo et al., 2021). Platform-leading companies also need to further
realise the sharing, co-creation, and mutual benefits of the platform under the
guidance of mutually beneficial entrepreneurship when seeking the transforma-
tion and upgrading of the platform.
Third, from the perspective of neo-institutional theory, cultural value ori-
entation, and formal institutional pressure are important factors that affect the
13
realisation of RI in the platform ecosystem. Our empirical results do not fully

reflect the regulatory effect of institutional pressure in this context, which may
have been due to the current stage of China’s digital transformation. Regard-
less of the theory or experience, a high degree of responsibility (Gangi et al.,
2018), social participation, tolerance, sustainable development, and entrepre-
neurial spirit (Scuotto et al., 2020) help cultivate a responsible platform ecosys-
tem, which is crucial for achieving a high-quality and sustainable societal digital
transformation. The development of national and local anti-monopoly regulations
must keep up with commercial innovation and the implementation of dynamic
and accurate monitoring and evaluation. Only in this way can we improve exist-
ing regulations and guide platform leaders, platform SMEs, and stakeholder
groups in the platform ecosystem to consciously raise their attention towards
and invest in the quality of their products or services, thus improving the overall
quality of RI at the national level. At present, the relevant digital transformation
policies of the Chinese government still focus on transformation incentives. More
concerns about the environment, people’s livelihoods, ethics, and sustainability
remain to be addressed.
Limitations and suggestions for future research
This study has some limitations. First, considering the availability and richness
of the data, we focus on the relevant data of SMEs in Zhejiang’s manufacturing
industry in China, thereby limiting generalizability. Therefore, future research
could use data from manufacturing SMEs or other industries from other prov-
inces or other countries to test our research results. Second, because we only
consider the moderating effect of two institutional pressure factors, future
research is very interested in exploring other moderating factors, such as organ-
isational culture, digital platform capabilities, strategic orientation, multina-
tional nationality, and platform user scale. This, because our data mainly comes
from the investigation of SMEs, we could not obtain data related to online busi-
ness performance, online product or service categories, and online consumer
characteristics on different platforms, precluding us from effectively control-
ling possible factors affecting the sustainable development of SMEs. Similarly,
due to the availability of online SMEs on digital platforms, we cannot directly
measure online costs related to the construction of dynamic capabilities and
sustainable development performance. Future studies should clearly measure
the special cost factors of online operations of enterprises and capture the busi-
ness of small and medium-sized enterprises on the digital platform, and eluci-
date the differences between the same or different businesses online and offline
operations, and its influence of external factors such as platform leaders, poli-
cies, and consumers.
13
Y. Chen et al.
Appendix 1
Tables 8 and 9
Table 8 Questionnaire references

Measurement items References
Data-driven dynamic capabilities Digital sensing Teece (2007); Warner and Wäger
(2019)
Digital seizing Teece (2007); Warner and Wäger
(2019)
Digital transforming Teece (2007); Warner and Wäger
(2019)
Sustainability performance Social performance Martinez-Conesa et al. (2017)
Environmental performance Martinez-Conesa et al. (2017)
Economic performance Judge and Douglas (1998)
Platform RI quality (PRIQ) Socially relevant and solution- Wickson and Carew (2014)
oriented
Sustainability-centred and future Wickson and Carew (2014)
scanning
Diverse and deliberative Wickson and Carew (2014)
Reflexive and responsive Wickson and Carew (2014)
Rigorous and robust Wickson and Carew (2014)
Creative and elegant Wickson and Carew (2014)
Honest and accountable Wickson and Carew (2014)
Institutional pressure Digital regulatory pressure Bansal and Clelland (2004); Del-
mas and Toffel (2004); Zhu and
Sarkis (2007)
Digital customer pressure Bansal and Clelland (2004); Del-
mas and Toffel (2004); Zhu and
Sarkis (2007)
Control variables Firm age Bagheri et al. (2019); Zhou et al.
(2007)
Firm size Bagheri et al. (2019); Zhou et al.
(2007)
Market turbulence Bagheri et al. (2019); Zhou et al.
(2007)
Technology turbulence Bagheri et al. (2019); Zhou et al.
(2007)
Competition intensity Bagheri et al. (2019); Zhou et al.
(2007)
13
Appendix 2
Table 9 Measurement items and reliabilities
Construct Items Alpha
Dependent Variables
Sustainability performance In recent years, your company’s return on investment has generally showed an upward trend .903
In recent years, your company’s profits are generally on the rise
The sales volume of your company in recent years is generally on the rise
The market share of your company in recent years is generally on the rise
Does your company use reusable, repairable, and recyclable products and packaging?
Does your company voluntarily act in accordance with the environmental laws and regulations?
Does your company invest in energy conservation and emission reduction?
Does your company adopt measures to design ecological products or services?
Does your company implement a plan to reduce water consumption?

Does your company conduct regular environmental audits?
Our company considers the interests of its employees when making decisions
Our company supports employees who are willing to receive further training
Our company helps employees achieve a job satisfaction balance
Our company understands the importance of stable employment
Our company makes regular training plans for employees
Our company fulfils its promise of quality and price
We inform customers of the proper use of our products and the risks associated with them
We take the necessary measures to avoid customer dissatisfaction
We respond to customer feedback
Our company consider the interests of suppliers when making decisions
13
Table 9 (continued)
13
We ask our suppliers what they think of our company
We inform suppliers about the changes made in our company
Our company considers the interests of local communities when making decisions
Our company supports and actively participates in local cultural and sports activities
Our company keeps close contact with the local government and relevant departments
Our company is deeply integrated in local development and contributes to local high-quality development
Our company has relevant support programmes for vulnerable groups
Independent Variables .801
Platform RI quality Are you satisfied with the results of the platform in solving major social problems?
Are you satisfied with the degree to which the platform supports sustainable development strategy and healthy
competition in the market?
Are you satisfied with the degrees of diversification and mutual negotiation in the platform?
Are you satisfied with the speed and effects of the platform’s response to policies or government suggestions?
Are you satisfied with the comprehensiveness, reliability, and fairness of the platform in monitoring the corporate
code of conduct and providing the review results?
Are you satisfied with the responsible innovation ability of the platform?
Are you satisfied with the openness of the platform information?
Mediator .814
Data-driven dynamic capabilities The company can perceive the latest digital trends (including technology, competitors, and customer needs)
The company can accurately analyse digital resources, build digital (production, operation and sales) scenarios,
and formulate digital strategies
The company can use the digital thinking mode and build a digital-oriented culture
The company exhibits high strategic agility in grasping the latest trends and avoiding potential threats
The company can quickly develop prototypes by setting up or acquiring separate digital departments or enterprises
to meet customer needs
Y. Chen et al.
Table 9 (continued)
The company can balance the internal and external asset portfolios to realise the continuous innovation of the
digital business model
The company has reorganised its internal structure for digital transformation
The company attaches importance to the digital ability of young employees and believes that it can considerably
improve the overall digital ability of the organisation
The company attaches importance to establishing a digital innovation ecosystem and effectively interacts and
cooperates with new partners
Moderator .777
Institutional pressure The supervision of government agencies has considerably affected our enterprise’s attention to digital transforma-
tion
Stricter regulation of digital transformation is the main reason why we pay attention to its impact on the sustain-
able development of enterprises

Our company’s digital transformation efforts can help shape future digital transformation legislation throughout
the whole industry
Our industry faces strict digital transformation supervision
Our customers believe that digital transformation is an extremely important issue facing the world today
Our customers have increasingly higher requirements for digital products and services
Our customers expect our enterprise to be digital-driven
13
Y. Chen et al.
Acknowledgements This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.
72032008; 71772165), the Major Research Project of Philosophy & Social Sciences of the Ministry of
Education, P.R. China (No. 17JZD018), and the funding “Soft Science Research Program of Zhejiang
Province”, (No.2021C35071).
References
Anand, J., Oriani, R., & Vassolo, R. S. (2010). Alliance activity as a dynamic capability in the face of a
discontinuous technological change[J]. Organization Science, 21(6), 1213–1232.
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Mar-
keting Research, 14(3), 396–402.
Bacq, S., & Aguilera, R. V. (2022). Stakeholder governance for responsible innovation: A theory of value
creation, appropriation, and distribution. Journal of Management Studies, 59(1), 29–60.
Bagheri, M., et al. (2019). Internationalization orientation in SMEs: The mediating role of technological
innovation. Journal of International Management, 25(1), 121–139.
Bansal, P., & Clelland, I. (2004). Talking trash: Legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic
risk in the context of the natural environment. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1), 93–103.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation–confirmation
model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351–370.
Birkinshaw, J., Visnjic, I., & Best, S. (2018). Responding to a potentially disruptive technology: How big
pharma embraced biotechnology. California Management Review, 60(4), 74–100.
Bos-Brouwers, H. E. J. (2010). Corporate sustainability and innovation in SMEs: Evidence of themes and
activities in practice. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(7), 417–435.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Cross-cultural research methods (pp. 47–82). Environment and Culture. Springer.
Caputo, F., et al. (2021). Knowledge hiding in socioeconomic settings: Matching organisational and envi-
ronmental antecedents. Journal of Business Research, 135, 19–27.
Cennamo, C., Ozalp, H., & Kretschmer, T. (2018). Platform architecture and quality trade-offs of multi-
homing complements. Information Systems Research, 29(2), 461–478.
Chattergoon, B., & Kerr, W. R. (2022) Winner takes all? Tech clusters, population centers, and the spatial
transformation of U.S. invention. Research Policy, 51, 104418.
Chen, M.-J., & Miller, D. (2012). Competitive dynamics: Themes, trends, and a prospective research plat-
form. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 135–210.
Chen, Y., et al. (2022). Building data-driven dynamic capabilities to arrest knowledge hiding: A knowl-
edge management perspective. Journal of Business Research, 139, 1138–1154.
Ciampi, F., Demi, S., Magrini, A., et al. (2021). Exploring the impact of big data analytics capabilities on
business model innovation: The mediating role of entrepreneurial orientation[J]. Journal of Busi-
ness Research, 123, 1–13
CNN. (2021). China hits Alibaba with record $2.8 billion fine for behaving like a monopoly. https://editi
on.cnn.com/2021/04/10/tech/alibaba-china-record-fine/index.html
Coussement, K., Lessmann, S., & Verstraeten, G. (2017). A comparative analysis of data preparation
algorithms for customer churn prediction: A case study in the telecommunication industry. Deci-
sion Support Systems, 95, 27–36.
Cui, L., & Jiang, F. (2012). State ownership effect on firms’ FDI ownership decisions under institutional
pressure: A study of Chinese outward–investing firms. Journal of International Business Studies,
43(3), 264–284.
Cusumano, M. A., Gawer, A., & Yoffie, D. B. (2019). The business of platforms: Strategy in the age of
digital competition, innovation, and power: Harper Business New York.
Cusumano, M., Yoffie, D., & Gawer, A.(2020). The future of platforms. MIT Sloan Management Review
Del Giudice, M., et al. (2019). Are social enterprises technological innovative? A quantitative analysis
on social entrepreneurs in emerging countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 148,
119704.
Delmas, M., & Toffel, M. W. (2004). Stakeholders and environmental management practices: An institu-
tional framework. Business Strategy and the Environment, 13(4), 209–222.
DiMaggio, Paul, J., Powell, Walter, & W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–147.
13
Dubey, R., et al. (2019). Big data and predictive analytics and manufacturing performance: Integrating
institutional theory, resource-based view and big data culture. British Journal of Management,
30(2), 341–361.
Eikelenboom, M. & De Jong, G. (2018). The impact of dynamic capabilities on SME sustainable per-
formance. Academy of Management Proceedings, Academy of Management Briarcliff Manor, NY
10510.
Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. W. (2006). Strategies for two-sided markets. Harvard Busi-
ness Review, 84(10), 92.
El-Kassar, A.-N., & Singh, S. K. (2019). Green innovation and organisational performance: The influence
of big data and the moderating role of management commitment and HR practices. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 144, 483–498.
Felin, T., & Powell, T. C. (2016). Designing organisations for dynamic capabilities. California Manage-
ment Review, 58(4), 78–96.
Gangi, F. , Mustilli, M. , & Varrone, N. (2018). The impact of corporate social responsibility (csr)
knowledge on corporate financial performance: evidence from the european banking industry.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(3).
Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2014). Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 31(3), 417–433.
Gegenhuber, T., Logue, D., Hinings, B. C., & Barrett, M. (2020). Digital transformation and institutional
theorizing: Consequences, opportunities and challenges. Research in the Sociology of Organiza-
tions. Call for papers.
Geissinger, A., et al. (2019). How sustainable is the sharing economy? On the sustainability connotations
of sharing economy platforms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 206, 419–429.
Genus, A., & Stirling, A. (2018). Collingridge and the dilemma of control: Towards responsible and
accountable innovation. Research Policy, 47(1), 61–69.
Gianni, R., & Goujon, P. (2014). Governance of responsible innovation (p. 2). Paris: Analytical GRID
Report: Deliverabe.
Greenwood, R., et al. (2011). Institutional complexity and organisational responses. Academy of Manage-
ment Annals, 5(1), 317–371.
Gressgård, L. J., Amundsen, O., Aasen, T. M., & Hansen, K. (2014). Use of information and communica-
tion technology to support employee-driven innovation in organizations: a knowledge management
perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(4), 633–650.
Guo, M., et al. (2021). Research on environmental issue and sustainable consumption of online takeout
food—Practice and enlightenment based on China’s Meituan. Sustainability, 13(12), 6722.
Hair, J. F. (2009). Multivariate data analysis.
Hannah, D. P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2018). How firms navigate cooperation and competition in nascent
ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(12), 3163–3192.
Hartley, S., et al. (2019). A retrospective analysis of responsible innovation for low-technology innova-
tion in the Global South. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 6(2), 143–162.
Heidenreich, S., et al. (2015). The dark side of customer co-creation: Exploring the consequences of
failed co-created services. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(3), 279–296.
Helfat, C. E., & Raubitschek, R. S. (2018). Dynamic and integrative capabilities for profiting from inno-
vation in digital platform-based ecosystems. Research Policy, 47(8), 1391–1399.
Hinings, B., et al. (2018). Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective. Informa-
tion and Organisation, 28(1), 52–61.
Hoornaert, S., et al. (2017). Identifying new product ideas: Waiting for the wisdom of the crowd or
screening ideas in real time. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34(5), 580–597.
Huy, Q., & Zott, C. (2019). Exploring the affective underpinnings of dynamic managerial capabilities:
How managers’ emotion regulation behaviors mobilize resources for their firms. Strategic Manage-
ment Journal, 40(1), 28–54.
Iatridis, K., & Schroeder, D. (2016). Responsible research and innovation in industry. Springer.
Jarmai, K., & Vogel-Pöschl, H. (2020). Meaningful collaboration for responsible innovation. Journal of
Responsible Innovation, 7(1), 138–143.
Jarmai, K., Tharani, A., & Nwafor, C. (2020). Responsible innovation in business[M]: Responsible Inno-
vation (pp. 7–17). Springer, Dordrecht.
Jayanti, R. K., & Raghunath, S. (2018). Institutional entrepreneur strategies in emerging economies: Cre-
ating market exclusivity for the rising affluent. Journal of Business Research, 89, 87–98.
13
Y. Chen et al.
Jiang, W., et al. (2020). The impact of business networks on dynamic capabilities and product innova-
tion: The moderating role of strategic orientation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 37(4),
1239–1266.
Judge, W. Q., & Douglas, T. J. (1998). Performance implications of incorporating natural environmental
issues into the strategic planning process: An empirical assessment. Journal of Management Stud-
ies, 35(2), 241–262.
Karimi, J., & Walter, Z. (2016). Corporate entrepreneurship, disruptive business model innovation
adoption, and its performance: The case of the newspaper industry. Long Range Planning, 49(3),
342–360.
Kretschmer, T., Leiponen, A., Schilling, M., & Vasudeva, G. (2022). Platform ecosystems as meta‐organ-
izations: Implications for platform strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 43(3), 405-424.
Kumar, V. , Lai, K. K. , Chang, Y. H. , Bhatt, P. C. , & Su, F. P.(2020). A structural analysis approach to
identify technology innovation and evolution path: a case of m-payment technology ecosystem.
Journal of Knowledge Management, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print).
Kusiak, A. (2017). Smart manufacturing must embrace big data. Nature, 544(7648), 23–25.
Laud, G. , Bove, L. L. , Ranaweera, C. , Leo, C. , & Smith, S. (2019). Value co-destruction: a typology
of resource misintegration manifestations. Journal of Services Marketing, 31(7), 866–889.
Lefebvre, I., & Plé, L. (2012). Emergence of value co-destruction in B2B context. Working paper, IESEG
School of Management.
Legner, C., Eymann, T., Hess, T., Matt, C., Böhmann, T., Drews, P., Mädche, A., Urbach, N., & Ahl-
emann, F. (2017). Digitalisation: Opportunity and challenge for the business and information sys-
tems engineering community. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 59(4), 301–308.
Li, J., et al. (2007). Identity, community, and audience: How wholly owned foreign subsidiaries gain
legitimacy in China. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 175–190.
Lintula, J., Tuunanen, T., Salo, M., & Kari, T.(2017). Understanding Augmented Reality Game Players
: Value Co-destruction Process in Pokémon Go. European Conference on Information Systems.
Liu, G., et al. (2021). Internationalization, corporate environmental performance and foreign institu-
tional pressures: Evidence from Chinese small- and medium-sized enterprises. Manuscript Draft,
Working Paper, Open University, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom.
Liu, X.-Y., et al. (2020). Introverts maintain creativity: A resource depletion model of negative workplace
gossip. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 37(1), 325–344.
Lubberink, R., et al. (2017). Lessons for responsible innovation in the business context: A systematic
literature review of responsible, social and sustainable innovation practices. Sustainability., 9(5),
721.
Lütjen, H., et al. (2019). Managing ecosystems for service innovation: A dynamic capability view. Jour-
nal of Business Research, 104, 506–519.
Martinez-Conesa, I., Soto-Acosta, P., & Palacios-Manzano, M. (2017). Corporate social responsibility
and its effect on innovation and firm performance: An empirical research in SMEs. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 142, 2374–2383.
McAfee, A., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2012). Strategy & competition Big Data: The management revolution.
Harvard Business Review, 90(10), 60.
McIntyre, D. P., & Srinivasan, A. (2017). Networks, platforms, and strategy: Emerging views and next
steps. Strategic Management Journal, 38(1), 141–160.
Mikalef, P., Pappas, I. O., Krogstie, J., & Giannakos, M. (2018). Big data analytics capabilities: A sys-
tematic literature review and research agenda. Information Systems and e-Business Management,
16(3), 547–578.
Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., & Song, M. (2017). Digital innovation management: rein-
venting innovation management research in a digital world. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 223–238.
Nambisan, S., et al. (2019). The digital transformation of innovation and entrepreneurship: Progress,
challenges and key themes. Research Policy, 48(8), 103773.
Nisar, Q. A., Nasir, N., Jamshed, S., et al. (2020). Big data management and environmental performance:
Role of big data decision-making capabilities and decision-making quality[J]. Journal of Enterprise
Information Management.
Orlando, B., Tortora, D., Riso, T., Di Gregorio, A., & Del Giudice, M. (2022). Entrepreneurial inten-
tions and high-status seeking in career expectations: a portrait of talents in emerging countries. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33(11), 2339–2372.
Owen, R., Bessant, J. R., & Heintz, M. (Eds.). (2013). Responsible innovation: managing the responsible
emergence of science and innovation in society. John Wiley & Sons.
13
Owen, R., et al. (2021). Organisational institutionalisation of responsible innovation. Research Policy,
50(1), 104132.
Papa, A. , Chierici, R. , Ballestra, L. V. , Meissner, D. , & Orhan, M. A. . (2020). Harvesting reflective
knowledge exchange for inbound open innovation in collaborative complex networks: an empirical
verification in europe. Journal of Knowledge Management, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print).
Pandza, K., & Ellwood, P. (2013). Strategic and ethical foundations for responsible innovation. Research
Policy, 42(5), 1112–1125.
Ramaswamy, V., & Ozcan, K. (2018). What is co-creation? An interactional creation framework and its
implications for value creation. Journal of Business Research, 84, 196–205.
Ransbotham, S., et al. (2015). The talent dividend. MIT Sloan Management Review, 56(4), 1–12.
Rossi, M., Festa, G., Papa, A., Kolte, A., & Piccolo, R. (2020). Knowledge management behaviors in
venture capital crossroads: a comparison between IVC and CVC ambidexterity. Journal of Knowl-
edge Management, 24(10), 2431–2454.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-opting customer competence. Harvard Business Review,
78(1), 79–90.
Santoro, G., et al. (2019). Do knowledge management and dynamic capabilities affect ambidextrous
entrepreneurial intensity and firms’ performance? IEEE Transactions on Engineering Manage-
ment, 68(2), 378–386.
Scholz, T.(2016). Platform cooperativism. Challenging the corporate sharing economy. New York: Rosa
Luxemburg Foundation.
Scott, W. R. (1995). Organisations and Institutions. Research in the Sociology of Organisations, 2(5),
44–45.
Scuotto, V., et al. (2020). A spill over effect of entrepreneurial orientation on technological innovative-
ness: An outlook of universities and research based spin offs. The Journal of Technology Transfer,
45(6), 1634–1654.
Scuotto, V., Garcia-Perez, A., Kalisz, D. E., & Dhir, A. (2022). Responsible I (m) ovation in Asia Pacific
regions. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1–25.
Sharma, R. (2016). The rise and fall of nations: Forces of change in the post–crisis world. WW Norton &
Company.
Shi, W., & Weber, M. (2020). The impact of entrepreneurs’ prior experience and communication net-
works on perceived knowledge access. Journal of Knowledge Management, 25(5), 1406–1426.
Singh, S. K., Takeyasu, K., & Nakamura, J. (2019). Active sites and mechanism of oxygen reduction reac-
tion electrocatalysis on nitrogen‐doped carbon materials. Advanced Materials, 31(13), 1804297.
Singh, S. K., et al. (2020). Green innovation and environmental performance: The role of green transfor-
mational leadership and green human resource management. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 150, 119762.
Skålén, P., et al. (2015). Exploring value propositions and service innovation: A service–dominant logic
study. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(2), 137–158.
Soublière, J.-F., & Gehman, J. (2020). The legitimacy threshold revisited: How prior successes and
failures spill over to other endeavors on Kickstarter. Academy of Management Journal, 63(2),
472–502.
Stallkamp, M., & Schotter, A. P. (2021). Platforms without borders? The international strategies of digital
platform firms. Global Strategy Journal, 11(1), 58–80.
Sukoco, B. M. , Suprayogi, N. , & Hidayati, N. A. (2018). The effects of market orientation on environ-
mental social responsibility programs: the moderating effects of institutional pressures. Pertanika
Journal of Social Science & Humanities, 26.
Sun, Y., Shao, X., Li, X., Guo, Y., & Nie, K. (2019). How live streaming influences purchase intentions in
social commerce: An IT affordance perspective. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,
37, 100886.
Svahn, F., et al. (2017). Mastering the digital innovation challenge. MIT Sloan Management Review,
58(3), 14.
Swaminathan, A. and Wade, J. (2016). Institutional environment. In M. Augier and D. Teece (eds.), The
Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management (pp. 1–7.), London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable)
enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.
Teo, H. H., Wei, K. K., & Benbasat, I. (2003). Predicting intention to adopt interorganizational linkages:
An institutional perspective. MIS quarterly, 19–49.
13
Y. Chen et al.
Thompson, B. S., & Harris, J. L. (2021). Changing environment and development institutions to enable
payments for ecosystem services: The role of institutional work. Global Environmental Change,
67, 102227.
Volberda, H., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Heij, K. (2018). Reinventing business models: How firms cope
with disruption. Oxford University Press.
Wamba, S. F., et al. (2015). How ‘big data’ can make big impact: Findings from a systematic review and
a longitudinal case study. International Journal of Production Economics, 165, 234–246.
Wang, H., Tong, L., Takeuchi, R., & George, G. (2016). Corporate social responsibility: An overview
and new research directions: Thematic issue on corporate social responsibility (534–544). Acad-
emy of Management Briarcliff Manor.
Wang, R. D., & Miller, C. D. (2020). Complementors’ engagement in an ecosystem: A study of publish-
ers’ e-book offerings on Amazon Kindle. Strategic Management Journal, 41(1), 3–26.
Warner, K. S. R., & Wäger, M. (2019). Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An
ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long Range Planning, 52(3), 326–349.
Wiarda, M., et al. (2021). A comprehensive appraisal of responsible research and innovation: From roots
to leaves. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 172, 121053.
Wickson, F., & Carew, A. L. (2014). Quality criteria and indicators for responsible research and innova-
tion: Learning from transdisciplinarity. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(3), 254–273.
Wu, T. (2018). The curse of bigness. Columbia Global Reports, 75.
Wu, C., Wu, P., Wang, J., Jiang, R., Chen, M., & Wang, X. (2021). Critical review of data-driven decision-
making in bridge operation and maintenance. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 18(1), 47–70.
Xiao, Y. (2022). China’s antitrust probe into the platform economy–A comment on the Alibaba decision.
GRUR International, 71(5), 432–438.
Zhou, K. Z., & Li, C. B. (2010). How strategic orientations influence the building of dynamic capability
in emerging economies. Journal of Business Research, 63(3), 224–231.
Zhou, Y., et al. (2018). Dynamic capability matters: Uncovering its fundamental role in decision making
of environmental innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 177, 516–526.
Zhou, L., Wu, W.-p., & Luo, X. (2007). Internationalization and the performance of born-global SMEs:
The mediating role of social networks. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4), 673–690.
Zhu, Q., & Sarkis, J. (2007). The moderating effects of institutional pressures on emergent green supply chain
practices and performance. International Journal of Production Research, 45(18–19), 4333–4355.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article
is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Yantai Chen (PhD) is a Professor of Innovation and Strategy Management at Zhejiang University of
Technology, P. R. China. After achieving his PhD at Fudan University in China, he worked at University
of Cologne (Germany) as an Alexander von Humboldt Fellow, Tsinghua University (China), and visitor
at Cambridge University, Harvard University and so on. He has extensive publications in the journals
such as Journal of World Business, Journal of Business Research, International Marketing Review and
some top Chinese journal such as Management World. He can be reached via E-mail: chenyt@zjut.edu.
cn.
Jing Li is an Instructor of Jiaxing University, P. R. China. She is now pursuing her PhD in management at
Zhejiang University of Technology, with a research interest in innovation and strategic management. She
has published extensively in journals such as Management World, Management Review and so on. She
can be reached via E-mail: 345130795@qq.com
Jingwen Zhang got her master degree in accounting at Drexel University (Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania,USA). She is now pursuing a business administration PhD program in Zhejiang University
of Technology. She can be reached via E-mail: 923718931@qq.com
13
Authors and Affiliations
Yantai Chen1 · Jing Li1,2 · Jingwen Zhang1

Yantai Chen
chenyt@zjut.edu.cn
Jingwen Zhang
923718931@qq.com
1
School of Management, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310000, China
2
School of Entrepreneurship, Jiaxing University, Jiaxing, Zhejiang 314001, China
13

s10490-022-09845-6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

s10490-022-09845-6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asia Pacific Journal of Management

Digitalisation, data‑driven dynamic capabilities

Yantai Chen1 · Jing Li1,2 · Jingwen Zhang1

Accepted: 13 August 2022

Keywords Responsible innovation in emerging markets · Data-driven dynamic

Research on the RI of platform ecosystems is relatively scarce; however, discussion

Theoretical background and hypotheses

Research on RI from the perspective of the platform ecosystem

emphasises the importance and necessity of participating in governance through the

Data‑driven dynamic capabilities of SMEs

Dynamic capabilities refer to an enterprise’s capabilities to integrate, build, and

Digital transformation and neo‑institutional theory

Institutions constitute a rule of economic, political, and social relations within an

Data‑drivendynamic capabilities of SMEs, platform RI quality,

Hypothesis 1 The data-driven dynamic capabilities of SMEs positively affect their

Hypothesis 2 High platform RI quality is more conducive to improving SMEs’ sus-

The rapid development of the platform economy has benefited numerous

platform-based enterprises, platform ecosystem participants, and the RI value of

Hypothesis 3 The data-driven dynamic capabilities of SMEs play an intermediary

Moderating effect of neo‑institutional pressure

As a derivative concept of neo-institutional theory, institutional pressure refers to

digital transformation. While the digital institutional environment is made up of

Moderating effect of digital regulatory pressure

However, current studies on digital regulatory pressure do not always present a

Hypothesis 4 Digital regulatory pressure has an inverted U-shaped moderating role

Moderating effect of digital customer pressure

Hypothesis 5 Digital customer pressure positively moderates platform RI quality,

Participants & procedure

Platform Responsible Data-Driven Dynamic Sustainable Development

Fig. 1 The conceptual model

Table 1 Non-response bias test Research variable Sample classification

Platform RI quality (PRIQ) − .467 .643

Common method biases

Table 2 Harman single factor test

Factor 1 16.295 24.690 24.690

Table 3 Fitting index of χ2 df CFI TLI RMSEA

Table 4 Loadings and cross- Constructs Items Loadings and Cross-loadings

DCP DCP1 .761 .418 .416 .414 .425

Table 4 (Continued) Constructs Items Loadings and Cross-loadings

SP27 .379 .488 .445 .57 .607

The bold presents that all indicator loadings exceeded the

regulatory pressure had no significant effect on data-driven dynamic capabilities.

1. Firm age 14.51 7.9 — — —

M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation; CR = Composite Reliability; AVE = Average Variance Extracted

***p < .001; **p < .010; *p < .050

aDigital regulatory pressure

1 Low Platform RI quality High Platform RI quality

Fig. 2 Graphical representation

We use the double-check method by testing the first-edition questionnaires.

Table 7 Robustness tests

***p < .001; **p < .010; *p < .050

may be because China is currently in the primary stage of digital transformation,

As a second contribution, we observe the importance of data-driven dynamic

realisation of RI in the platform ecosystem. Our empirical results do not fully

Limitations and suggestions for future research

Table 8 Questionnaire references

Does your company implement a plan to reduce water consumption?

able development of enterprises

Authors and Affiliations

Yantai Chen1 · Jing Li1,2 · Jingwen Zhang1

You might also like

p < .001; p < .010; p < .050

p < .001; p < .010; p < .050