sustainability

Article
Digitalization Effect on Business Performance: Role of Business
Model Innovation
Zhaozhi Wang 1,2 , Shoufu Lin 1 , Yang Chen 1 , Oleksii Lyulyov 3,4 and Tetyana Pimonenko 3,4, *

1 School of Economics, Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou 350117, China; wzz0701@163.com (Z.W.);
linshf2003@126.com (S.L.); cheny3598@gmail.com (Y.C.)
2 Department of Management, Concord University College, Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou 350108, China
3 Department of Marketing, Sumy State University, 40007 Sumy, Ukraine; alex_lyulev@econ.sumdu.edu.ua
4 Department of Applied Management, WSB University in Dabrowa Gornicza,
41300 Dabrowa Gornicza, Poland
* Correspondence: tetyana_pimonenko@econ.sumdu.edu.ua

Abstract: Digitalization has become a key driver of business innovation in recent years. It provides
businesses with new opportunities to innovate and create value. Digital technologies, such as cloud
computing, big data analytics, and artificial intelligence, have helped businesses boost the develop-
ment of new products and services, optimize their operations, and improve customer engagement.
This study aimed to analyze the impact of digitalization on business performance within business
innovation. This study applied an ordinary least square regression model and an intermediary to
explore relationship in the chain of digital capability–business model innovation–company perfor-
mance. The object of investigation was 1663 listed A-share companies Shanghai and Shenzhen in
the software and information technology service sectors. The results showed that digital capabilities
could be divided into three dimensions according to the hierarchical relationship: (1) basic digital
capabilities, (2) digital operation capabilities, and (3) digital integration capabilities, all of which
significantly positively affected enterprise performance. Furthermore, while business model inno-
vation significantly positively affected corporate performance, it was also driven by the preceding
variables of digital capabilities. Business model innovation enhanced the positive impact of basic
digital capabilities, digital operation capabilities, and digital integration capabilities on company’s
Citation: Wang, Z.; Lin, S.; Chen, Y.;
performance. Considering the empirical results, this study underlines that the government should
Lyulyov, O.; Pimonenko, T.
promote digital skills development, create supportive regulatory environments, promote access to
Digitalization Effect on Business
funding for innovations, foster partnerships between businesses and technology providers, and
Performance: Role of Business Model
Innovation. Sustainability 2023, 15,
promote collaboration between businesses, which are conducive to extending digitalization within
9020. https://doi.org/10.3390/ the business innovation model and improving business performance.
su15119020
Keywords: digital economy; business; digital integration; capabilities; digital operation capabilities;
Academic Editors: Umberto
sustainable development
Panniello and Angelo Natalicchio

Received: 30 April 2023

Revised: 27 May 2023
Accepted: 31 May 2023 1. Introduction
Published: 2 June 2023
In the digital era, data are becoming the core factor in production development. The
tapping and releasing the potential of data have become important paths for enterprises
to take advantage of trends and improve their performance. With digital capabilities,
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
enterprise managers can gain insight into the digital situations they face, identify digital
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. opportunities, improve operational efficiency, and integrate digital resources, which thus
This article is an open access article affect enterprise performance [1,2]. In addition, with the rapid development of digital
distributed under the terms and technology, the business model has undergone gradual as well as disruptive changes [3,4].
conditions of the Creative Commons Business model innovation is an important innovation activity of enterprises, acting as
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// the force driving enterprise performance improvement. It should be noted that the im-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ pact of business model innovation on business performance can vary depending on the
4.0/). industry [5,6], market conditions [7–9], and specific organizational contexts [10]. However,

Sustainability 2023, 15, 9020. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15119020 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 9020 2 of 19

overall, a well-executed and innovative business model can significantly contribute to

improved financial performance, market positioning, and long-term success [6–10]. Under
digital empowerment, the business model presents new characteristics in terms of elements,
processes, and target results [11]. The integration of digital capabilities can help enterprises
break through industry barriers and resource constraints. Consequently, it provides new
competitive advantages [12].
The literature describes some achievements in the research on digital capability and
business model innovation. However, there are still some deficiencies. On the one hand,
the concept and connotation of digital capability have been continuously enriched and
expanded, but no consensus has been formed on its performance logic. Driven by data
elements, digital capability has different value-promotion orientations according to the
different stages of enterprise development and has different forms of capability according
to the hierarchical relationship, but the existing research in this field is not clear. On the
other hand, existing scholars agree on the influence of digital capability on enterprise per-
formance. For example, Wang et al. [13] applied the meta-analysis method to take digital
capability as one of the dimensions to discuss the relationship between digital transforma-
tion and enterprise performance and situational conditions. Guan et al. [14] started from
resource arrangement theory and digital jump logic and selected 240 questionnaires for em-
pirical analysis to test the impact of digital capability on the performance of entrepreneurial
enterprises. The intermediary role of business model innovation has long been a hot topic
of academic discussion [15], and digital capability has significantly influenced business
model innovation [16,17]. Researchers have rarely integrated digital capability, business
model innovation, and enterprise performance into a theoretical analysis framework and
have not systematically analyzed the logical relationship among them.
This paper fills the scientific gaps and contributes to the theoretical landscape of
digitalization, innovation, and business performance through the following: (1) considering
the hierarchical order and redefining digital capability into three dimensions (digital basic,
digital operation, and digital integration capabilities) to lay a foundation for subsequent
research on the functional mechanism of digital capabilities; (2) further expanding the
research boundary of digital capability from the academic level. The study object included
listed A-share companies in Shanghai and Shenzhen. It should be noted that Shanghai
and Shenzhen are major economic hubs in China with vibrant business environments
and significant contributions to the country’s GDP [18]. The A-share market represents
the domestic market for Chinese companies and an important indicator of economic
performance [18–22]. Additionally, the listed A-share listed companies in Shanghai and
Shenzhen are subject to regulatory requirements for financial reporting and disclosure.
As a result, comprehensive and reliable data on these companies’ financial performance,
operations, and digital capabilities are readily available. Access to such data enhanced the
rigor and reliability of the investigation, allowing for more robust analysis.
This study analyzed the functional mechanism through which multiple dimensions
of digital capability influence enterprise performance; introduced intermediary variables
for business model innovation; and integrated digital capabilities, business model in-
novation, and enterprise performance into a theoretical framework. To a certain extent,
this study expands and clarifies the influence path of digital capability–business model
innovation–enterprise performance by establishing a theoretical framework and model
with general significance that can comprehensively reveal the performance improvement
of enterprises in the digital environment. From a practical point of view, the results of
this study can be used by business managers to form a conceptual understanding of dig-
ital capabilities. On this basis, enterprises are further encouraged to efficiently innovate
their traditional business models, break through the inertia of traditional organizations,
integrate existing resources and capabilities, and reduce the internal logic of enterprise
performance improvement.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9020 3 of 19

2. Literature Review
2.1. Dimensional Division of Digital Capabilities
Research on digital capability originated from related research on information technol-
ogy capability [19]. The information technology capability of an enterprise is considered
to be the capability of enterprises to acquire, transmit, and process information to make
effective decisions [20]. From this perspective, a study [2] outlines that the digital technol-
ogy and management capabilities of enterprises in the process of developing new digital
products can be defined as their digital capabilities. Information technology capabilities
can effectively improve the efficiency of information processing and the efficiency of data
use, but they can change the connectivity capability of enterprises to help enterprises more
widely and easily reach all kinds of resources, markets, and users [21]. Therefore, an in-
creasing number of scholars are beginning to define the connotation of digital competence
from the perspective of dynamic competence. A study [22] emphasizes the special dynamic
capabilities of an organization, where digital capabilities boost the digital transformation
of enterprises through digital perception, digital acquisition, and digital transformation.
In addition, from the perspective of resources, some scholars think that digital capability
includes the capability not only to apply digital technology but also to integrate the digital
resources of enterprises [16]. From a comprehensive review of the existing research, we
think that digital capability refers to data as the basic factors of production; on the basis
of digital hardware investment and collaborative software support, it further touches on
basic business and supporting obligations, systematically redefines enterprise activities,
and helps to solve the problem of upstream and downstream business synergy and internal
and external stakeholders to achieve a better and more agile response and meet customer
demand to achieve disruptive innovation.
We think that digital capability is driven by data as the basic factor of production and
is guided by the deductive logic of value function, which can be divided into basic digital
capability, digital operation capability and digital integration capability, according to a
hierarchical order. Among them, the basic digital capability emphasizes the initial input of
data elements that constructs a basic environment for enterprises and includes technical
support, organizational strategy, talent support, and security guarantees. Enterprises form
their digital capability based on the introduction of digital resources under the guidance
of operational efficiency, in combination with the integration of a new generation of infor-
mation technology, through the construction of digital infrastructure and the introduction
of digital talent, providing enterprises with perception, connection, storage, computing,
processing, and security for supporting digital infrastructure systems.
On this basis, data elements, enterprise planning, research and development, pro-
curement, production, sales of basic business and warehousing, logistics, finance, human
resources, and other supports of business integration change the organizational structure
and business model, improve enterprise business efficiency, and form the enterprise’s
digital operation capability through the enterprise business process and products and ser-
vices. Digital integration capability includes internal and external integration capabilities.
Internal integration emphasizes the use of real-time data, data lakes, data warehouses, and
other technologies to link various departments within the enterprise, establish a digital
resource-sharing system, and realize the exchange of internal information, knowledge, and
resources in the organization. External integration mainly refers to the use of data resources,
upstream and downstream supply chains, service providers, customers, peers, friends,
enterprises, government, social organizations, and stakeholders to establish a collaborative
network. The demands of all stakeholders help enterprises to further improve their ability
to meet potential demand to reveal the new demand on the creation level, using their own
digital advantages from their enterprise alliances, competition, cross-border cooperation,
and the construction of comprehensive ecological networks.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9020 4 of 19

2.2. Digital Capabilities Affect Enterprise Performance

There is a significant positive correlation between digital power and enterprise per-
formance. Digitalization enables businesses to streamline their operations through the
automation of processes, improved data management, and increased connectivity. By
leveraging digital technologies such as cloud computing, data analytics, and automation,
enterprises can optimize their resource allocation, reduce costs, and improve overall opera-
tional efficiency [23–27]. This, in turn, leads to improved performance indicators such as
productivity, profitability, and cost-effectiveness [28–31]. According to past studies [32–37],
digitalization affects enterprise performance by enhancing operational efficiency, expand-
ing market reach, improving customer experience, driving innovation and new revenue
streams, and enabling adaptation to a changing business environment. Business model
innovation plays a critical role in leveraging digitalization to unlock these performance
benefits. By reimagining and reconfiguring their business models to align with digital
opportunities, enterprises can maximize the transformative potential of digital technologies
and achieve sustainable growth [38–45].
Scholars [23] selected Chinese listed companies from 2007 to 2019 as the research
sample, empirically tested digital transformation, built basic digital capabilities, compen-
sated for the defects of insufficient enterprise resources, and then improved enterprise
performance. A study [46] empirically investigated the multiple influences of digitaliza-
tion on enterprise performance and its mechanisms in the form of text mining and stated
that digitalization affects enterprise performance through two paths: management and
sales activities.
Basic digital capability focuses on the construction of digital infrastructure and dig-
ital talent investment and emphasizes the hardware and software structure of digital
technology, which constitutes the underlying logic of digital capabilities. Among them,
digital infrastructure construction with big data, cloud computing, and artificial intelli-
gence digital platforms and software system structures as the carrier emphasizes data,
software, communication, software and hardware integration, form sharing, borderless
enterprise digital technology systems; shortens the physical space distance; can essentially
change the method of enterprise production and service; improve Chinese enterprise’s total
factor productivity and technology innovation level [46]; and improve enterprise digital
technology production capacity, thus driving the increase in enterprise performance. In
addition, digital talent investment is an important part of enterprises’ basic digital capabili-
ties, recruitment and training, main business, strategic direction adjustment related digital
talent, building of enterprise scarcity, heterogeneity, high-quality digital human resources,
sustainable competitive advantage, and enterprise performance.
The digital operation capability emphasizes the enterprise in the process of daily pro-
duction and operation, and the digital solution capability of the enterprise and supporting
businesses. This capability helps enterprises under the premise of digital resources support,
using modern digital information technology, establishing a link plan for research and
development, production management, sales management, the organizational and finan-
cial management data chain, improving the quality of products and services and output
efficiency, and improving enterprise business efficiency. The digital operation capability of
enterprises mainly includes the ability to apply data resources in both basic and supporting
businesses. Cultivating digital operation capabilities can help enterprises make full use
of artificial intelligence technology, achieve efficiency and agility, improve collaborative
technical intelligent service abilities, reshape business processes, prompt enterprise internal
specialization, integrate intelligent digital production operation processes, improve overall
operational efficiency, and eventually promote enterprise performance.
Digital integration capability emphasizes the enterprise’s use of data integration. The
basic enterprise and its supporting businesses, based on digital operation, can integrate
the organization’s internal and external resources, information, and technology through
continuous collaborative integration. As such, the enterprise will be able to achieve the
reasonable use of data resources and management, break the enterprise’s “data islands”,
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9020 5 of 19

and enable the formation of systematic integration capabilities [47]. When enterprises have
digital integration capability, they can more quickly and accurately obtain internal infor-
mation and share knowledge and resources. To achieve the coordination and matching of
internal and external resources, external market opportunities must be accurately identified
to choose the appropriate partners to compensate for the lack of resources and to mitigate
the risk of internal operations and external cooperation to promote the improvement in
enterprise performance. This paper proposes the following hypotheses:

H1: Digital capability significantly and positively affects enterprise performance.

H1a: Basic digital capabilities have a significant and positive impact on enterprise performance.

H1b: Digital operation capability has a significant and positive impact on enterprise performance.

H1c: Digital integration capability has a significant and positive impact on enterprise performance.

2.3. Digital Capabilities Influence Business Model Innovation

Business model innovation is considered another new innovation activity after a series
of innovation activities, such as technological innovation, management innovation, and
system innovation. It is a process of optimizing the allocation of internal and external
resources and realizing the innovative optimization and reorganization of the existing
resources and trading network in the enterprise business ecosystem [48]. Based on the
exploration of new business models, business model innovation takes value proposition as
the logical starting point and realizes organizational change through value creation, trans-
mission, and acquisition [49]. According to the different elements of innovation, business
model innovation can be divided into efficiency and novel business model innovation [50].
The former focuses on efficiency improvement, while the latter focuses on new products,
new markets, and new transactions. Efficient business model innovation reduces the trans-
action costs and error rates, reduces information asymmetry, and accelerates resources
and information integration in trading activities to improve the current business model to
improve production and operation efficiency. The novel business model is more disruptive
innovation, identifying and creating new transaction demand, broadening the trading
subject, implementing new trading methods, and improving new trading and incentive
mechanisms to help enterprises break the business boundary, break the barriers between
products and the market, and realize diversified industrial development.
Digital capability is a new power and the new path of enterprise business model
innovation. Digital capability—under the impetus of data elements, production oper-
ation, procurement management, supply chain management, the information system,
customer relationships, and organizational boundary—put forwards new requirements;
urges enterprises to realize new value propositions, transfers, and creations; and realizes
the reconstruction of the business model. Specifically, first, basic digital capability is the
underlying architecture of an enterprise’s digital capability and its data-collection-, storage-,
and transportation-related digital infrastructure construction. Here, the more sound; the
more timely the equipment update; the more complete the digital talent; the greater the en-
terprise combing, analysis, computing, and mining data information resources capabilities;
the more enterprises are helped by digital facilities to broaden the channels of customer
access. Enterprises can thus accurately analyze the positioning of customer demand, thus
driving the novel innovation of the business model. At the same time, the more widely
used the digital technology and platforms, the greater they can help enterprises simplify a
series of transaction processes and drive efficient business model innovation.
Digital operation capability is essentially the ability of enterprise organizations to
use digital technology, which is a digital capability system that promotes business model
restructuring and organizational innovation [51]. Digital technology assets (under the
impetus of data elements, enterprise production, research and development, sales, and
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9020 6 of 19

other basic process systems of digital change) help enterprises to enhance their insight
into each link of operation management, better develop operation management strategies,
improve operational efficiency, adjust their business models to reduce path dependence,
and realize efficient business model innovation. On the basis of gradually expanding
and modifying the existing business model, some enterprises have achieved subversive
business model innovation, that is, novel business model innovation.
Digital integration capabilities can be achieved by establishing resource-sharing sys-
tems within the enterprise. Information complementarity and resource integration are
achieved through digital technology and enterprise users, upstream and downstream
supply chains, service providers, enterprises and peers, friends, cross-industry enterprises,
government, all sectors of society and other digital alliances, competition and cooperation,
and cross-border cooperation to help enterprises accelerate the collaborative integration
of internal and external data, equipment and operations to form a symbiotic data ecolog-
ical network with cocreation and sharing. It helps enterprises to continuously organize
innovation and gradually carry out efficient business model innovation. Additionally, it
helps enterprises mine user demand information and invite users to collaborate to optimize
existing products and develop new products. Moreover, a new model of cooperation can
be formed and a series of new cooperation models and new strategic management initia-
tives can be created to achieve novel business model innovation. Therefore, the following
assumptions are made:

H2a: Basic digital capability significantly and positively affects the innovation of an efficient
business model.

H2b: Basic digital capabilities have a significantly positive impact on novel business model innovation.

H3a: Digital operation capability significantly and positively affects the innovation of an efficient
business model.

H3b: Digital operation capability has a significantly positive impact on novel business model innovation.

H4a: Digital integration capability significantly and positively affects the efficiency of business
model innovation.

H4b: Digital integration capability significantly and positively affects novel business model innovation.

2.4. The Intermediary Role of Business Model Innovation

The related research on digital capability shows that digital capability can directly or
indirectly function through some intermediary factors [52,53], among which the intermedi-
ary role of business model innovation has been the focus of academic discussion [53,54].
The intermediary role of BMI is first reflected in its own ability to improve enterprise
performance through the optimization of the value creation, transmission, and acquisition
process of enterprises [55]. Business model innovation can help enterprises expand the
total amount of value creation against the competition and is the key factor for enterprise
performance improvement. Scholars [48] empirically tested the financial performance of
business model innovation; a study [54] used the sample data of 319 Chinese enterprises to
test business model innovation to help enterprises improve their integration capability and
achieve higher enterprise performance. Researchers [56] verified the specific causal mecha-
nism between business model innovation and the performance of small- and medium-sized
enterprises. Digital capability affects enterprise performance, but digital capability needs
to be combined with enterprise innovation activities to promote performance improvement.
With the investment, application, and integration of enterprise digital resources, enterprises
combine their own resources and capabilities to coordinate, reconfigure, and improve
their performance.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9020 7 of 19

Efficient business model innovation, which mainly focuses on improving efficiency,

emphasizes the improvement in enterprise performance through the reduction in trans-
action costs. The reduction in transaction costs requires the investment and cultivation
of enterprise digital capabilities. The continuous investment in digital infrastructure,
represented by artificial intelligence, big data, and cloud computing, can consolidate a
foundation of enterprise superiority, promote the improvement in the enterprise’s founda-
tion and supporting business technologies, and improve the overall operational efficiency
of the enterprise. Data integration capabilities also help the enterprise to strengthen its
information exchange and contact with the participating parties, reduce information asym-
metry, expand the scope of the establishing partners with other enterprises, and strengthen
the negotiation and bargaining power of the enterprise to understand the products and
demand information of their partners to improve the performance of the enterprise. Novel
business model innovation for a new market, new products, and new transactions can
improve an enterprise’s performance by constantly mining and meeting new demands and
innovating transaction methods. Digital capability, with its data resource input, operation,
and integration levels, helps enterprises actively introduce new products or new services;
effectively optimize the configuration of existing resources; create a new market space;
obtain more consumers, partners, and suppliers; obtain wealth and benefits; and achieve
value appreciation. At the same time, digital capability helps enterprises to market concepts
to create better identification, analysis, and understanding and answer consumer demand
through new trading mechanisms, new trading incentives, retaining the existing market
consumers, and increasing the consumption range. As such, enterprises can develop new
areas, develop a new customer experience, improve customer purchase intention, and
develop a new value creation process to improve enterprise performance. Therefore, based
on the above studies, this paper proposes the following hypotheses:

H5: Efficient business model innovation has a significant and positive impact on enterprise performance.

H5a: Efficient business model innovation plays an intermediary role in the relationship between
basic digital capability and enterprise performance.

H5b: Efficient business model innovation plays an intermediary role in the relationship between
digital operation capability and enterprise performance.

H5c: Efficient business model innovation plays an intermediary role in the relationship between
digital integration capability and enterprise performance.

H6: Novel business model innovation has a significant and positive impact on enterprise performance.

H6a: Novel business model innovation plays an intermediary role in the relationship between basic
digital capability and enterprise performance.

H6b: Novel business model innovation plays an intermediary role in the relationship between
digital operation capability and enterprise performance.

H6c: Novel business model innovation plays an intermediary role in the relationship between digital
integration capability and enterprise performance.

The conceptual framework of this study is shown in Figure 1.

Sustainability 2023,
2023, 15,
14, 9020
x FOR PEER REVIEW 88of
of 20
19

Figure 1. The conceptual framework of this investigation.

3. Materials and
3. Materials and Methods
Methods
3.1. Date Resources
3.1. Date Resources
In this study, the panel data of listed companies in the software and information
In this study, the panel data of listed companies in the software and information tech-
technology service industries in Shanghai and Shenzhen from 2011 to 2021 were selected as
nology service industries in Shanghai and Shenzhen from 2011 to 2021 were selected as
the research sample. The reasons for choosing these enterprises were as follows: first, their
the research
mature sample.and
investment Theapplication
reasons forinchoosing
big data,these enterprises
intelligence, cloudwere as follows:blockchain,
computing, first, their
mature investment and application in big data, intelligence, cloud
and other digital technologies; second, based on the relatively mature application of digitalcomputing, blockchain,
and other digital
technology, technologies;
such enterprises cansecond,
carry out based on thedegrees
different relatively mature application
of business of digi-
model innovation;
tal technology, such enterprises can carry out different degrees of
and third, the accessibility of data. In addition, considering data integrity, accuracy, and business model innova-
tion;credibility
the and third, of thethe
accessibility of data. Inthe
model estimation, addition,
collected considering
data were data integrity,asaccuracy,
processed follows:
and the credibility of the model estimation, the collected data were
(1) excluding the samples with serious data loss; (2) excluding ST, ST *, and PT companies; processed as follows:
(1) excluding
and (3) deletingthe the
samples
sampleswithofserious data loss;
companies listed(2)after
excluding
2011. ST, ST *, and
Finally, 1663PT companies;
valid sample
observations were obtained. The data used in this study were derived from the sample
and (3) deleting the samples of companies listed after 2011. Finally, 1663 valid annual
observations
reports of the were
Guotaianobtained.
CSMAR TheDatabase
data used in Sina
[57], this study
Finance were
[58],derived
and thefrom thefinancial
official annual
reports
and of the Guotaian
nonfinancial reportsCSMAR
of listedDatabase
companies. [57], Sina Finance [58], and the official financial
and nonfinancial reports of listed
Enterprise performance referscompanies.
to the output efficiency and benefits of an enterprise
duringEnterprise
a periodperformance
of sustainablerefers to the which
operation, outputincludes
efficiency and benefits
financial of an enterprise
performance and non-
during a period of sustainable operation, which includes financial
financial performance [59]. The existing empirical literature contains a wide variety performance and non- of
financial performance
indicators used to measure [59]. enterprise
The existing empirical literature
performance. contains a wide
The representative variety
indicators of in-
include
dicators
the salesused to measure
end based on theenterprise
gross profit performance.
margin andThe netrepresentative
profit margin on indicators
sales, the include
asset
the sales
end basedend on based on the
the return ongross
assetsprofit marginmargin
and profit and net profitinterest
before marginand on sales, thevalue
tax [60], asset
end based
index basedononthe thereturn
economicon assets
added andvalueprofit
of margin
enterprises before interest
[61], the netand tax [60],
income endvaluewith
index
the basedononcapital
return the economic addedQvalue
and Tobin’s value,ofand
enterprises [61], the net income
client measurement based on endcustomer
with the
return on capital
satisfaction [47,62]. andCompared
Tobin’s Q withvalue,other
and client
measures,measurement
Tobin’s Qbased valueon cancustomer satis-
better reflect
factionlong-term
future [47,62]. Compared
value andwith digitalother measures,
technology Tobin’s Qenterprise
application value cangrowth
better butreflect
incomefutureis
unstable;
long-termtherefore,
value and this papertechnology
digital finally selected the Tobin’s
application Q valuegrowth
enterprise as a measure of enterprise
but income is un-
performance.
stable; therefore, In the
thisrobustness
paper finally test,selected
we referenced
the Tobin’s[63].Q value as a measure of enterprise
Basic digital
performance. capability
In the robustnessemphasizes
test, wethe digital resource
referenced [63]. inputs and basics, which consti-
tute the
Basicunderlying basis of digital
digital capability emphasizes capability, including
the digital “hard”
resource andand
inputs “soft” digital
basics, whichresource
con-
inputs and their application. This paper selected the following indicators
stitute the underlying basis of digital capability, including “hard” and “soft” digital re- for measurement:
sourceDigital
inputscapital
and theirinvestment.
application. ThisThisindex
paper measures
selected the following
investment of “hard”
indicators fordigital
meas-
resources
urement: of the enterprise, screens the name of the project with raised funds according to
the digital
Digitalkeywords, and summarizes
capital investment. This index the total amount
measures theof the planned
investment of investment
“hard” digital in the
re-
project
sources[64,65]. The larger the
of the enterprise, amount,
screens the namethe stronger the digital
of the project withcapital
raisedinvestment,
funds according and the to
stronger the basic digital capability of the enterprise.
the digital keywords, and summarizes the total amount of the planned investment in the
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9020 9 of 19

Digital human capital investment. This index measures the investment in “soft”
digital resources of an enterprise using the proportion of the number of personnel related to
digitalization [66,67]. However, in the actual measurement process, due to the unavailability
of the number of personnel, the proportion of the number of R&D personnel was selected
as a replacement.
Digital infrastructure construction. The construction of digital infrastructure reflects
the construction capacity for enterprise digital resources. First, it is closely related to the
collection of buried data of the enterprise, data storage and transmission, and equipment
updates, reflecting the efficiency and effectiveness through which enterprises obtain data.
Second, it is the capability to process, analyze, and mine data information resources by
using programming language, operation commands, and program documents based on
data acquisition. Referring to the literature [68], this paper generally obtained the value
of enterprise digital infrastructure construction: artificial intelligence, blockchain, cloud
computing, and big data, which are four technologies related to digital infrastructure
construction. Here, the higher the word occurrence frequency, the stronger the enterprise’s
digital infrastructure construction. Finally, the basic digital capability was obtained by
standardizing the above three indicators and taking the average value.
Digital operation capability is an important indicator used to measure the efficiency
level of an enterprise’s asset operation and management through financial statement
analysis of factors including the total asset turnover, current assets turnover, accounts
receivable turnover, etc. It is measured as the proportion of a certain asset in the total
operating income. According to this logic, the digital operation capability in this study
was measured as the proportion of digital assets in total operating revenue. According to
Zhang et al. [60,69], digital asset measurement considers the aspects related to the digital
transformation disclosed in the notes of the financial reports of listed companies. When
asset details include “software”, “network”, “client”, “management system”, “intelligent
platform”, and other keywords related to digital transformation technology and related
patents, the detailed project was defined as “digital assets”. In the same year for the
same company’s multiple digital assets, we calculated the proportion of the current year’s
operating income. The higher the proportion of the digital assets in the operating revenue,
the stronger the digital operation capability.
Digital integration capability includes both internal and external integration capabili-
ties. Among them, to measure internal integration capability, we selected the enterprise
internal technology integration word frequency. Internal technology integration refers to
the capability of enterprises to use emerging digital integration technology to develop and
produce products, reflecting the capability to integrate the information and resources of
different units within the organization. The more frequently technology integration words
appear, the stronger the enterprise’s digital internal integration capability is.
External integration capability is measured as the concentration of the supply chain.
This index reflects the concentration of partnerships upstream and downstream of the sup-
ply chain, including the procurement concentration upstream of the supply chain and the
sales concentration downstream of the supply chain. If the enterprise actively establishes
partnerships with the upstream and downstream of the supply chain and strengthens the
concentration of the supply chain, it reflects the strength of the digital external integration
capability of the enterprise to a certain extent. Supply chain concentration can be measured
by the average of the sum of the purchases and sales ratio of the top five suppliers and cus-
tomers, namely, (purchase ratio of top five suppliers + sales ratio of top five customers)/2.
The measured values of the above two indicators were standardized and averaged as
the final measurement value of an enterprise’s digital integration capability.
Business model innovation. Most empirical studies on business model innovation
have used design scales to measure the degree of business model innovation [55]; however,
considering that the cross-sectional data obtained from a questionnaire are not conducive
to examining the dynamic utility of business model innovation, this paper selected the
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9020 10 of 19

word frequency and actual report data in the annual reports to determine efficient business
model innovation and novel business models, respectively.
Efficiency-based BMI emphasizes the optimization of the transaction process, which
thereby reduces transaction costs and labor costs, improves transaction efficiency, and
achieves efficiency improvement. Therefore, this paper selected the word frequency of
process innovation to measure the efficiency of BMI, where the higher the word frequency
of process innovation, the higher the BMI efficiency.
Novel business model innovation emphasizes connecting transaction entities and
adopting new transaction methods and trading mechanisms to capture new market de-
mand and to develop new products. Therefore, this paper selected the frequency of
business innovation to measure novel business model innovation. The more frequently
business innovation words appear, the stronger the innovation of the enterprise’s novel
business model.
Control variables. This paper selected enterprise age, enterprise size, asset–liability
ratio, and management expense ratio as control variables to control the influence of other
factors on the company’s digital capability and performance. The age of the establishment
of the enterprise refers to the time from the registration of the enterprise to the time of
observation; the difference in the size of the enterprise reflects the wealth of the assets,
which affects the digital capability and innovation level of the enterprise. We selected the
natural logarithm of the total assets. The asset–liability ratio measures the capital structure
of the enterprise, which affects the digital capability of the enterprise; the management cost
ratio reflects the profitability of the enterprise.
Explanations of the symbols, measurement indices, measurement methods, and
sources for the chosen variables are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Variables and measures.

Variable Symbol Measurement Index Measure Method Source

Explained variable
Enterprise Enterprise market price/reset cost Guotaian CSMAR
Tobin’s Q Tobin’s Q value
performance of the enterprise Database [57]
Explanatory variable
Selecting the amount of the raised funds according
Digital capital input to digital keywords and summarizing the total
amount of project investment.
Basic digital Guotaian CSMAR
BAS The proportion of digital human capital investment
capability Digital human capital Database [57]
(replaced by the number of R&D personnel)
Digital infrastructure The total breakdown of the four technology-related
construction features of digital infrastructure construction
Digital operation Digital asset Guotaian CSMAR
OPE The proportion of digital assets in the year
capability turnover rate Database [57]
Enterprise internal Re-expressed as the word frequency of technology
technology integration integration in the annual reports
Digital integration The average of the sum of the purchase sales ratio Guotaian CSMAR
capabilities INTE
Supply chain of the top 5 suppliers and customers, namely: Database [57]
concentration (purchase ratio of the top 5 suppliers + sales ratio of
the top 5 customers)/2
Metavariable
Efficient business Process innovation Sina Finance [58],
EFFBMI Frequency of process innovation in the reports
model innovation word frequency annual reports of
Novelty business Business innovation listed companies
ORIBMI Frequency of business innovation in the reports
model innovation word frequency
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9020 11 of 19

Table 1. Cont.

Variable Symbol Measurement Index Measure Method Source

Control variable
The time span from the enterprise registration time
enterprise age AGE Age
to the statistical year
enterprise scale SIZE Scale Natural logarithm of the total assets Sina Finance [58],
Total debt at the end of the term/ Annual report of
asset-liability ratio ALR Asset-liability ratio
end-of-term total assets listed companies
Administrative Administrative
MER Management expenses/operation revenue
expense rate expense rate

3.2. Model Settings

Based on the above assumptions, we sets the test models as follows: Specifically,
a0 , b0 , c0 , and d0 are the intercepts of models (1)–(4), respectively; and ai , bi , ci , and di
(i = 1,2,3,4 . . . 7,8,9) are the coefficients of the models, respectively. Model (1) was used to
verify the main-effect relationship between digital capability and enterprise performance;
construct a regression model with basic digital capability, digital operation capability, and
digital integration capability as independent variables; and tests hypotheses H1a, H1b,
and H1c.

Tobin Q = a0 + a1 BAS + a2 OPE + a3 I NTE + a4 AGE + a5 SIZE + a6 ALR + a7 MER (1)

Model (2) was used to verify the relationship between digital capability and business
model innovation; construct a regression model with basic digital capability, digital opera-
tion capability and digital integration capability as the independent variables and business
model innovation as the dependent variable; and test hypotheses H2a, H2b, H3a, H3b, H4a
and H4b.

EFFBMI (ORIBMI ) = b0 + b1 BAS + b2 OPE + b3 I NTE + b4 AGE + b5 SIZE + b6 ALR + b7 MER (2)

Model (3) was used to verify the relationship between business model innovation
(BMI) and enterprise performance, construct a regression model with efficient BMI and
novel BMI as the independent variables and Tobin’s Q as the dependent variable, and test
hypotheses H5 and H6.

Tobin Q = c0 + c1 EFFBMI + c2 ORIBMI + c3 I NTE + c4 AGE + c5 SIZE + c6 ALR + c7 MER (3)

Model (4) combined Models (1)–(3) to jointly verify the mediating role of BMI and test
hypotheses H5a, H5b, H5c, H6a, H6b, and H6c.

Tobin Q = d0 + d1 BAS + d2 OPE + d3 I NTE + d4 EFFBMI + d5 ORIBMI + d6 AGE + d7 SIZE + d8 ALR

(4)
+d9 MER

4. Results
The results of the descriptive statistical analysis of each variable are shown in Table 2.
The mean and median of the Tobin’s Q values were 2.753 and 2.243, respectively. The
standard deviation (1.857) showed that the market value of the sample companies was
dispersed. Market valuations of different companies greatly varied.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9020 12 of 19

Table 2. Descriptive statistical results of the variables.

Variable N Min Max Mean Value Standard Dev Median VIF

Tobin’s Q 1663 0.959 23.529 2.753 1.857 2.243 1.26
BAS 1663 −1.073 4.969 −0.030 0.657 −0.160 1.23
OPE 1663 −0.953 6.860 −0.003 0.718 −0.165 2.19
INTE 1663 −1.137 5.661 −0.000 0.678 −0.113 1.66
EFFBMI 1663 0.000 31.000 1.076 2.710 0.000 2.5
ORIBMT 1663 0.000 130.000 4.563 9.837 1.000 1.02
AGE 1663 5.800 36.978 19.786 5.738 20.167 1.35
SIZE 1663 18.491 25.010 21.469 0.933 21.377 1.1
ALR 1663 0.021 2.729 0.317 0.189 0.297 2.14
MER 1663 0.101 112,386.442 264.743 4093.114 3.570 1.06

The three variables of basic digital capability, digital operation capability, and digital
integration capability are considered the original measurement index Z. After taking
the average value, the maximum value did not differ much from the average value. In
addition, the data gently fluctuated. Two variables, efficient business model innovation
and novel business model innovation, were measured as the process innovation and
business innovation word frequency, respectively. The maximum values were all three
standard deviations above the mean. It showed that the data greatly fluctuated. In addition,
the control variables age and asset size also greatly fluctuated. The results of Pearson’s
correlation coefficient (Table 3) showed a significant positive correlation between the
selected variables, and the correlation coefficients between the main variables were basically
below the threshold of 0.8.

Table 3. The correlation analysis of the variables.

Variable Tobin’s Q BAS OPE INTE EFFBMI ORIBMI AGE SIZE ALR MER
Tobin’s Q 1.000
BAS −0.229 *** 1.000
OPE 0.011 *** 0.199 *** 1.000
INTE −0.015 *** 0.023 0.288 *** 1.000
EFFBMI −0.030 *** 0.370 *** 0.715 *** 0.261 *** 1.000
ORIBMI 0.072 *** 0.096 *** 0.349 *** 0.614 *** 0.406 *** 1.000
AGE −0.050 ** 0.020 *** −0.034 *** −0.022 −0.064 *** −0.039 1.000
SIZE −0.267 *** −0.048 * −0.213 *** −0.047 * −0.324 *** 0.225 *** 0.062 ** 1.000
ALR 0.035 *** −0.143 *** 0.065 *** 0.128 *** −0.024 *** 0.027 ** 0.036 *** 0.199 *** 1.000
MER −0.229 *** 1.000 *** 0.199 *** 0.023 *** 0.370 *** 0.096 *** 0.020 *** −0.048 * −0.143 *** 1.000
Note: *, **, and ***—statistical significance at 1%, 5% and 10%, respectively.

In addition, the results in Table 2 show that the variance expansion factors were small
below 10, indicating that there was no multicollinearity problem and that the selection of
the variables and the construction of the models were reasonable.
OLS regression was used to analyze the relationship between digital capability, busi-
ness model innovation, and enterprise performance. The results of the benchmark regres-
sion are shown in columns (1)–(4) in Table 4.
The Breusch–Pagan test for heteroskedasticity yielded an output with a p-value
(Prob > chi2) of less than 5%. This indicated that the null hypothesis, which states that
there is no heteroskedasticity (i.e., the error variance is constant), was accepted.
Drawing on the method of Wen et al. [70], this paper followed the step-by-step method
to test the intermediary effect of BMI, as shown in Table 4. Taking the intermediary test of
the efficiency business model innovation as an example, first, the study verified whether
the effect of the independent variable (digital base/digital operation/digital integration
capability) was significant for the dependent variable (enterprise performance).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9020 13 of 19

Table 4. Analysis of the benchmark regression results.

Tobin’s Q EFFBMI ORIBMI Tobin’s Q Tobin’s Q

Variable
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
12.991 ** −1.854 ** 1.528 ** 12.013 ** 13.030 **
Con
(10.750) (−3.189) (2.631) (10.187) (10.756)
0.220 ** 0.918 ** 0.820 ** −0.082
BAS
(2.941) (25.500) (22.794) (−0.618)
0.342 ** 0.087 * 0.211 ** 0.319 **
OPE
(4.247) (2.255) (5.458) (3.918)
0.160 * 0.075 * 0.014 0.150 *
INTE
(2.240) (2.192) (0.413) (2.098)
0.157 ** 0.169 *
EFFBMI
(3.231) (2.341)
0.197 ** 0.180 *
ORIBMI
(4.049) (2.486)
−0.389 0.051 ** −0.035 * −0.026 −0.377
AGE
(−3.921) (1.321) (−3.908) (−1.201) (−6.097)
−0.490 ** 0.078 ** −0.062 * −0.444 ** −0.492 **
SIZE
(−8.710) (2.865) (−2.310) (−8.093) (−8.731)
0.220 0.379 ** −0.766 ** 0.026 0.293
ALR
(0.771) (2.764) (−5.588) (0.093) (1.018)
2.085 ** 0.073 0.171 2.356 ** 2.042 **
MER
(5.258) (0.382) (0.895) (6.038) (5.157)
Adjust R2 0.112 0.396 0.403 0.106 0.116
F 25.682 ** 129.496 ** 133.150 ** 28.886 ** 20.300 **
Note: *, **—statistical significance at 1%, and 5%, respectively.

In column (1) in Table 4, the coefficients of the independent variable are positive and
significant. In the next stage, the study verified whether the effect of the independent
variable (digital base/digital operation/digital integration) had a significant impact on the
intermediary variable (efficiency of BMI). The findings (column (2) in Table 4) confirmed
that the coefficients of chosen variables were positive and significant. The next step verified
whether the effect of the intermediary variable (efficiency business model innovation) on
the dependent variable (enterprise performance) was significant. In column (4) in Table 4,
the regression coefficients are positive and significant. The last stage of study verified
that when the independent and mediation variables were entered into the regression
model, whether the effect of the independent variables on the dependent variable was
still significant (partial mediation effect) or became no longer significant (full mediating
effect). In column (5) in Table 4, digital base capability did not pass the test, and other
independent variables passed the test. Therefore, efficient BMI played the role of complete
intermediary, partial intermediary, and partial intermediary in basic digital capability–
enterprise performance, digital operation capability–enterprise performance, and digital
integration capability–enterprise performance, respectively. It was found that H5a, H5b
and H5c were supported. Similarly, efficient business model innovation played a complete
intermediary, partial intermediation, and nonsignificant role in basic digital capability–
enterprise performance, digital operation capability–enterprise performance, and digital
integration capability–enterprise performance, respectively. Thus, H6a and H6b passed the
test, and H6c did not.
The mediation effect sizes for various factors and their impact on the Tobin’s Q value,
which is a measure of firm performance, are presented in Table 5.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9020 14 of 19

Table 5. Summary of results for mediation effect sizes.

a×b c’ a×b
c Proportion
Term Result Mediation Direct (95%
Total Effect of Effect
Effect Effects Boot CI)
Basic digital capability → efficiency business Completely
0.220 0.155 −0.082 0.004~0.118 100%
model innovation → Tobin’s Q value intermediary
Basic digital capability → novel business Completely
0.220 0.147 −0.082 0.014~0.102 100%
model innovation → Tobin’s Q value intermediary
Digital operation capability → efficiency Part of the
0.342 0.015 0.319 0.000~0.016 4.632%
business model innovation → Tobin’s Q value intermediary
Digital operation capability → Novel business Part of the
0.342 0.038 0.319 0.004~0.029 11.096%
model innovation → Tobin’s Q value intermediary
Digital integration capability → efficiency Part of the
0.160 0.013 0.150 0.000~0.013 7.954%
business model innovation → Tobin’s Q value intermediary
Digital integration capability → novel business
Not significant 0.160 0.003 0.150 −0.005~0.009 0%
model innovation → Tobin’s Q value

To further test the reliability and robustness of the empirical results. In this study, the
robustness test was conducted using the sample size change method [71,72]. This method
involves cross-validating the findings on a new dataset to determine if they are consistent
with the original findings. The similarity in the findings indicates the stability of the results
and confirms that the regression model is properly specified. The sample in this study
included listed companies in the software and information technology industry in the
Shanghai and Shenzhen stock markets. However, the digital capabilities of industries such
as computer, communications, and other electronic equipment manufacturing should not
be underestimated. Therefore, this paper further extended the research object to industries
such as computers. The sample size was expanded to 2827 units. Digital foundation
capabilities, digital operation capabilities, and digital integration capabilities still had a
significant and positive impact on enterprise performance (t = 1.709, p < 0.05; t = 0.788,
p = 0.000 < 0.05; t = 1.785, p < 0.01, respectively). This further confirmed the robustness of
the conclusion that digital capability affects enterprise performance (Table 6).

Table 6. Results of the robustness test.

Variable Con_ BAS OPE INTE N

12.029 ** 1.021 * 0.129 * 0.150 **
Tobin’s Q 2827
(9.216) (1.709) (2.788) (1.785)
Note: *, **—statistical significance at 1% and 5%, respectively.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

By constructing a variable model of digital capability–business model innovation–
enterprise performance, we studied the mechanism through which digital capability affects
enterprise performance, discussed the mediating role of business model innovation in
this process, and selected the annual report data of 336 listed companies in the software
and information technology industry on the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock markets for
empirical testing.
The output of the investigation supports the hypothesis that digital capability (ba-
sic, operation, and integration) has a significant and positive impact on enterprise per-
formance. This means that organizations that possess digital capabilities tend to per-
form better in terms of various performance metrics, which has been also confirmed in
other studies [23,45,46].
Digital capabilities play a driving role in digital capabilities–business model innovation–
enterprise performance. Digital capabilities have changed the performance improvement
path of traditional enterprises, which can be divided into basic digital capabilities, digital
operation capabilities, and digital integration capabilities according to the hierarchical rela-
tionship, and the three subdivision capabilities all significantly positively affect enterprise
performance. Among them, basic digital capabilities guarantee performance improvement,
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9020 15 of 19

and the input and basic application of digital resources constitute the underlying bases of
digital capabilities, providing enterprises with supporting digital infrastructure systems
such as perception, connection, storage, computing, processing, and security. Digital op-
eration capability is the key to performance improvement, and the application of digital
resources provides operational efficiency guarantees for the whole input-output process of
enterprises. Digital integration capability is the engine of performance improvement, and
digital integration promotes the symbiosis and coexistence of enterprises and ecosystems
through the integration of internal and external resources of the organization. According
to the size of the role, the three capabilities are digital operation capabilities, basic digital
capabilities, and digital integration capabilities. The driving role of digital capabilities is
undeniable, but using its potential will require further business model innovation. Digital
capabilities cover the entire process of the enterprise value chain, driving the efficiency and
innovation of business models such as strategic positioning, business systems, and profit
models and ultimately improving enterprise performance.
While business model innovation significantly positively affects corporate perfor-
mance, it is also driven by the preceding variables of digital capabilities. The findings
confirm that basic, operation, and integration capabilities significantly and positively affect
the innovation of an efficient business model and novel business model innovation [49–51].
This suggests that organizations with strong digital capabilities (basic, operation, and
integration) are more likely to develop innovative and efficient business models. Addi-
tionally, organizations that can effectively integrate digital technologies and systems are
more likely to develop and implement novel business models that drive innovation. It
should be noted that these conclusions are coherent with those of past studies [49–51].
Basic digital capabilities and digital operation capabilities have a significant positive impact
on business model innovation, and digital integration capabilities have a positive effect
on novel business model innovation; regardless of their high risk and high cost, they can
significantly affect efficient business model innovation. Digital capability is a new driving
force and new path for enterprise business model innovation and a factor enabling con-
tinuous business model improvement and innovation. Business model adjustment often
shows path dependence; and the investment of digital resources, basic applications, and
the improvement of the whole process operation efficiency brought by digital technology
can gradually or subversively bring about business model innovation. In addition, both
efficiency and novel business model innovation significantly positively affect enterprise
performance, and novel business model innovation has a more direct impact on enterprise
performance and a more obvious positive promotion role because of the new business, new
products, and new services it brings.
Business model innovation plays an intermediary role in digital capability–business
model innovation–enterprise performance. Business model innovation enhances the posi-
tive impact of basic digital capabilities, digital operation capabilities, and digital integration
capabilities on enterprise performance. Among them, the intermediary effect of basic digital
capabilities is 100%, and the intermediary effect played in digital operation capabilities is
part of the intermediary, which is limited by the innovation risk brought by digital inte-
gration capabilities. Based on the above theoretical logic, business model innovation has
become an important means and critical path for digital empowerment to create excellent
enterprise performance. However, the findings did not support the hypothesis that novel
business model innovation plays an intermediary role in the relationship between digital
integration capability and enterprise performance, which differs from the findings of previ-
ous studies [73–75]. While digital integration capability enables the integration of digital
technologies and systems, the successful implementation of novel business models requires
more than just technological integration. Factors such as market acceptance, organiza-
tional readiness, and effective execution play crucial roles in the success of novel business
model innovation. According to prior studies [76–78], these factors may have a more direct
influence on enterprise performance than the digital integration capability itself.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9020 16 of 19

It is a general trend for digital empowerment to drive business model innovation and
improve enterprise performance, but in practice, less than 10% of enterprises can truly
enhance enterprise value through digital capabilities [47]. Many enterprises suffer heavy
losses because it is difficult to adapt to changes in the digital environment. Therefore, the
management implications of this article for modern enterprises are as follows:
Enterprises should attach great importance to the construction and cultivation of
digital capabilities. With basic digital capabilities as the starting point, digital operation
capabilities as the core, and digital integration capabilities as the aim to build and cultivate,
resources and capabilities are allocated in a targeted manner according to the internal logic
of digital capability performance. Enterprises should first attach great importance to the
guaranteed role of their basic digital capabilities; increase capital and talent investment
related to digital technologies such as artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and 5G
networks; and consolidate the underlying digital technology architecture. On this basis,
guided by the improvement in operational efficiency, digital resources should be matched
to various business products, coordinated with various organizational processes, empower
the enterprise business ecology, and enable the digital improvement in the enterprise’s full-
process operation capabilities. Finally, digital integration capabilities should be improved;
internal and external processes, products, data, talent, information and other resources
should be integrated; an enterprise digital ecological platform should be actively built;
an enterprise digital ecosystem should be built; and enterprise value cocreation should
be realized.
Enterprises should also pay full attention to business model innovation based on
digital capabilities, which also allow promoting sustainable economic growth [79,80]. This
study focused on how digital capabilities and business model innovation affect enterprise
performance; we built a system framework for business model innovation in the context of
digital empowerment and improved, formulated, and designed corresponding business
models in combination with digital capabilities to enable innovation in a timely manner.
Enterprises should give full play to the efficiency and novel advantages of business model
innovation, break organizational inertia, improve or even design a new production and op-
eration model, and create a new value creation system from value discovery–transmission–
realization to form enterprise competitive advantages. Of course, in this process, enterprises
should also pay attention to the risks of BMI, especially novel BMI.
Despite the valuable findings, the study has a few limitations. The investigation did
not compare the impact of digitalization on business performance across different sectors
or company sizes. This limited our ability to assess the relative effectiveness of digital
capabilities and business model innovation in various contexts. Thus, in future research,
it will be necessary to extend the object of investigation to enable a comparative analysis.
Furthermore, it is necessary to consider more factors that impact digital development,
which will increase the validity of the recommendations for business digitalization. In
addition, the analysis primarily focused on the impact of digital capabilities and business
model innovation on company performance. Other factors that may influence digital
development, such as organizational culture, regulatory environment, or external market
conditions, were not considered. Including a broader range of variables could enhance the
understanding of the digitalization process. It should be noted that the potential presence
of endogeneity in the business innovation process and innovation decisions necessitates
the consideration of a set of unobserved factors or reverse causality between them.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Z.W., S.L., Y.C., O.L. and T.P.; methodology, Z.W., S.L.,
Y.C., O.L. and T.P.; formal analysis, Z.W., S.L., Y.C., O.L. and T.P.; investigation, Z.W., S.L., Y.C., O.L.
and T.P.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.W., S.L., Y.C., O.L. and T.P.; writing—review and
editing, Z.W., S.L., Y.C., O.L. and T.P.; visualization, Z.W., S.L., Y.C., O.L. and T.P.; supervision, Z.W.,
S.L., Y.C., O.L. and T.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9020 17 of 19

Funding: This research was funded by the Youth Fund of the Ministry of Education for Human-
ities and Social Sciences Research: “Research on the Mechanisms and Paths of Enhancing Enter-
prise’ Value: Perspectives on the Digital Capabilities and Dual-Model Innovation” (Project No.
22YJC630151); Fujian Provincial Education and Scientific Research Project “Research on the Green
Transformation and Upgrading of Manufacturing Industry under the ‘Double Carbon’ Target” (Project
No. Mincai Index [2022] No. 639); Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province “Evaluation of the
Effectiveness of Technical Innovation in Manufacturing Enterprises in Fujian Province and Policy
Optimization” (Project No. 2021J01175); Scientific Research and Innovation Team Building Plan of
Concord University College Fujian Normal University (Project No. 2021-TD-004).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Levallet, N.; Chan, Y.E. Role of Digital Capabilities in Unleashing the Power of Managerial Improvisation. MIS Q. Exec. 2018,
17, 3.
2. Khin, S.; Ho, T.C. Digital technology, digital capability and organizational performance: A mediating role of digital innovation.
Int. J. Innov. Sci. 2018, 11, 177–195. [CrossRef]
3. Kasemi, S.; Gadi, I. Small and medium enterprises and economic growth in Algeria through investment and innovation. Financ.
Mark. Inst. Risks 2022, 6, 55–67. [CrossRef]
4. Hossain, S.; Islam, M.S.; Kundu, S.; Faruq, O.; Hossen, M.A. Women Participation in Entrepreneurial Activities in the Post
COVID-19 Pandemic: Empirical Evidence from SMEs Sector. Health Econ. Manag. Rev. 2023, 4, 1–10. [CrossRef]
5. Dzwigol, H.; Aleinikova, O.; Umanska, Y.; Shmygol, N.; Pushak, Y. An Entrepreneurship Model for Assessing the Investment
Attractiveness of Regions. J. Entrep. Educ. 2019, 22, 1–7.
6. Kwilinski, A.; Slatvitskaya, I.; Dugar, T.; Khodakivska, L.; Derevyanko, B. Main Effects of Mergers and Acquisitions in International
Enterprise Activities. Int. J. Entrep. 2020, 24, 1–8.
7. Vaníčková, R.; Szczepańska-Woszczyna, K. Innovation of business and marketing plan of growth strategy and competitive
advantage in exhibition industry. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2020, 21, 425–445. [CrossRef]
8. Oloveze, A.O.; Ugwu, P.A.; Okonkwo, R.V.O.; Okeke, V.C.; Chukwuoyims, K.; Ahaiwe, E.O. Factors motivating end-users’
behavioural intention to recommend m-health innovation: Multi-group analysis. Health Econ. Manag. Rev. 2022, 3, 17–31.
[CrossRef]
9. Tih, S.; Wong, K.-K.; Lynn, G.S.; Reilly, R.R. Prototyping, Customer Involvement, and Speed of Information Dissemination in
New Product Success. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2016, 31, 437–448. [CrossRef]
10. Kianpour, M.; Kowalski, S.J.; Øverby, H. Systematically Understanding Cybersecurity Economics: A Survey. Sustainability 2021,
13, 13677. [CrossRef]
11. Xiao, H.; Yang, T. Sustainability business model innovation: Research review and outlook. Foreign Econ. Manag. 2020, 9, 3–18.
[CrossRef]
12. Vidal, E.; Mitchell, W. When do first entrants become first survivors? Long Range Plan. 2013, 46, 335–347. [CrossRef]
13. Wang, H.; Li, Y.; Tan, Q. The impact of digital transformation based on Meta-analysis on enterprise performance. J. Syst. Manag.
2022, 1, 112–123.
14. Guan, Y.; Tang, Z.; Tian, M.; Du, H. The influence of digital power on corporate entrepreneurship studies the regulatory effect of
the intensity of competition. Technol. Econ. 2022, 6, 95–106.
15. Zhou, Q.; Su, J.; Zhang, L. Research on the function mechanism of strategic orientation on enterprise performance: The perspective
of business model innovation. Sci. Sci. Technol. Manag. 2020, 10, 74–92.
16. Wang, M.; Zhang, B. The impact of enterprise digital capabilities on business model innovation–Based on the perspective of
organizational resilience and environmental turbulence. Res. Financ. Issues 2022, 7, 120–129. [CrossRef]
17. Qian, Y.; Sun, X.; Su, Z.; Dong, L. Case study of traditional enterprise dynamic capability and digital platform business model
innovation mechanism. Res. Dev. Manag. 2021, 1, 175–188.
18. Yang, C.; Zhao, S. Urban vertical profiles of three most urbanized Chinese cities and the spatial coupling with horizontal urban
expansion. Land Use Policy 2022, 113, 105919. [CrossRef]
19. Dong, Z. Research on the Impact of New Enterprise Digital Ability on Business Model Innovation. Ph.D. Thesis, Jilin Univer-
sity, Changchun, China, 2021. Available online: https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbname=CDFDLAST2022&
filename=1021100589.nh (accessed on 2 February 2023).
20. Sanders, N.R.; Premus, R. Modelling the relationship between firm IT capability, collaboration; performance. J. Bus. Logist. 2005,
26, 1–23. [CrossRef]
21. Teece, D.J.; Pisano, G.; Shuen, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg. Manag. J. 1997, 18, 509–533. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9020 18 of 19

22. Warner, K.S.; Wäger, M. Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long
Range Plan. 2019, 52, 326–349. [CrossRef]
23. Li, Q.; Liu, L.; Shao, J. Digital transformation, supply chain integration and enterprise performance. The regulating effect of
entrepreneurship. Econ. Manag. 2021, 10, 5–23. [CrossRef]
24. Gavkalova, N.; Lola, Y.; Prokopovych, S.; Akimov, O.; Smalskys, V.; Akimova, L. Innovative Development of Renewable Energy
during the Crisis Period and Its Impact on the Environment. Virtual Econ. 2022, 5, 65–77. [CrossRef]
25. Miśkiewicz, R.; Matan, K.; Karnowski, J. The Role of Crypto Trading in the Economy, Renewable Energy Consumption and
Ecological Degradation. Energies 2022, 15, 3805. [CrossRef]
26. Hussain, H.I.; Haseeb, M.; Kamarudin, F.; Dacko-Pikiewicz, Z.; Szczepańska-Woszczyna, K. The role of globalization, economic
growth and natural resources on the ecological footprint in thailand: Evidence from nonlinear causal estimations. Processes 2021,
9, 1103. [CrossRef]
27. Szczepańska-Woszczyna, K.; Gatnar, S. Key Competences of Research and Development Project Managers in High Technology
Sector. Forum Sci. Oeconomia 2022, 10, 107–130. [CrossRef]
28. Kwilinski, A.; Tkachenko, V.; Kuzior, A. Transparent Cognitive Technologies to Ensure Sustainable Society Development. J. Secur.
Sustain. Issues 2019, 9, 561–570. [CrossRef]
29. Tkachenko, V.; Kwilinski, A.; Klymchuk, M.; Tkachenko, I. The Economic-Mathematical Development of Buildings Construction
Model Optimization on the Basis of Digital Economy. Manag. Syst. Prod. Eng. 2019, 27, 119–123. [CrossRef]
30. Miśkiewicz, R.; Rzepka, A.; Borowiecki, R.; Olesińki, Z. Energy Efficiency in the Industry 4.0 Era: Attributes of Teal Organisations.
Energies 2021, 14, 6776. [CrossRef]
31. Kharazishvili, Y.; Kwilinski, A.; Grishnova, O.; Dzwigol, H. Social safety of society for developing countries to meet sustain-
able development standards: Indicators, level, strategic benchmarks (with calculations based on the case study of Ukraine).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 8953. [CrossRef]
32. Pakhnenko, O.; Kuan, Z. Ethics of Digital Innovation in Public Administration. Bus. Ethics Leadersh. 2023, 7, 113–121. [CrossRef]
33. Liu, K. Shanghai Stock Exchange’s Science and Technology Innovation Board: A Review. Financ. Mark. Inst. Risks 2023, 7, 1–15.
[CrossRef]
34. Shpak, N.; Karpyak, A.; Rybytska, O.; Gvozd, M.; Sroka, W. Assessing the business models of Ukrainian IT companies. Forum Sci.
Oeconomia 2023, 11, 13–48. [CrossRef]
35. Kuzior, A.; Vasylieva, T.; Kuzmenko, O.; Koibichuk, V.; Brożek, P. Global digital convergence: Impact of cybersecurity, business
transparency, economic transformation, and AML efficiency. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 195. [CrossRef]
36. Dzwigol, H. Research Methodology in Management Science: Triangulation. Virtual Econ. 2022, 5, 78–93. [CrossRef]
37. Dzwigol, H. Methodological and Empirical Platform of Triangulation in Strategic Management. Acad. Strateg. Manag. J. 2020,
19, 1–8.
38. Kharazishvili, Y.; Kwilinski, A.; Sukhodolia, O.; Dzwigol, H.; Bobro, D.; Kotowicz, J. The systemic approach for estimating and
strategizing energy security: The case of Ukraine. Energies 2021, 14, 2126. [CrossRef]
39. Oe, H.; Yamaoka, Y.; Duda, K. How to Sustain Businesses in the Post-COVID-19 Era: A Focus on Innovation, Sustainability and
Leadership. Bus. Ethics Leadersh. 2022, 6, 1–9. [CrossRef]
40. Chygryn, O.; Shevchenko, K. Energy industry development: Key trends and the core determinants. SocioEconomic Chall. 2023,
7, 115–128. [CrossRef]
41. Veckalne, R.; Us, Y.; Gerulaitiene, N. Evaluation of Sustainability Awareness in Uzbekistan. Mark. Manag. Innov. 2022, 3, 88–102.
[CrossRef]
42. Saługa, P.W.; Szczepańska-Woszczyna, K.; Miśkiewicz, R.; Chład, M. Cost of equity of coal-fired power generation projects in
Poland: Its importance for the management of decision-making process. Energies 2020, 13, 4833. [CrossRef]
43. Miśkiewicz, R. The Impact of Innovation and Information Technology on Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Case of the Visegrád
Countries. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2021, 14, 59. [CrossRef]
44. Saługa, P.W.; Zamasz, K.; Dacko-Pikiewicz, Z.; Szczepańska-Woszczyna, K.; Malec, M. Risk-adjusted discount rate and its
components for onshore wind farms at the feasibility stage. Energies 2021, 14, 6840. [CrossRef]
45. Qi, Y.; Cai, C. Research on the multiple effects of digitalization on manufacturing enterprise performance and its mechanism.
Learn. Explor. 2020, 7, 108–119.
46. Roche, X.; Chen, L.; Zhao, Y. Digital infrastructure construction and enterprise capacity utilization–is empirical evidence from the
“Broadband China” strategy. Ind. Econ. Res. 2022, 5, 1–14. [CrossRef]
47. Liu, X.; Yang, Y.; Sun, Z. Construction and Evolution of enterprise digital capabilities–Based on multicase exploratory research of
leading digital enterprises. Reform 2022, 10, 45–64.
48. Aspara, J.; Hietanen, J.; Tikkanen, H. Business model innovation vs replication: Financial performance implications of strategic
emphases. J. Strateg. Mark. 2010, 18, 39–56. [CrossRef]
49. Qiao, H.; Hu, J.; Zhang, S.; Lan, S.; Zhang, S.; Lu, B. Frontier analysis and evaluation of business model innovation research:
Platform ecosystem and value cocreation. Sci. Technol. Dev. 2020, 1, 40–49.
50. Zott, C.; Amit, R. Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Organ. Sci. 2007, 18, 181–199. [CrossRef]
51. Ansong, E.; Boateng, R. Surviving in the digital era–business models of digital enterprises in a developing economy. Digit. Policy
Regul. Gov. 2019, 21, 64–178. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9020 19 of 19

52. Ding, X.; Li, W.; Xu, L. The relationship between IT ability and enterprise innovation performance studies the regulatory role of
dual learning. Sci. Technol. Prog. Countermeas. 2020, 10, 90–98.
53. Zhang, Y.; Li, X.; Xing, M. Enterprise digital transformation and audit pricing. Audit Stud. 2021, 3, 62–71.
54. Pang, C.; Li, Y.; Duan, G. Integration ability and enterprise performance: The intermediary role of business model innovation.
Manag. Sci. 2015, 5, 31–41.
55. Chen, J.; Yang, Y.; Yu, J. Overview and prospect of business model innovation research. Soft Sci. 2022, 4, 1–7. [CrossRef]
56. Latifi, M.A.; Nikou, S.; Bouwman, H. Business model innovation and firm performance: Exploring causal mechanisms in SMEs.
Technovation 2021, 107, 102274. [CrossRef]
57. Guotaian CSMAR Database. Available online: https://cn.gtadata.com (accessed on 2 February 2023).
58. Sina Finance. Available online: https://finance.sina.com.cn (accessed on 2 February 2023).
59. Meng, W.; Yang, W. Research on the performance relationship between resource integration, dual cooperation and focus
enterprises in the alliance portfolio. Sci. Sci. Technol. Manag. 2018, 2, 85–94.
60. Zhang, J.; Zhang, Y. Chairman-General manager heterogeneity, power gap and rapport and organizational performance. Evidence
from public companies. Manag. World 2016, 50, 110–120. [CrossRef]
61. Yang, H.; Zheng, Y.; Zhao, X. Exploration or exploitation? Small firms’ alliance strategies with large firms. Strateg. Manag. J. 2014,
35, 146–157. [CrossRef]
62. Liu, C.; Chi, G.; Liu, C. Overseas experience of directors, dual innovation and enterprise value. Sci. Technol. Prog. Countermeas.
2021, 12, 79–88.
63. Tan, Q.; Wei, D. Management power and enterprise value: Based on the perspective of product market competition. Manag. Sci.
2014, 3, 1–13.
64. Leonov, S.V.; Vasylieva, T.A.; Tsyganyuk, D.L. Formalization of functional limitations in functioning of co-investment funds
basing on comparative analysis of financial markets within FM CEEC. Actual Probl. Econ. 2012, 134, 75–85.
65. Strielkowski, W.; Samoilikova, A.; Smutka, L.; Civín, L.; Lieonov, S. Dominant trends in intersectoral research on funding
innovation in business companies: A bibliometric analysis approach. J. Innov. Knowl. 2022, 7, 100271. [CrossRef]
66. Koibichuk, V.; Samoilikova, A.; Habenko, M. The effectiveness of employment in high-tech and science-intensive business areas
as important indicator of socio-economic development: Cross-country cluster analysis. SocioEconomic Chall. 2022, 6, 106–115.
[CrossRef]
67. Veckalne, R.; Tambovceva, T. The Importance of Gender Equality in Promoting Entrepreneurship and Innovation. Mark. Manag.
Innov. 2023, 1, 158–168. [CrossRef]
68. Wu, F.; Hu, H.; Lin, H.; Ren, X. Enterprise digital transformation and capital market performance–empirical evidence from stock
liquidity. Manag. World 2021, 37, 130–144. [CrossRef]
69. Zhang, P.; Yang, Q. Digital technology capabilities, business model innovation and enterprise performance. Sci. Technol. Manag.
Res. 2021, 10, 144–151.
70. Wen, Z.; Ye, B. Mediation effect analysis: Method and model development. Prog. Psychol. Sci. 2014, 22, 731–745.
71. Bates, S.; Hastie, T.; Tibshirani, R. Cross-validation: What does it estimate and how well does it do it? J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 2023, 1–12.
[CrossRef]
72. Browne, M.W. Cross-validation methods. J. Math. Psychol. 2000, 44, 108–132. [CrossRef]
73. Clauss, T.; Abebe, M.; Tangpong, C.; Hock, M. Strategic agility, business model innovation, and firm performance: An empirical
investigation. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2019, 68, 767–784. [CrossRef]
74. Xie, X.; Han, Y.; Anderson, A.; Ribeiro-Navarrete, S. Digital platforms and SMEs’ business model innovation: Exploring the
mediating mechanisms of capability reconfiguration. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2022, 65, 102513. [CrossRef]
75. Tian, Q.; Li, G.; Xu, R. Research on the Impact of Network Embeddedness on Enterprise Innovation Performance—Based on the
Mediating Role of Business Model Innovation and the Moderating Role of Competition Intensity. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE
International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), Singapore, 13–16 December 2021;
IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA; pp. 1047–1051.
76. Hussain, M.; Papastathopoulos, A. Organizational readiness for digital financial innovation and financial resilience. Int. J. Prod.
Econ. 2022, 243, 108326. [CrossRef]
77. Piscicelli, L.; Ludden, G.D.; Cooper, T. What makes a sustainable business model successful? An empirical comparison of two
peer-to-peer goods-sharing platforms. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 4580–4591. [CrossRef]
78. Lokuge, S.; Sedera, D.; Grover, V.; Dongming, X. Organizational readiness for digital innovation: Development and empirical
calibration of a construct. Inf. Manag. 2019, 56, 445–461. [CrossRef]
79. Ziabina, Y.; Navickas, V. Innovations in Energy Efficiency Management: Role of Public Governance. Mark. Manag. Innov. 2022,
4, 218–227. [CrossRef]
80. Kharazishvili, Y.; Kwilinski, A.; Bugayko, D.; Hryhorak, M.; Butorina, V.; Yashchyshyna, I. Strategic scenarios of the post-war
recovery of the aviation transport sustainable development: The case of Ukraine. Virtual Econ. 2022, 5, 7–30. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.