Open Innovation Practices and Sustainability Performance in Small and Medium Industries

  • Amelia KurniawatiEmail author
  • Praditya Ajidarma
  • Iwan Inrawan Wiratmadja
  • Indryati Sunaryo
  • T. M. A. Ari Samadhi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)


Sustainability performance is the achievement of an organization in economic, environmental, and social dimensions by considering the interests of stakeholders. Achieving a high sustainability performance is a challenge for not only large industries but also Small and Medium Industries (SMIs). In order to achieve high sustainability performance, an organization needs to innovate in its operations, especially in activities related to the environment, employees, society, and ethics. Conducting innovation needs resources, both financial and nonfinancial, which are very limited in the SMIs. To overcome the problem of limited resources, SMIs can implement open innovation that utilizes both internal and external resources. Open innovation has three types of practices which are inbound, outbound, and coupled. This study aims to identify the relationship between the three open innovation practices and sustainability performance in the SMIs. The respondents of this study are 125 SMIs which produce batik in Indonesia. The model is tested using the partial least square. The result shows a significant relationship between inbound open innovation and economic and environmental performance; outbound open innovation and environmental and social performance; and coupled open innovation and social performance.


Open Innovation Small and medium industries Sustainability performance 


  1. 1.
    Schaltegger, S., Wagner, M.: Managing the Business Case for Sustainability: The Integration of Social, Environmental and Economic Performance, 2nd edn. Routledge, Abingdon (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Searcy, C.: Corporate sustainability performance measurement systems: a review and research agenda. J. Bus. Ethics 107(3), 239–253 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goyal, P., Rahman, Z., Kazmi, A.A.: Corporate sustainability performance and firm performance research: literature review and future research agenda. Manag. Decis. 51(2), 361–379 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bos-Brouwers, H.E.J.: Corporate sustainability and innovation in SMEs: evidence of themes and activities in practice. Bus. Strat. Environ. 19(7), 417–435 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., Sambrook, S.: Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation. Manag. Decis. 47(8), 1323–1339 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Verbano, C., Crema, M., Venturini, K.: The identification and characterization of open innovation profiles in Italian small and medium-sized enterprises. J. Small Bus. Manag. 53(4), 1052–1075 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chesbrough, H., Bogers, M.: Explicating Open Innovation: Clarifying an Emerging Paradigm for Understanding Innovation, in New Frontiers in Open Innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huizingh, E.K.R.E.: Open innovation: state of the art and future perspectives. Technovation 31, 2–9 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mazzola, E., Bruccoleri, M., Perrone, G.: Open innovation and firms performance: state of the art and empirical evidences from the bio-pharmaceutical industry. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 70(2–3), 109–134 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martinez-Conesa, I., Soto-Acosta, P., Carayannis, E.G.: On the path towards open innovation: assessing the role of knowledge management capability and environmental dynamism in SMEs. J. Knowl. Manag. 21(3), 553–570 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lopes, A.P.V.B.V., de Carvalho, M.M.: Evolution of the open innovation paradigm: towards a contingent conceptual model. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 132, 284–298 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oltra, M.J., Flor, M.L., Alfaro, J.A.: Open innovation and firm performance: the role of organizational mechanisms. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 24(3), 814–836 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bititci, U., Garengo, P., Dörfler, V., Nudurupati, S.: Performance measurement: challenges for tomorrow. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 14(3), 305–327 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carneiro-da-Cunha, J.A., Hourneaux, F., Corrêa, H.L.: Evolution and chronology of the organisational performance measurement field. Int. J. Bus. Perform. Manag. 17(2), 223–240 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wijethilake, C.: Proactive sustainability strategy and corporate sustainability performance: the mediating effect of sustainability control systems. J. Environ. Manag. 196, 569–582 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sajan, M.P., Shalij, P.R., Ramesh, A., Augustine, B.P.: Lean manufacturing practices in Indian manufacturing SMEs and their effect on sustainability performance. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 28(6), 772–793 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 1st edn. SAGE Publications, Inc., California (2014)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Becker, J.M.: SmartPLS 3, Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bandung Institute of TechnologyBandungIndonesia
  2. 2.Telkom UniversityBandungIndonesia

Personalised recommendations