Developing sustainable business-to-business (B2B) strategies in service innovation for enhancing customer loyalty in the petrochemical industry: a systematic review

Kosasih, Oos; Hidayat, Kadarisman; Hutahayan, Benny; Sunarti Article Developing sustainable business-to-business (B2B) strategies in service innovation for enhancing customer loyalty in the petrochemical industry: a systematic review Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Kosasih, Oos; Hidayat, Kadarisman; Hutahayan, Benny; Sunarti (2024) : Developing sustainable business-to-business (B2B) strategies in service innovation for enhancing customer loyalty in the petrochemical industry: a systematic review, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 11, Iss. 1, pp. 1-19, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2422564 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/326663 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Cogent Business & Management ISSN: 2331-1975 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oabm20 Developing sustainable business-to-business (B2B) strategies in service innovation for enhancing customer loyalty in the petrochemical industry: a systematic review Oos Kosasih, Kadarisman Hidayat, Benny Hutahayan & Sunarti To cite this article: Oos Kosasih, Kadarisman Hidayat, Benny Hutahayan & Sunarti (2024) Developing sustainable business-to-business (B2B) strategies in service innovation for enhancing customer loyalty in the petrochemical industry: a systematic review, Cogent Business & Management, 11:1, 2422564, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2024.2422564 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2422564 © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 29 Oct 2024. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1033 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20 Cogent Business & ManageMent 2024, VoL. 11, no. 1, 2422564 Developing sustainable business-to-business (B2B) strategies in service innovation for enhancing customer loyalty in the petrochemical industry: a systematic review Oos Kosasih, Kadarisman Hidayat, Benny Hutahayan and Sunarti Department of Business administration, Faculty of administrative sciences, university of Brawijaya, Malang, indonesia ABSTRACT This research aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the factors that drive successful sustainable service innovation and to offer practical guidelines for adopting these strategies in the petrochemical sector. The study employs a systematic literature review methodology, reviewing and synthesizing empirical data, theoretical frameworks, and case studies from peer-reviewed journals published between 1998 and 2024. A multi-database search strategy was utilized, incorporating keywords related to sustainability and service innovation. The selection process followed a PRISMA flow diagram to ensure the inclusion of relevant and high-quality sources. The results highlight several key factors driving sustainable service innovation, including stakeholder engagement, sustainability policies, growth frameworks, and specific determinants of service innovation such as organizational culture, leadership, and technology. This study provides valuable insights for managers and policymakers on promoting and implementing sustainable service innovation to achieve long-term sustainability goals. The comprehensive analysis presented in this research offers a roadmap for petrochemical companies to navigate the complexities of sustainability while maintaining customer loyalty and ensuring economic viability in a rapidly evolving market. This study contributes to the existing body of knowledge by detailing the determinants of sustainable service innovation and their practical application in the petrochemical industry. Introduction Sustainability has increasingly become a critical issue across various sectors, including the petrochemical industry, which is notorious for its substantial environmental impact (Al-Sharrah et al., 2010; Ite etal., 2016; Yousef etal., 2024). This industry often faces criticism for its role in climate change, as well as air and water pollution, and environmental degradation (Al-Samhan et al., 2022). Consequently, there is mounting pressure on companies within this sector to implement more sustainable business practices (Ghaithan etal., 2021; Tilsted & Bauer, 2024). Sustainability extends beyond merely adhering to environmental regulations; it encompasses corporate social responsibility (CSR), which involves proactive efforts to lessen negative impacts on both the environment and society (Hadj, 2020). By adopting sustainable strategies, petrochemical companies can significantly contribute to the global sustainable development goals outlined in the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda (J. Lu et al., 2021). Furthermore, sustainability in this industry entails the efficient use of natural resources, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and the development of renewable energy within their energy portfolios (He et al., 2022). Companies that effectively incorporate sustainability principles into their operations are more likely to earn the trust of stakeholders, including customers, investors, and regulators (Almagtome et al., 2020; Kahupi et al., 2021; Stupak et al., 2021). This trust can, in turn, enhance © 2024 the author(s). Published by informa uK Limited, trading as taylor & Francis group. CONTACT oos Kosasih [email protected].ac.id Department of Business administration, Faculty of administrative sciences, university of Brawijaya, Veteran street, Ketawanggede, Lowokwaru District, Malang City, east Java, Malang 65145, indonesia https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2422564 this is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. the terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 14 July 2024 Revised 7 September 2024 Accepted 16 October 2024 KEYWORDS Customer loyalty; sustainable service innovation; petrochemical industry; sustainability policies; PRISMA SUBJECTS Sustainable Engineering & Manufacturing; Statistics for Business, Finance & Economics; Business, Management and Accounting; Business & Policy MARKETING | RESEARCH ARTICLE 2 O. KOSASIH ET AL. customer loyalty (Glaveli, 2021), bolster the company’s reputation (Gomez-Trujillo et al., 2020), and increase competitiveness in a global market that is increasingly conscious of environmental issues (Alam & Islam, 2021). Maintaining customer loyalty within the petrochemical industry poses a significant challenge. Customers, whether individuals or corporations are becoming more conscious of the importance of sustainability and environmental responsibility (Chuah etal., 2020). They tend to prefer companies that not only deliver high-quality products and services but also demonstrate a commitment to sustainable practices (Tsvetkova et al., 2020). Thus, petrochemical companies must adapt to the evolving expectations and preferences of their customers. Moreover, the intense competition in this sector exacerbates the challenge of maintaining customer loyalty (Brömer etal., 2019; Kumar & Joshi, 2023). Numerous companies are striving to develop new technologies that are both more efficient and environmentally friendly (Porter & Van der Linde, 1995; Shrivastava, 2018). To remain relevant and competitive, companies must continually innovate their services, ensuring these innovations align with sustainability goals (Hermundsdottir & Aspelund, 2021; Ibarra-Cisneros et al., 2023; Velayati et al., 2020). Addressing these challenges necessitates a focus on sustainable service innovation within the petrochemical industry. Sustainable service innovation involves the development and implementation of new services or the enhancement of existing ones in ways that promote environmental, social, and economic sustainability (Calabrese et al., 2021; Horng et al., 2018). This approach not only aids in meeting regulatory requirements and societal expectations but also drives business growth and competitiveness. By concentrating on sustainable service innovation, petrochemical companies can create value-added services that mitigate environmental impacts (Samuel et al., 2013), enhance resource efficiency (Shinkevich etal., 2019), and foster positive relationships with stakeholders (Fomukong, 2014). For example, integrating digital technologies in service operations can optimize operational efficiency and minimize waste (Javaid et al., 2022). These technologies enable real-time monitoring of processes, predictive maintenance, and energy management (Shrouf & Miragliotta, 2015), thereby reducing the overall environmental footprint (Marinakis et al., 2020). The core contribution of this study lies in its comprehensive mapping of existing research on sustainable service innovation through a Systematic Literature Review (SLR), which encompasses a broad range of publication years. By identifying the key determinants driving sustainable service innovation, this research offers a thorough understanding of the factors essential for successful implementation in the petrochemical industry. Furthermore, this study enriches the existing body of knowledge by providing detailed insights and practical guidelines for adopting sustainable service innovation strategies, ultimately enhancing customer loyalty in the industry. Based on the description above, the research question (RQ) for this study is: ‘What are the determinant variables of sustainable service innovation?’ Materials and methods Service innovation vs sustainable service innovation Service innovation refers to the development or introduction of new or enhanced services to meet customer needs and provide added value. According to Bitner etal. (2008), service innovation encompasses three main aspects: technology, service interaction, and service process. They state that ‘service innovation encompasses the development of new services, improvements in service delivery, and enhancements in customer interactions’ (Bitner et al., 2008). Service innovation can also involve changes in how services are delivered, which can lead to increased efficiency and customer satisfaction (Carlborg et al., 2014). Furthermore, service innovation is crucial for maintaining competitive advantage in a rapidly changing market. Den Hertog et al. (2010) identified six dimensions of service innovation: new service concepts, new service interfaces, new service delivery systems, new service technologies, changes in logistics, and service strategic orientations. They state that ‘service innovation is multidimensional, involving changes in service concepts, client interfaces, service delivery systems, technologies, logistics, and strategic orientations’ (Den Hertog et al., 2010). COGENT BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT 3 Meanwhile, sustainable service innovation refers to service innovations that not only focus on creating economic value but also consider social and environmental impacts. According to Kleindorfer et al. (2005), sustainable service innovation is ‘the process of developing new services or improving existing ones in a way that they meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (Kleindorfer etal., 2005). They emphasize the importance of considering the long-term impacts of service innovation on the environment and society. Moreover, sustainable service innovation also involves sustainable service innovation involves integrating sustainability principles into service design and delivery, which can enhance brand reputation, customer loyalty, and long-term profitability (Chen etal., 2010). The importance of sustainable service innovation in the context of modern business has increased with growing awareness of environmental and social issues. Sustainable service innovation not only contributes to environmental sustainability but can also be a key driver in building a positive company image and enhancing customer satisfaction (Boons & Lüdeke-Freund, 2013). Systematic literature Review (SLR) The primary objective of this research was to advance the theoretical and practical understanding of sustainable service innovation within the petrochemical industry, rather than to make a novel methodological contribution. The methodology adopted, a Systematic Literature Review (SLR), was chosen due to its strength in synthesizing and analyzing a wide range of existing studies to provide a comprehensive overview of the key determinants in this area (Kitchenham, 2012). SLR is a method used to systematically identify, evaluate, and synthesize relevant literature on a specific topic (Pati & Lorusso, 2018). Unlike traditional literature reviews, SLR follows a more structured and transparent approach, ensuring inclusivity and the quality of studies reviewed (Feng et al., 2017; Van Dinter et al., 2021). This method involves several key steps, including defining clear research questions, setting inclusion and exclusion criteria, conducting an extensive literature search across multiple databases, and assessing the quality of the identified studies (Kitchenham, 2012; Moher etal., 2009; Tranfield etal., 2003). The process culminates in a synthesis of findings, which can be performed qualitatively or quantitatively, depending on the research objectives. SLR is highly valued for its ability to provide a comprehensive overview of a specific topic, enabling researchers to identify gaps in the literature and establish a robust foundation for future research (Booth et al., 2021; Snyder, 2019). Additionally, the systematic and well-documented nature of SLR makes it replicable and enhances the validity of findings, which is crucial in evidence-based research (Higgins et al., 2019; Petticrew & Roberts, 2008). While other methods such as empirical surveys or case studies could have been considered, the SLR was deemed most appropriate for this study as it allows for a broad review of literature, ensuring that the findings are grounded in a robust analysis of existing research (Van Dinter etal., 2021). The SLR is a well-established methodological approach in academic research, particularly suitable for studies aimed at consolidating and summarizing knowledge rather than generating new empirical data (Snyder, 2019). Given that the SLR methodology is widely recognized and accepted, it does not require the same level of validation as novel or experimental methods (Feng et al., 2017). Instead, its validity stems from the rigorous process of systematically reviewing and synthesizing peer-reviewed literature, which provides a reliable foundation for the conclusions drawn in this study. Literature search strategy The literature search was systematically designed to investigate and gather various comprehensive sources discussing sustainable service innovation. This study uses the SLR approach suggested by Barbara Kitchenham (2014) and Moher et al. (2009). A multi-database search strategy was applied using several leading academic platforms, including Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Searches were conducted using combinations of keywords and phrases related to sustainability such as ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable’, as well as service innovation such as ‘service innovation’. Boolean operators like AND and OR were used to combine these keywords, for example, search phrases like ‘sustainable service innovation’, ‘sustainable service improvement’, and ‘service innovation’ AND ‘sustainability’. 4 O. KOSASIH ET AL. The literature search spanned from 1998 to 2024, with a specific focus on capturing the latest developments in research on sustainability in the context of service innovation. This method is expected to provide a comprehensive understanding of various approaches and findings in this relevant domain. To find out the flow of article selection in this research, a PRISMA flow diagram was created which is presented in Figure 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria This study involved a manual article review process in three stages, including title, abstract, and full-text review (Kitchenham, 2012). Relevant sources were defined through specific inclusion and exclusion criteria to guarantee their relevance and quality. Inclusion Criteria: 1. Studies published between the years 1998–2024. 2. Articles that are part of journals or in the proceedings (excluded are books, book chapters, reviews, or conference reviews). 3. Articles referring to sustainability and service innovation in the title, abstract, or full text. 4. Articles containing empirical data, theoretical frameworks, or illustrative case studies of methodologies, challenges, and/or results regarding sustainability and service innovation. 5. Full-text sources in English, as a global accessibility criterion. Articles were included in this review if they met all of the above inclusion criteria. Exclusion criteria involved publications beyond the stipulated date range, studies not reporting the terms sustainability and service innovation in the title, abstract, or full text, studies that were not directly related to Figure 1. PRisMa flowchart. COGENT BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT 5 integrating sustainable service innovation into the manufacturing industry, and non-peer-reviewed sources, such as blogs, opinions, and non-scholarly publications, all helping this review maintain scholarly integrity. The other exclusion criteria included full-text articles with language that was not English, for purposes of this study. Data extraction and analysis Essential information such as the authors, year of publication, study design, study context/scope, main findings, and recommendations were extracted from selected sources using a standardized form. This structured approach facilitated the organization and comparison of data across different sources (Kitchenham, 2012). The synthesis of information aimed to address the research questions while considering the geographical and contextual diversity of the studies, ensuring that the findings were widely applicable and relevant to the research topic. Results Distribution of studies by year of publication Multiple academic articles focusing on sustainable service innovation have been annually published, predominantly in 2018. This trend underscores the ongoing relevance of research on sustainable service innovation in recent years, as illustrated in Figure 2. Distribution of studies by citation (most cited) Figure 3 shows the citation distribution among the papers in this study, highlighting the most influential works in sustainable service innovation. Chen et al. (2015) is the most cited, with 104 citations, underscoring its significant impact on the field. Calabrese et al. (2021) follow with 50 citations, emphasizing the integration of sustainability with service innovation strategies. Wang (2017) and Giannopoulou et al. (2011) also stand out with 28 and 17 citations, respectively, for their contributions to sustainability in service sectors. Papers with fewer citations, such as those by Zhang etal. (2018), Coreynen et al. (2021), and Liu et al. (2023), represent emerging research areas, indicating their growing relevance in the field. This citation analysis highlights key contributions that have shaped the current understanding of sustainable service innovation. Distribution of studies by journal By tracing the distribution of studies by journal, it helps identify which journals are the main hubs for research on a particular topic. Based on Figure 4, the journal Sustainability (Switzerland) is the most frequent source, with a total of 5 articles published on the topic, indicating its leading role in disseminating Figure 2. Yearly Distribution of sustainable service innovation. 6 O. KOSASIH ET AL. research related to sustainability practices and service innovation. Following Sustainability, the Journal of Cleaner Production has contributed 2 articles, reflecting its focus on research that integrates sustainability with industrial practices, including service innovation. Other journals, such as Creativity and Innovation Management, International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Kybernetes, South African Journal of Business Management, and Technological Forecasting and Social Change, each contributed 1 article. This distribution suggests that while a few journals are leading the discourse on sustainable service innovation, there is a diverse range of publications contributing to the field, reflecting the interdisciplinary nature of the research. Distribution of studies by published countries Interpreting this distribution is crucial as it reveals the global engagement and regional focus within the field of sustainable service innovation. It helps identify leading countries driving research and highlights the global collaboration needed to advance sustainability goals. Understanding where the most research is being conducted can guide future collaborations, funding allocations, and policy-making efforts in sustainability. Figure 5 shows that China leads in sustainable service innovation research with 28 papers, reflecting its strong focus on sustainability. Italy follows with 10 papers, indicating significant research activity. Luxembourg, despite its size, contributes notably with 5 papers. The USA and Sweden each have 4 papers, showing consistent research efforts. European countries like the UK, Spain, and Belgium contribute 3 papers each, highlighting Europe’s active involvement. Countries such as France, Finland, and Australia, with 1 paper each, also participate in the global research landscape, though to a lesser extent. Figure 3. Distribution of papers by total citations. Figure 4. Distribution of papers by journal. COGENT BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT 7 Distribution of studies by methodology This descriptive analysis is important as it sheds light on the prevailing research approaches in the field, helping researchers to select appropriate methodologies for their studies. It also highlights opportunities to innovate by employing less common methods, which could lead to new insights and advancements in sustainable service innovation. Figure 6 illustrates the distribution of methodologies employed in sustainable service innovation research. Qualitative research, Case study research, Mixed methods, and Structural equation modeling are the most commonly used methodologies, each appearing in 4 articles. These methods are favored for their ability to explore complex phenomena, provide detailed analysis, and validate theoretical models. Less frequently used methodologies, such as Regression analysis, Average score & entropy weight method, Analytical Hierarchy Process, Engineering Design Process, and Systematic literature review, are each utilized in 1 article. These specialized methods contribute unique analytical perspectives, complementing the dominant approaches. Additionally, a qualitative analysis was conducted on the 21 chosen articles, as indicated in Table 1. Figure 5. Distribution of papers by published countries. Figure 6. Methodological approaches used in sustainable service innovation Research. 14 O. KOSASIH ET AL. companies meet environmental regulations but also allows them to develop new products and services that are more sustainable, thereby gaining a competitive advantage in the market. Research’s contributions One of the key contributions of this research is the comprehensive mapping of existing studies on sustainable service innovation, achieved through a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) that spans a broad range of publication years. This approach allows for the identification of key determinants driving sustainable service innovation, providing a deep understanding of the factors essential for its successful implementation within the petrochemical industry. The study further contributes to the field by offering detailed insights and practical guidelines, aiding in the adoption of sustainable service innovation strategies that can enhance customer loyalty in this sector. Managerial and policy implications This research offers several key implications for managers, policymakers, and other stakeholders within the petrochemical industry. For managers, the study underscores the necessity of fostering an organizational culture that not only supports but actively drives sustainable service innovation. This involves encouraging employees to engage in the innovation process and creating a work environment that promotes collaboration, creativity, and a shared commitment to sustainability. Specifically, managers in petrochemical companies (such as Pertamina Patra Niaga, Saudi Arabian Oil Co, China Petroleum & Chemical Corp, PetroChina Co Ltd, Exxon Mobil Corp, and Shell) must prioritize sustainability by integrating it into their core business strategies. For example, these companies can focus on reducing their carbon footprint through the development of eco-friendly products, investing in renewable energy sources, or adopting circular economy practices. Effective communication and leadership are also crucial; managers must articulate the strategic importance of sustainability and secure the necessary resources to overcome resistance to change. These strategies not only improve the company’s environmental impact but also enhance its market competitiveness and brand reputation. For policymakers, the research highlights the importance of crafting and enforcing sustainability policies that promote and incentivize sustainable service innovation. These policies could include tax incentives for companies investing in green technologies, subsidies for research and development in sustainable practices, or stringent regulations on emissions that drive companies to innovate. Policymakers need to ensure that regulations are stable and consistent, providing a predictable framework within which petrochemical companies can plan long-term investments in sustainability. Moreover, by fostering public-private partnerships, policymakers can encourage the sharing of best practices and innovations across the industry, benefiting a wide range of stakeholders including the public, environmental advocacy groups, and future generations. The findings of this study are particularly beneficial to key stakeholder groups within the petrochemical industry, including top management, operational teams, investors, and regulatory bodies. For example, petrochemical companies has adopted sustainability strategies such as integrating digital technologies for real-time monitoring of emissions or switching to renewable energy sources, demonstrating how these innovations can be successfully implemented to achieve both environmental and economic goals. This study serves as a roadmap for these and other companies aiming to balance sustainability with profitability, offering practical insights into how sustainable service innovations can be leveraged to improve overall organizational performance. Conclusions This research identifies and analyzes key factors driving sustainable service innovation in the petrochemical industry, including stakeholder engagement in innovation processes, sustainability policies, growth frameworks, and determinants of service innovation itself (such as organizational culture, leadership, and technology). By integrating sustainability principles into business models and growth strategies, companies can enhance competitiveness, reduce environmental risks, and build stronger relationships with COGENT BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT 15 stakeholders. This study provides valuable insights for managers and policymakers on how to promote and implement sustainable service innovation to achieve long-term sustainability goals. Furthermore, the findings underscore the importance of a holistic approach to sustainability, which not only addresses regulatory compliance but also drives proactive measures in corporate social responsibility (CSR) and environmental stewardship. The comprehensive analysis presented in this research offers a roadmap for petrochemical companies to navigate the complexities of sustainability while maintaining customer loyalty and ensuring economic viability in a rapidly evolving market. Research limitations and future research directions This research has several limitations that need to be acknowledged. Firstly, it is confined to literature available in English and may not encompass relevant research in other languages. Secondly, the study uses an SLR methodology dependent on the availability and quality of published data, which means that some pertinent information may not be included. For future research, it is recommended to broaden the scope by incorporating literature in various languages and exploring other industry sectors to gain a more comprehensive understanding of sustainable service innovation. Further research could also explore the specific impacts of various government policies and environmental regulations on sustainable innovation practices across different geographical and industrial contexts. Additionally, empirical studies involving surveys and interviews with practitioners in the field could provide deeper insights into the challenges and best practices in implementing sustainable service innovation. Author contributions • Oos Kosasih: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review & Editing. • Kadarisman Hidayat: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review & Editing. • Benny Hutahayan: Visualization, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing. • Sunarti: Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). About the authors Dr. Oos Kosasih is an expert in business administration, economics, and marketing, with a doctorate from the Faculty of Administrative Sciences. His research bridges theory and practice, offering impactful insights, particularly in the petroleum industry. Dr. Kosasih’s contributions to esteemed journals and international conferences have established him as a thought leader in his field. Prof. Kadarisman Hidayat, a faculty member at Universitas Brawijaya, specializes in strategic marketing and taxation. He holds his entire academic portfolio, from undergraduate to doctorate, from Universitas Brawijaya. His extensive scholarly publications and contributions to both academia and the professional community reflect his dedication to advancing knowledge in these areas. Dr. Benny Hutahayan a faculty member in Public Administration at Universitas Brawijaya since 2016 and an adjunct lecturer at Perbanas Institute since 1997, combines academic rigor with 20 years of industry experience at British Petroleum (BP). His expertise spans engineering, management, accounting, and public administration, making him a versatile educator and mentor known for integrating practical insights into his teaching. Dr. Sunarti is a lecturer at Universitas Brawijaya’s Faculty of Administrative Sciences, with her academic credentials from Universitas Brawijaya and a doctorate from Universitas Airlangga. Her work in macroeconomics, business 16 O. KOSASIH ET AL. administration, and tourism management includes numerous research publications and active involvement in community service, enriching both academic and practical applications in her fields. Data availability statement Data are available upon request from the authors (mail to [email protected].id). References Aagaard, A., & Ritzén, S. (2020). The critical aspects of co-creating and co-capturing sustainable value in service business models. Creativity and Innovation Management, 29(2), 292–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12339 Aisi, M. K. (2022). Effective Strategic Management: Catalyst for Organizational Efficiency and Accountability in Educational Institutions in Papua New Guinea. Journal of Communication And Development Studies. 8(1), 129–159. Al-Samhan, M., Al-Fadhli, J., Al-Otaibi, A. M., Al-Attar, F., Bouresli, R., & Rana, M. S. (2022). Prospects of refinery switching from conventional to integrated: An opportunity for sustainable investment in the petrochemical industry. Fuel, 310, 122161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2021.122161 Al-Sharrah, G., Elkamel, A., & Almanssoor, A. (2010). Sustainability indicators for decision-making and optimisation in the process industry: The case of the petrochemical industry. Chemical Engineering Science, 65(4), 1452–1461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2009.10.015 Alam, S. M. S., & Islam, K. M. Z. (2021). Examining the role of environmental corporate social responsibility in building green corporate image and green competitive advantage. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 6(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-021-00062-w Almagtome, A., Khaghaany, M., & Önce, S. (2020). Corporate governance quality, stakeholders’ pressure, and sustainable development: An integrated approach. International Journal of Mathematical, Engineering and Management Sciences, 5(6), 1077–1090. https://doi.org/10.33889/IJMEMS.2020.5.6.082 Barbara Kitchenham. (2014). Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele University. Technical Report, 33(2004), 1–26. Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Morgan, F. N. (2008). Service blueprinting: A practical technique for service innovation. California Management Review, 50(3), 66–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166446 Boons, F., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2013). Business models for sustainable innovation: State-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.007 Booth, A., James, M.-S., Clowes, M., & Sutton, A. (2021). Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review. SAGE Publications. Brömer, J., Brandenburg, M., & Gold, S. (2019). Transforming chemical supply chains toward sustainability – A practice-based view. Journal of Cleaner Production, 236, 117701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117701 Calabrese, A., Forte, G., & Ghiron, N. L. (2018). Fostering sustainability-oriented service innovation (SOSI) through business model renewal: The SOSI tool. Journal of Cleaner Production, 201(1), 783–791. Calabrese, A., Costa, R., Ghiron, N. L., Tiburzi, L., & Pedersen, E. R. G. (2021). How sustainable-orientated service innovation strategies are contributing to the sustainable development goals. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 169, 120816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120816 Carlborg, P., Kindström, D., & Kowalkowski, C. (2014). The evolution of service innovation research: A critical review and synthesis. The Service Industries Journal, 34(5), 373–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2013.780044 Chen, C.-L. (2017). Service providers’ sustainable service innovation: Service-dominant logic. The Service Industries Journal, 37(9-10), 628–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2017.1340456 Chen, C. J., Huang, J. W., & Hsiao, Y. C. (2010). Knowledge management and innovativeness: The role of organizational climate and structure. International Journal of Manpower, 31(8), 848–870. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437721011088548 Chen, Y.-S. (2010). The drivers of green brand equity: Green brand image, green satisfaction, and green trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(2), 307–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0223-9 Chen, Y. S., Lin, Y. H., Lin, C. Y., & Chang, C. W. (2015). Enhancing green absorptive capacity, green dynamic capacities and green service innovation to improve firm performance: An analysis of structural equation modeling (SEM). Sustainability, 7(11), 15674-15692. Chuah, S. H.-W., El-Manstrly, D., Tseng, M.-L., & Ramayah, T. (2020). Sustaining customer engagement behavior through corporate social responsibility: The roles of environmental concern and green trust. Journal of Cleaner Production, 262, 121348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121348 Coreynen, W., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Vanderstraeten, J. (2021). Toward servitized research: an integrated approach for sustainable product-service innovation. Sustainability, 13(15), 8422–8443. Den Hertog, P., Van der Aa, W., & De Jong, M. W. (2010). Capabilities for managing service innovation: Towards a conceptual framework. Journal of Service Management, 21(4), 490–514. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564231011066123 Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Capstone Publishing Ltd. Enquist, B., & Sebhatu, S. P. (2018). Service innovation, sustainability and quality meeting city challenges in the age of accelerations. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 10(4), 431–446. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJQSS-11-2017-0100 COGENT BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT 17 Feng, L., Chiam, Y. K., & Lo, S. K. (2017). Text-mining techniques and tools for systematic literature reviews: A systematic literature review. 2017 24th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (Apsec), 1(1), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1109/APSEC.2017.10 Fomukong, J. (2014). Relationship between corporate social responsibility and economic value added from the oil and gas industry perspective. Walden University. Ghaithan, A., Khan, M., Mohammed, A., & Hadidi, L. (2021). Impact of industry 4.0 and lean manufacturing on the sustainability performance of plastic and petrochemical organizations in Saudi Arabia. Sustainability, 13(20), 11252. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011252 Giannopoulou, E., Gryszkiewicz, L., & Barlatier, P.-J. (2011). A conceptual model for the development of service innovation capabilities in Research and Technology Organisations. International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies, 4(4), 319–335. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJKMS.2011.048441 Glaveli, N. (2021). Corporate social responsibility toward stakeholders and customer loyalty: Investigating the roles of trust and customer identification with the company. Social Responsibility Journal, 17(3), 367–383. https://doi. org/10.1108/SRJ-07-2019-0257 Gomez-Trujillo, A. M., Velez-Ocampo, J., & Gonzalez-Perez, M. A. (2020). A literature review on the causality between sustainability and corporate reputation: What goes first? Management of Environmental Quality, 31(2), 406–430. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-09-2019-0207 Hadj, T. B. (2020). Effects of corporate social responsibility towards stakeholders and environmental management on responsible innovation and competitiveness. Journal of Cleaner Production, 250, 119490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2019.119490 He, Y., Li, X., Huang, P., & Wang, J. (2022). Exploring the road toward environmental sustainability: Natural resources, renewable energy consumption, economic growth, and greenhouse gas emissions. Sustainability, 14(3), 1579. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031579 Hermundsdottir, F., & Aspelund, A. (2021). Sustainability innovations and firm competitiveness: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 280, 124715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124715 Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (Eds.). (2019). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604 Horng, J.-S., Liu, C.-H. S., Chou, S.-F., Tsai, C.-Y., & Hu, D.-C. (2018). Developing a sustainable service innovation framework for the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(1), 455–474. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-12-2015-0727 Ibarra-Cisneros, M. A., Reyna, J. B. V., & Hernández-Perlines, F. (2023). Interaction between knowledge management, intellectual capital and innovation in higher education institutions. Education and Information Technologies, 28(8), 9685–9708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11563-x Ite, A. E., Ufot, U. F., Ite, M. U., Isaac, I. O., & Ibok, U. J. (2016). Petroleum industry in Nigeria: Environmental issues, national environmental legislation and implementation of international environmental law. American Journal of Environmental Protection, 4(1), 21–37. Javaid, M., Haleem, A., Singh, R. P., Suman, R., & Gonzalez, E. S. (2022). Understanding the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies in improving environmental sustainability. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 3, 203–217. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.01.008 Kahupi, I., Hull, C. E., Okorie, O., & Millette, S. (2021). Building competitive advantage with sustainable products–A case study perspective of stakeholders. Journal of Cleaner Production, 289, 125699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125699 Kitchenham, B. A. (2012). Systematic Review in Software Engineering – Where We Are and Where We Should Be Going. Systematic Review in Software Engineering, 1, 35. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2372233.2372235 Kleindorfer, P. R., Singhal, K., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2005). Sustainable operations management. Production and Operations Management, 14(4), 482–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2005.tb00235.x Kumar, A., & Joshi, S. (2023). Challenges and opportunities to conduct a smart Supply Chain management in oil and Gas Industry with a sustainable strategies. Journal of Informatics Education and Research, 3(2). 772–785. Li, L., Kung, H.-C., Tsai, F.-S., Liu, C.-F., & Lu, K.-H. (2018). Service learning, service climate, and service-based social innovation for sustainability. Sustainability, 10(7), 2566. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072566 Liu, C.-H., La, Q. P., Ng, Y.-L., & Mamengko, R. P. (2023). Discovering the sustainable innovation service process of organizational environment, information sharing and satisfaction: The moderating roles of pressure. Sustainability, 15(14), 11445. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411445 Lu, C. (2015). The role of sustainability policy in influencing service innovation. A case study of changzhou brt system. Economics and Policy of Energy and the Environment, 2014(3), 167–168. https://doi.org/10.3280/EFE2014-003009 Lu, J., Liang, M., Zhang, C., Rong, D., Guan, H., Mazeikaite, K., & Streimikis, J. (2021). Assessment of corporate social responsibility by addressing sustainable development goals. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(2), 686–703. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2081 Marinakis, V., Doukas, H., Tsapelas, J., Mouzakitis, S., Sicilia, Á., Madrazo, L., & Sgouridis, S. (2020). From big data to smart energy services: An application for intelligent energy management. Future Generation Computer Systems, 110, 572–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2018.04.062 Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269, W64. https://doi. org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 18 O. KOSASIH ET AL. Pati, D., & Lorusso, L. N. (2018). How to write a systematic review of the literature. HERD, 11(1), 15–30. https://doi. org/10.1177/1937586717747384 Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. John Wiley & Sons. Porter, M., & Van der Linde, C. (1995). Green and competitive: Ending the stalemate. The Dynamics of the Eco-Efficient Economy, 33, 120–134. Samuel, V. B., Agamuthu, P., & Hashim, M. A. (2013). Indicators for assessment of sustainable production: A case study of the petrochemical industry in Malaysia. Ecological Indicators, 24, 392–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolind.2012.07.017 Shinkevich, A. I., Kudryavtseva, S. S., Shinkevich, M. V., Salimianova, I. G., & Ishmuradova, I. I. (2019). Improving the efficiency of production process organization in the resource saving system of petrochemical enterprises. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 9(4), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.7966 Shrivastava, P. (2018). Environmental technologies and competitive advantage. In Business Ethics and Strategy, Volumes I and II (pp. 317–334). Routledge. Shrouf, F., & Miragliotta, G. (2015). Energy management based on Internet of Things: Practices and framework for adoption in production management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 100, 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.055 Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039 Stupak, I., Mansoor, M., & Smith, C. T. (2021). Conceptual framework for increasing legitimacy and trust of sustainability governance. Energy, Sustainability and Society, 11(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-021-00280-x Tilsted, J. P., & Bauer, F. (2024). Connected we stand: Lead firm ownership ties in the global petrochemical industry. Ecological Economics, 224, 108261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108261 Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222. https://doi. org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375 Tsvetkova, D., Bengtsson, E., & Durst, S. (2020). Maintaining sustainable practices in SMEs: Insights from Sweden. Sustainability, 12(24), 10242. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410242 Van Dinter, R., Tekinerdogan, B., & Catal, C. (2021). Automation of systematic literature reviews: A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 136, 106589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2021.106589 Velayati, R., Shabani, E., & Nazarian, A. (2020). Hope for the best, prepare for the worst: Barriers to service innovation. Qualitative Market Research, 23(4), 843–863. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-05-2020-0062 Wang, Z., Subramanian, N., Abdulrahman, M. D., Cui, H., Wu, L., & Liu, C. (2017). Port sustainable services innovation: Ningbo port users’ expectation. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 11, 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. spc.2016.08.002 Yousef, H. A., ElSabry, E. A., & Adris, A. E. (2024). Impact of technology management in improving sustainability performance for Egyptian petroleum refineries and petrochemical companies. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 18(3), 517–538. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJESM-02-2023-0002 Zhang, J., Xie, H., Li, H., Timothy, R., Pu, S., Deng, Q., & Jin, W. (2018). Integrated framework of growth management for identification of service innovation levels and priorities. Sustainability, 10(9), 3319. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su10093319