Blockchain technology as a game changer for green innovation: Green entrepreneurship as a roadmap to green economic sustainability in Peru

Mohammad Rashed Hasan Polas; Kabir, Ahmed Imran; Sohel-Uz-Zaman, Abu Saleh Md.; Karim, Ridoan; Tabash, Mosab I. Article Blockchain technology as a game changer for green innovation: Green entrepreneurship as a roadmap to green economic sustainability in Peru Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity Provided in Cooperation with: Society of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity (SOItmC) Suggested Citation: Mohammad Rashed Hasan Polas; Kabir, Ahmed Imran; Sohel-Uz-Zaman, Abu Saleh Md.; Karim, Ridoan; Tabash, Mosab I. (2022) : Blockchain technology as a game changer for green innovation: Green entrepreneurship as a roadmap to green economic sustainability in Peru, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, ISSN 2199-8531, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, pp. 1-19, https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8020062 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/274363 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/   Citation: Polas, M.R.H.; Kabir, A.I.; Sohel-Uz-Zaman, A.S.M.; Karim, R.; Tabash, M.I. Blockchain Technology as a Game Changer for Green Innovation: Green Entrepreneurship as a Roadmap to Green Economic Sustainability in Peru. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/ joitmc8020062 Received: 11 March 2022 Accepted: 27 March 2022 Published: 29 March 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity Article Blockchain Technology as a Game Changer for Green Innovation: Green Entrepreneurship as a Roadmap to Green Economic Sustainability in Peru Mohammad Rashed Hasan Polas 1,* , Ahmed Imran Kabir 2, Abu Saleh Md. Sohel-Uz-Zaman 2, Ridoan Karim 3and Mosab I. Tabash 4 1Institute of Scientific Research and Graduate School, Universidad de Lima, Javier Prado Este 4600, Santiago de Surco, Lima 15023, Peru 2School of Business and Economics, United International University, Dhaka 1212, Bangladesh; [email protected] (A.I.K.); [email protected] (A.S.M.S.-U.-Z.) 3Department of Business Law & Taxation, School of Business, Monash University, Jalan Lagoon Selatan, Bandar Sunway 47500, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia; [email protected] 4Department of Business Administration, College of Business, Al Ain University, Al Ain P.O. Box 64141, United Arab Emirates; [email protected] *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Blockchain technology has been heralded as a game changer for addressing severe environmental and economic sustainability challenges. In response to rising environmental concerns, blockchain technology (BCT) is transforming green innovation, culminating in green economic practices and well-established business models. Recognizing this, we investigated the role of blockchain technology in green innovation practices and its impact on green economic sustainability, which has an impact on green environmental sustainability. Moreover, 184 smalland medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) were surveyed in Lima, Peru. Data for this cross-sectional study were gathered using stratified random sampling. The positivist approach was implemented using a statistical induction method. Prior studies’ research constructs were measured using validated measurement scales. For quantitative data analysis, using the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) framework, this study provided two key findings. First, sustainability orientation and sustainability attitude have a positive and significant effect on the adoption of green innovation that employs green energy (solar) technology towards a sustainable green economy. Second, the intention to use blockchain technology mediates the relationship between sustainability orientation and social perception with the adoption of green innovation that employs green energy (solar) technology towards a sustainable green economy. We recommend that smalland medium-sized enterprises embrace green innovation and blockchain technology to protect the environment and boost community cohesiveness. Keywords: blockchain technology; green entrepreneurship; green innovation; green economy; sustainability 1. Introduction Technological advancements have made significant contributions to the development of the economy and the advancement of humanity, such as through blockchain open innovation. Because it is altering how economic transactions are carried out, blockchain open innovation is one of the technological developments that has a lot of promise for this progress [ 1 , 2 ]. Blockchain open innovation is already taking place all around the world; it’s just an issue of scale or viewpoint [ 1 , 3 ]. Companies are now broadening its reach, especially through digital tools, into a universal strategy that is spreading in all directions, after keeping it purely for their local partners for so long. Individuals and small businesses are now being targeted by businesses, and users and customers are becoming J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8020062 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/joitmc J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 62 2 of 19 “cocreators” and are actively involved. Because blockchain open innovation has constraints, it needs to recreate itself on the basis of renewed trust and ideals that prioritize ethics [ 1 , 2 ]. Recognizing that BT is unmistakably occurring everywhere, it’s fascinating to observe how blockchain open innovation may interact with blockchain technology, and one of the most intriguing things for us is its ability to revolutionize innovation processes [ 3 ]. Using BT can help us get closer to a fundamental rethink of how we conduct business and compete [ 3 ], which is one of the primary aims of blockchain open innovation. Green entrepreneurship is a fundamental driver of the green economy. Rapid economic growth that uses green innovation has resulted in a significant increase in the consequences of environmental concerns in Peru [ 1 , 2 , 4 ]. As a result, eco-innovation has become a critical component in leveraging ecologically favorable opportunities and ecosystems to offset natural resource depletion [ 3 , 5 ]. Consequently, green innovation is recognized as the primary source of industry advancement, taking a variety of environmental considerations into account. Businesses are seriously considering making green innovation methods mandatory due to increased external demand from consumers (eco-friendly products), the environment (pollution, groundwater quality), the community (health dangers), and the government (governance of revenue). As a result, resource scarcity, expanding human wants and preferences, community pressure, and government regulations push firms to achieve a balance between long-term development and corporate expansion [2,3]. The notion of green entrepreneurship is growing in response to the need for sustainable development [ 3 , 6 ]. The green economy, on the other hand, is viewed as a means of achieving long-term prosperity and a higher standard of living. A green economy can help with environmental challenges, resource use, and the wellbeing of people at the bottom of the economic pyramid [ 5 , 7 ]. Numerous studies have shown that transitioning to a green economy has far-reaching economic and societal consequences [ 4 , 7 , 8 ]. With this level of logic, the “go green” message has been resonating all over the world. Green entrepreneurship is also seen as one of the most essential tools used in the transition to a green economy. As a result of the struggle for sustainability, an entrepreneurial attitude based on an intrinsic talent for managing organizations has emerged. Entrepreneurship’s significance in creating a wealthier and more environmentally sustainable society is only now being recognized [7,9]. Blockchain technology is drawing the interest of a diverse variety of businesses, including energy firms, startups, technology developers, and financial institutions, as well as governments and academic institutions globally, as an emerging technology [ 5 , 8 ]. Several industry executives feel that blockchain technology has the potential to deliver significant benefits and innovation. Blockchain technology, for example, was inspired by decentralized digital currency [ 3 , 6 ]. Decentralization and its reliability in distributed systems, as well as its secure data storage technique and zero exchange transaction costs, are just a few of blockchain technology’s noteworthy characteristics. A blockchain is essentially a distributed ledger network in which nodes communicate with one another to directly trade data and transactions. A blockchain’s key characteristics are decentralization and immutability [1,10–12]. Blockchain technology has the potential to improve the energy economy’s processes, markets, and users, making it more environmentally friendly as a result. Green energy can help to lessen the greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions created by current usage [ 13 , 14 ]. Businesses such as banks, manufacturers, smalland medium-sized firms, and agricultural product manufacturers are already using blockchains to boost green innovation that necessitates automation and remote sensors. Blockchain technology, by establishing a secure and private mesh network, has provided Peruvian green innovation with a new framework that reduces the risks associated with central server architecture. Blockchain technology enables a safe and low-power architecture for remotely monitoring physical activity without the use of traditional centralized cloud servers. This results in a more ecologically friendly IoT ecosystem, also known as green innovation. Blockchain technology is increasingly being employed in green innovation [14,15]. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 62 3 of 19 Most importantly, the emphasis on comprehending environmentalism and sustainability strategic initiatives has proven that a green orientation can help firms’ principal concerns and world natural resources. While green entrepreneurship is still seen as an appropriate development strategy, the literature reveals that it is underutilized [ 16 ]. A transformation in the public’s perspective and attitude toward green activities, particularly in the workplace, is required for the green economy and sustainable development to take root and take hold [17]. Promoting green innovation is a tough endeavor due to the specific characteristics associated with standardized discoveries [ 3 , 18 ] in SMEs. To break free from the limited sandbox of standards, SMEs must go outside their typical industrial knowledge base for new sources of expertise, both within and externally. Firms, particularly smalland medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), cannot create knowledge solely through their own resources (research and development (R&D)). As a consequence, they communicate and collaborate with rivals and external partners, using each other’s expertise, experience, and assets, as outlined by the notion of open innovation using blockchain technology [5,19] . In the case of environmental-related green technologies, where internal and external information borders are becoming permeable, firms are increasingly relying on open green innovation methodologies [ 6 , 20 ] using blockchain technology. A crucial policy concern for addressing environmental challenges is the extent to which green ideas may be improved through blockchain technology. Government authorities must intervene in this area to eliminate the impediments that inhibit the green effect of inventive openness. Such impediments can result in a pattern of failure in innovation [ 20 ], which can be avoided by adopting green innovation behavior when working with external partners to extend their knowledge base (and R&D) on green innovation and blockchain technology [6,10,19]. The study’s objective was to investigate the factors that influence the use of blockchain technology for green innovation by employees of smalland medium-sized businesses in Lima, Peru. Here, the positivist method was used to acquire empirical evidence through the hypothetic deductive observation procedure [ 21 ]. Descriptive research is a study that has well-defined problem statements, established assumptions, and a substantial amount of data to support it [ 21 , 22 ]. A cross-sectional survey was utilized to choose 184 smalland medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Lima, Peru. Using structural equation modeling, the hypotheses’ direct and indirect impacts were examined. Few studies have used empirical analysis to investigate the relationship between blockchain technology and the adoption of green innovation and whether entrepreneurs are motivated to adopt green innovation via blockchain technology in order to contribute to the green environment and green economic development. We also discuss outstanding issues and future research areas that must be taken into account when developing a sustainable green innovation ecosystem using blockchain technology. Finally, we aimed to identify the main drivers of green innovation within SMEs and investigate the prospects of blockchain applications in this area that contribute to green economic growth. The research questions are as follows: RQ1: How is blockchain technology applied in business operations? RQ2: What are the most important factors influencing green innovation in the smalland medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) sector? RQ3: What are the possible benefits to a country’s economic growth from implementing green innovation utilizing blockchain technology? A literature review is followed by the formulation of hypotheses, which is then followed by a research technique that comprises the design of a research project, data collection, and analysis of the results. Following that, the findings are scrutinized, including the demographic features of the respondents, model assessment measurement, discriminant validity, structural model evaluation, and hypothesis testing. The conclusion highlights the study’s impact after a review of previous studies. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 62 4 of 19 2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development 2.1. Blockchain and Open Innovation When discussing blockchain and open innovation, the term “coopetition” comes to mind. Indeed, with the new data science, classification algorithms, and artificial intelligence methods, it is clear that for rivals to take advantage of a market, they must pool their data [4,7,9] . To facilitate such sharing, a new type of governance based on the notion of a common data repository is required. Full blockchain open innovation isn’t suited for all use cases, isn’t straightforward to implement, and won’t be achievable if the network has significant competitive pressures [ 7 , 11 ]. However, we believe that the most transformative value can be generated when blockchain open innovation, BT, and other intelligent opensource technologies are combined. Transparency and privacy in the service connection between humans and technology are at the heart of the dynamic of individuals and organizations being trust-free in blockchain business services. Because it permanently stores transaction history at every node of the blockchain, BT allows anyone to see the records of each transaction they conduct [ 6 , 8 , 12 , 23 ]. Furthermore, because blockchain transactions are recorded using public and private keys (i.e., lengthy strings of characters that no one can read), persons can opt to remain anonymous in order to safeguard their privacy while allowing other parties to authenticate their identity [6,10,24]. 2.2. Sustainability Orientation There are many various approaches to sustainability today, such as maintaining yield to keep up with increased demand, preserving a desirable way of life for the future, and promoting ecological balance [ 9 , 25 – 27 ]. All of the preceding ideas on sustainability are part of a broader perspective on sustainability that encourages partnering with the environment so that future generations are not deprived [ 11 , 28 , 29 ]. This approach is also stated to aid in the operationalization of sustainability by capturing the conditions of economic, environmental, and social components [ 9 , 30 ]. Persons who are more worried about the environment are more inclined to participate in sustainability exercises [12,23,31,32]. It has been discovered that those who consider supporting sustainability while conceiving the activities have a strong appreciation for the movement [ 11 , 12 , 24 , 33 ]. A business strategy that integrates environmental and cultural issues is referred to as “sustainable orientation” [ 27 ]. An examination of the notion of sustainability orientation reveals that it was created with the sole purpose of supporting sustainable enterprise [ 23 , 31 , 34 ]. Numerous studies reveal that there is a positive and significant relationship between sustainability orientation and the adoption of green innovation [ 12 , 27 , 31 ]. Kuckertz and Wagner [ 28 ] discovered the beneficial impacts of a sustainability orientation focused on green innovation adoption in a study. Entrepreneurship is also said to have a keen and persuasive influence on sustainability orientation [24,32,33,35]. As a result, we arrived at the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 1 (H1). Sustainability orientation has a positive and significant relationship with the adoption of green innovation that employs green energy (solar) technology towards a sustainable green economy. 2.3. Sustainability Attitude Attitude is described as “the extent to which a person has a negative or foreboding perception or appraisal of the behaviour under consideration” [ 24 , 35 , 36 ]. People might have either a positive or negative attitude toward a given object, which influences their motivation to adopt green innovation. Furthermore, numerous studies have found that a person’s attitude is a big and powerful motivator of their entrepreneurial urge that affects their intention to adopt green innovation [ 29 , 34 , 37 ]. According to Tih and Zainol [38,39] , attitude is also a significant factor in influencing pro-environmental intention and sustainability commitment [ 37 , 40 ]. People’s propensity to engage in specific behaviors is influenced in part by their own mental attitude. Furthermore, their way of thinking has a huge impact on green entrepreneurial ambitions that impacts the adoption of green innovation [ 41 – 43 ]. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 62 5 of 19 Numerous entrepreneurship studies have found that attitude influences the adoption of green innovation [39,42,44]. According to studies such as [ 45 ] and [ 44 ], researchers discovered that one’s attitude influences one’s pro-environmental behavioral intention that leads to green innovation. According to [ 46 ], an individual’s positive or negative attitude may influence their motivation to execute sustainable actions that lead to green economic sustainability. Ahmad et al. [ 47 ] discovered that people’s environmental behavior was influenced by their attitude. As a result, it was hypothesized that: Hypothesis 2 (H2). Sustainability attitude has a positive and significant relationship with the adoption of green innovation that employs green energy (solar) technology towards a sustainable green economy. 2.4. Social Perception Individual and group activities are influenced by social perception, which is an external factor. The sense of societal pressure that a person has impacts whether or not they will act [ 48 ]. Given that people are more concerned with how their social actions are seen by the general public, we investigated the impact of social perception on personal conduct and entrepreneurs’ intentions to adopt green innovation that employs green energy technology and leads to green economic sustainability [ 49 – 51 ]. In general, social perception is one of the external factors that influences whether or not other people or groups accept or reject an individual’s actions or statements that drives them to adopt green innovation that uses green entrepreneurship practices [ 33 , 36 , 43 ]. Social perceptions are also defined as a person’s perception of social pressure to behave, whether positive or negative [29,43]. A growing number of studies claim that people’s drive to become more entrepreneurial stems from their self perception in society, which increases their intention to adopt green innovation and causes their green entrepreneurship practices to lead them to adopt green innovation that employs green energy technology. People’s decisions to engage in such acts are influenced more heavily by public opinion [ 43 , 51 ]. Today’s rural people are more concerned with technological advancement, which gives them the courage to reject the notion that they are on the bottom rung of civilization [ 36 , 51 , 52 ]. No matter where they live on the planet, everyone has the same opportunities. Some of these people are well ahead of where they would be in the nineteenth century in terms of scientific progress, which was not even a consideration for both men and women. People can have positive emotions in response to the stressors they see in society [ 50 , 52 ]. Rural people’s social perceptions of society are becoming more positive and grateful, which affects their adoption of green innovation intentions that use green entrepreneurship practices [ 33 ]. As a result, because of social perception, persons in developing countries are more likely to start green innovation adoption where they may use green energy technology that reduces CO 2 and leads to green economic sustainability. Thus, it was hypothesized that: Hypothesis 3 (H3). Social perception has a positive and significant relationship with the adoption of green innovation that employs green energy (solar) technology towards a sustainable green economy. 2.5. The Importance of Blockchain Technology in Green Innovation That Employs Green Energy Renewable energy sources have lately emerged as a crucial consideration for blockchain technology adoption due to their lower environmental impact compared to fossil fuels. Wind, geothermal heat, sunlight, and rain are all renewable energy sources that can be used to generate electricity [ 18 , 19 , 49 , 53 – 56 ]. Clean, renewable energy is produced as a result of the use of these resources. Due to improvements in renewable energy technologies, people can now generate their own electricity without relying on expensive fossil fuels [ 36 ]. This is where the smart grid comes in, allowing us to make use of all of the free and abundant green energy sources surrounding us. The smart grid, which is a mod- J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 62 6 of 19 ernized electrical system, makes use of information technology and analogue or digital communications [20,43,57–61]. Furthermore, the difficulties of security, interoperability, and data transfer are critical to smart grids. The fluctuating and unpredictable character of renewable energy sources necessitates the incorporation of complex technology into the current network [ 40 , 62 , 63 ]. A blockchain-based smart-grid design is used to incentivize the use of renewable resources and construct a better environment. The proposed paradigm is based on the inverted application of the recently introduced forking attack to the blockchain. In the energy grid concept, stakeholders are represented by a central authority and distributed peers. This technology is promising and could be used to improve ethical smart grid systems in order to build a greener planet [64–66]. The application of green certificates in an industrial operating system may be achieved using blockchain technology. The possibility of peer to peer energy exchanges using a microgrid design and blockchain [ 67 ] was investigated. It is believed that a blockchainbased system could be used to accurately assess and monitor the environmental impact of energy-related assets [ 67 , 68 ]. It is possible to go greener as a result of blockchain’s potential to improve the energy supply chain. Blockchain technology has enabled energysharing economy applications, leading to various authors advocating new market models and the democratization of energy supplies [ 69 – 71 ]. Blockchains, when combined with smart contracts, promise transparent, tamper-proof, and secure platforms capable of delivering creative, environmentally responsible business solutions [ 72 , 73 ]. Thus, it was hypothesized that, Hypothesis 4 (H4). The intention to use blockchain technology mediates the relationship between sustainability orientation and the adoption of green innovation that employs green energy (solar) technology towards a sustainable green economy. Hypothesis 5 (H5). The intention to use blockchain technology mediates the relationship between sustainability attitude and the adoption of green innovation that employs green energy (solar) technology towards a sustainable green economy. Hypothesis 6 (H6). The intention to use blockchain technology mediates the relationship between social perception and the adoption of green innovation that employs green energy (solar) technology towards a sustainable green economy. Figure 1reveals the framework of the study. Figure 1illustrates the hypotheses that there is a positive and significant relationship between the adoption of green innovation and sustainability orientation, sustainability attitude, and social perception (H1, H2, H3). Furthermore, it illustrates the hypotheses that the intention to use blockchain technology mediates the relationship between the adoption of green innovation and sustainability orientation, sustainability attitude, and social perception (H4, H5, H6). J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 20 Figure 1. The framework of the study. 3. Methodology of the Study 3.1. Study Context This study focuses on Peruvian smalland medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Manufacturing accounts for roughly one-third of global energy consumption and CO2 emissions [74]. Peru is the greenest city among the top greenest cities in the world [75]. In contrast, a “green worldview” has grown in popularity in recent years [76]. This probe is made much more necessary by the current situation of the law. The Paris Climate Accord has a direct impact on Peru. Our research provides a current assessment of the impact of environmental management issues on green entrepreneurship and green innovation as well as firm success. 3.2. Research Design A positivist approach was adopted, which allows deducing empirical knowledge from data-driven hypotheses [21]. Because there were so many factors, a comprehensive quantitative investigation was also conducted. [22]. Peruvian firms were ideal subjects for this study because the Peruvian government has implemented a number of sustainability policies and has established a number of training initiatives to encourage participation in the production of environmentally friendly green technologies in manufacturing. 3.3. Questionnaire Design A total of five variables were used in the final survey, which included 25 questions. To confirm the validity of the questionnaire’s content, a pretest had to be conducted before the final survey was executed. Four sustainability orientation items were used to construct the survey instrument adopted from Appendix A [76]. It was based on [77] that the four sustainability attitude items were adopted. Social perception has been adopted from [78]. Four items adopted from [79,80] were used to measure the intention to use. Green innovation was measured by adopting four items from [81]. Likert scales ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) were employed to measure the constructs 3.4. Sampling and Data Collection More than 216 rural SMEs in Lima, Peru, were provided as self administered questionnaires between September and October 2021. It was possible to select a representative sample of 184 complete and valid responses. Due to a lack of specifics, 32 responses went missed. A lack of confidence in the survey could be a factor. Only face-to-face participation was permitted. As a whole, our results are in line with the standards set out by [82] Figure 1. The framework of the study. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 62 7 of 19 3. Methodology of the Study 3.1. Study Context This study focuses on Peruvian smalland medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Manufacturing accounts for roughly one-third of global energy consumption and CO 2 emissions [ 74 ]. Peru is the greenest city among the top greenest cities in the world [ 75 ]. In contrast, a “green worldview” has grown in popularity in recent years [ 76 ]. This probe is made much more necessary by the current situation of the law. The Paris Climate Accord has a direct impact on Peru. Our research provides a current assessment of the impact of environmental management issues on green entrepreneurship and green innovation as well as firm success. 3.2. Research Design A positivist approach was adopted, which allows deducing empirical knowledge from data-driven hypotheses [ 21 ]. Because there were so many factors, a comprehensive quantitative investigation was also conducted. [ 22 ]. Peruvian firms were ideal subjects for this study because the Peruvian government has implemented a number of sustainability policies and has established a number of training initiatives to encourage participation in the production of environmentally friendly green technologies in manufacturing. 3.3. Questionnaire Design A total of five variables were used in the final survey, which included 25 questions. To confirm the validity of the questionnaire’s content, a pretest had to be conducted before the final survey was executed. Four sustainability orientation items were used to construct the survey instrument adopted from Appendix A[ 76 ]. It was based on [ 77 ] that the four sustainability attitude items were adopted. Social perception has been adopted from [ 78 ]. Four items adopted from [ 79 , 80 ] were used to measure the intention to use. Green innovation was measured by adopting four items from [ 81 ]. Likert scales ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) were employed to measure the constructs 3.4. Sampling and Data Collection More than 216 rural SMEs in Lima, Peru, were provided as self administered questionnaires between September and October 2021. It was possible to select a representative sample of 184 complete and valid responses. Due to a lack of specifics, 32 responses went missed. A lack of confidence in the survey could be a factor. Only face-to-face participation was permitted. As a whole, our results are in line with the standards set out by [ 82 ] for a sufficient sample size. Our survey’s response rate was 85.19 per cent, according to a survey-based sample. The study’s findings were then tested by a survey of 184 participants. Everyone in the study was made aware of the fact that their data would be kept confidential and that they had given their consent to participate in the research. It was also noted that the data could only be used for research purposes. In advance of launching the final survey, a pilot study involving a total of 16 participants was completed. These respondents are not included in the final survey. Data from stratified random sampling were processed by a team of locally trained research assistants. Our limited resources were better managed thanks to random stratification. For each respondent who took the survey, it took no more than a few minutes to complete. Using a double-back translation method, the primary survey was translated into Spanish to better understand the respondents. It was possible to carry out the time trend extrapolation test that was described by [ 83 ] and widely used in business, psychology, and academics by implementing the nonresponse bias. Nonresponse bias cannot be seen in our findings because we compared early respondents (the first 25%) to late respondents (the last 25%). VIF values more than 10 but less than 0.1 indicate the presence of multicollinearity, according to [ 84 ]. Because the inner VIFs in this investigation were less than 5, multicollinearity was not an issue in this study. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 62 8 of 19 3.5. Data Analysis An SEM (structural equation modelling) validation was performed on the research model to ensure its accuracy. Smart PLS 3.2.9 was used to test the data analysis and study model’s feasibility, reliability, and validity. We were able to obtain a required sample size for SEM analysis using the minimum R-square method suggested by [ 84 ]. As a result, PLS-SEM is the most accurate method for predicting outcomes. Both measurements and structural models can be simultaneously handled by it. In addition, it is a useful method for analyzing complex route models [ 85 ]. Small sample volumes may be handled by the PLS-SEM while still delivering highly accurate results for the first time. As a result, PLSSEM was an appropriate tool for our investigation. Measurement and structural mode was evaluated using the alpha coefficient and other statistical tests such as convergent validity and discriminant validity. 3.6. Mediation Analysis As stated by [ 86 ], a two-step technique was employed to explore the mediating influence of the intention to use in this study, by looking at the impact of SO, SA, and SP on green innovation adoption through intention to use in the first step. The indirect effect of SO → IU → GI and SP → IU → GI were significant in this study (details are given in Section 4.5. Using SO, SA, and SP without eliminating the mediator (IU), the researchers looked at the effects on the GI for H4 and H6. Furthermore, the positive sign of these indirect and direct effects was observed; it is possible to conclude that SO →IU →GI has full complementary mediation that supports H4. Complementary partial mediation thus supports H6 (SP →IU→GI). 4. Results and Analysis 4.1. Respondent’s Profile This study is based on cross-sectional data collected from Peruvian smalland mediumsized firms (SMEs). Table 1shows the demographics of those who took part in the survey. Men made up 78.26 per cent of the population, 31.52 per cent were between the ages of 34 and 37, 70.11 per cent were married, 51.09 per cent had postgraduate degrees, and 48.37 per cent had five years of working experience. Table 1. Demographic profiles of respondents. Characteristics Frequency Percentage Characteristics Frequency Percentage Gender Education Level Men 144 78.26 Diploma 8 4.35 Women 40 21.74 Under Graduate 74 40.22 Age Post Graduate 94 51.09 22–25 Years 14 7.61 Others 8 4.35 26–29 Years 33 17.93 Working Experience 30–33Years 57 30.98 Less than 5 Years 66 35.87 34–37 Years 58 31.52 5–9 Years 89 48.37 38 Years or above 22 11.96 10–13 Years 18 9.78 Marital Status 14–17 Years 7 3.8 Single 46 25 More than 17 Years 5 2.72 Married 129 70.11 Divorced 9 4.89 Total-184 J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 62 15 of 19 Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Universidad de Lima and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of the Institute of Scientific Research and Graduate School. Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Data Availability Statement: The data and the questionnaire used in the study are available to other authors who require access to this material. Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and publication of this article. Appendix A Sustainability Orientation [76]: 1. Typically initiate actions which competitors then respond to. 2. Is very often the first business to introduce new products/services, administrative techniques, operating technologies, etc. 3. A strong tendency to be ahead of others in introducing novel ideas or products. 4. Typically adopts a very competitive ‘undo the competitors’ posture. Sustainability Attitude [77]: 1. Being an entrepreneur is more lucrative. 2. A career as entrepreneur is attractive for me. 3. I’d like to start a firm if I had the opportunity and resources. 4. I prefer to be an entrepreneur among various career options. Social Perception [78]: 1. I can usually recognize others’ traits accurately by observing their behaviour. 2. I can usually read others well—tell how they are feeling in a given situation. 3. I can tell why people have acted the way they have in most situations. 4. I generally know when it is the right time to ask someone for a favour. Adoption of Blockchain Technology [79,80]: 1. I believe our company should implement blockchain technologies in NEAR future. 2. I am actively cultivating agreement among other relevant members in the company to adopt blockchain technologies. 3. We are working out/already have an implementing plan with budget for blockchain technologies. 4. We have spent/scheduled to spend remarkably on implementing blockchain technologies. Green Innovation [81]: 1. The enterprise adjusts its business practices or operations to reduce the damage to the ecological environment. 2. The enterprise adjusts its business practices or operations to reduce wastes and emissions. 3. The enterprise reduces the use of traditional fuels by the substitution of some less polluted energy sources. 4. The enterprise adjusts its business practices or operations to reduce energy consumption. References 1. Frizzo-Barker, J.; Chow-White, P.A.; Adams, P.R.; Mentanko, J.; Ha, D.; Green, S. Blockchain as a disruptive technology for business: A systematic review. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020,51, 102029. 2. Li, D. Green technology innovation path based on blockchain algorithm. Sustain. Comput. Inform. Syst. 2021 ,31, 100587. [CrossRef] 3. Jiang, Y.; Zheng, W. Coupling mechanism of green building industry innovation ecosystem based on blockchain smart city. J. Clean. Prod. 2021,307, 126766. [CrossRef] 4. Gao, Y.; Lin, R.; Lu, Y.A. Visualized analysis of the research current hotspots and trends on innovation chain based on the knowledge map. Sustainability 2022,14, 1708. [CrossRef] J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 62 16 of 19 5. Hou, R.; Li, S.; Chen, H.; Ren, G.; Gao, W.; Liu, L. Coupling mechanism and development prospect of innovative ecosystem of clean energy in smart agriculture based on blockchain. J. Clean. Prod. 2021,319, 128466. 6. Khan, S.A.R.; Godil, D.I.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Shujaat, S.; Razzaq, A.; Yu, Z. Green data analytics, blockchain technology for sustainable development, and sustainable supply chain practices: Evidence from small and medium enterprises. Ann. Oper. Res. 2021 , 1–25. [CrossRef] 7. Kouhizadeh, M.; Sarkis, J. Blockchain practices, potentials, and perspectives in greening supply chains. Sustainability 2018 ,10, 3652. 8. Dong, F.; Zhu, J.; Li, Y.; Chen, Y.; Gao, Y.; Hu, M.; Sun, J. How green technology innovation affects carbon emission efficiency: Evidence from developed countries proposing carbon neutrality targets. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 1–20. [CrossRef] 9. Malhotra, D. Trust and reciprocity decisions: The differing perspectives of trustors and trusted parties. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes 2004,94, 61–73. [CrossRef] 10. Schulz, K.; Feist, M. Leveraging blockchain technology for innovative climate finance under the Green Climate Fund. Earth Syst. Gov. 2021,7, 100084. [CrossRef] 11. Aboelmaged, M.; Hashem, G. Absorptive capacity and green innovation adoption in SMEs: The mediating effects of sustainable organisational capabilities. J. Clean. Prod. 2019,220, 853–863. [CrossRef] 12. Turo´n, K. Open innovation business model as an opportunity to enhance the development of sustainable shared mobility industry. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 37. [CrossRef] 13. Gausdal, A.H.; Czachorowski, K.V.; Solesvik, M.Z. Applying blockchain technology: Evidence from Norwegian companies. Sustainability 2018,10, 1985. [CrossRef] 14. Gajdzik, B.; Wolniak, R. Influence of industry 4.0 projects on business operations: Literature and empirical pilot studies based on case studies in Poland. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 44. [CrossRef] 15. Weinreich, S.; ¸Sahin, T.; Inkermann, D.; Huth, T.; Vietor, T. Managing Disruptive Innovation by Value-Oriented Portfolio Planning. In Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference, Online, 26–29 October 2020; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2020; Volume 1, pp. 1395–1404. 16. Hernández-Dionis, P.; Pérez-Jorge, D.; Curbelo-González, O.; Alegre de la Rosa, O.M. The coordinator of information and communication technologies: Its implication for open innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 42. [CrossRef] 17. Hawaldar, I.T.; Ullal, M.S.; Sarea, A.; Mathukutti, R.T.; Joseph, N. The study on digital marketing influences on sales for B2B start-ups in South Asia. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 23. [CrossRef] 18. Afshar Jahanshahi, A.; Brem, A. Entrepreneurs in post-sanctions Iran: Innovation or imitation under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty? Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2020,37, 531–551. [CrossRef] 19. Afshar Jahanshahi, A.; Jia, J. Purchasing green products as a means of expressing consumers’ uniqueness: Empirical evidence from Peru and Bangladesh. Sustainability 2018,10, 4062. [CrossRef] 20. Jahanshahi, A.A.; Khaksar, S.M.S.; Yaghoobi, N.M.; Nawaser, K. Comprehensive model of mobile government in Iran. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 2011,4, 1188–1197. 21. Krmela, A.; Šimberová, I.; Babiˇca, V. Dynamics of business models in industry-wide collaborative networks for circularity. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 3. 22. Kaur, M.; Gupta, S. Blockchain Consensus Protocols: State-of-the-art and Future Directions. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Technological Advancements and Innovations (ICTAI), Tashkent, Uzbekistan, 10–12 November 2021; pp. 446–453. 23. Nurgazina, J.; Pakdeetrakulwong, U.; Moser, T.; Reiner, G. Distributed ledger technology applications in food supply chains: A review of challenges and future research directions. Sustainability 2021,13, 4206. [CrossRef] 24. Millers, M.; Gaile-Sarkane, E. Management practice in small and medium-sized enterprises: Problems and solutions from the perspective of open innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021,7, 214. 25. Poberezhna, A. Addressing water sustainability with blockchain technology and green finance. In Transforming Climate Finance and Green Investment with Blockchains; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 189–196. 26. Nikolakis, W.; John, L.; Krishnan, H. How blockchain can shape sustainable global value chains: An evidence, verifiability, and enforceability (EVE) framework. Sustainability. 2018,10, 3926. [CrossRef] 27. Gilani, S.A.M.; Faccia, A. Broadband connectivity, government policies, and open innovation: The crucial IT infrastructure contribution in Scotland. JOItmC 2021,8, 1. 28. Fatoki, O. Environmental orientation and green competitive advantage of hospitality firms in South Africa: Mediating effect of green innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021,7, 223. 29. Chang, R.D.; Zuo, J.; Zhao, Z.Y.; Soebarto, V.; Lu, Y.; Zillante, G.; Gan, X.L. Sustainability attitude and performance of construction enterprises: A China study. J. Clean. Prod. 2018,172, 1440–1451. [CrossRef] 30. Polas, M.R.H.; Raju, V. Technology and entrepreneurial marketing decisions during COVID-19. Glob. J. Flex. Syst. Manag. 2021 , 22, 95–112. 31. Cheng, C.C. Sustainability orientation, green supplier involvement, and green innovation performance: Evidence from diversifying green entrants. J. Bus. Ethics 2020,161, 393–414. 32. Marchena Sekli, G.F.; De La Vega, I. Adoption of big data Analytics and its impact on organizational performance in higher education mediated by knowledge management. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021,7, 221. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 62 17 of 19 33. Jiang, Z.; Lyu, P.; Ye, L.; Wenqian Zhou, Y. Green innovation transformation, economic sustainability and energy consumption during China’s new normal stage. J. Clean. Prod. 2020,273, 123044. 34. Wang, C.H. An environmental perspective extends market orientation: Green innovation sustainability. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020,29, 3123–3134. [CrossRef] 35. Afshar Jahanshahi, A.; Al-Gamrh, B.; Gharleghi, B. Sustainable development in Iran post-sanction: Embracing green innovation by small and medium-sized enterprises. Sustain. Dev. 2020,28, 781–790. [CrossRef] 36. Huong, P.T.; Cherian, J.; Hien, N.T.; Sial, M.S.; Samad, S.; Tuan, B.A. Environmental management, green innovation, and social–open innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021,7, 89. [CrossRef] 37. Sánchez-Bravo, P.; Chambers, E.; Noguera-Artiaga, L.; López-Lluch, D.; Chambers, E., IV; Carbonell-Barrachina, Á.A.; Sendra, E. Consumers’ attitude towards the sustainability of different food categories. Foods 2020,9, 1608. 38. Zhang, B.; Zhang, Y.; Zhou, P. Consumer attitude towards sustainability of fast fashion products in the UK. Sustainability 2021 ,13, 1646. 39. Adomako, S.; Amankwah-Amoah, J. Managerial attitude towards the natural environment and environmental sustainability expenditure. J. Clean. Prod. 2021,326, 129384. [CrossRef] 40. Tonglet, M.; Phillips, P.S.; Read, A.D. Using the theory of planned behaviour to investigate the determinants of recycling behaviour: A case study from Brixworth, UK. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2004,41, 191–214. [CrossRef] 41. Kim, M.J.; Hall, C.M. Do value-attitude-behavior and personality affect sustainability crowdfunding initiatives? J. Environ. Manag. 2021,280, 111827. [CrossRef] 42. Polenzani, B.; Riganelli, C.; Marchini, A. Sustainability perception of local extra virgin olive oil and consumers’ attitude: A new Italian perspective. Sustainability 2020,12, 920. [CrossRef] 43. Arici, H.E.; Uysal, M. Leadership, green innovation, and green creativity: A systematic review. Serv. Ind. J. 2021,42, 280–320. 44. Zailani, S.; Govindan, K.; Iranmanesh, M.; Shaharudin, M.R.; Chong, Y.S. Green innovation adoption in automotive supply chain: The Malaysian case. J. Clean. Prod. 2015,108, 1115–1122. [CrossRef] 45. Huang, S.Y.; Li, M.W.; Lee, Y.S. Why do medium-sized technology farms adopt environmental innovation? The mediating role of pro-environmental behaviors. Horticulturae 2021,7, 318. [CrossRef] 46. Kuckertz, A.; Wagner, M. The influence of sustainability orientation on entrepreneurial intentions—Investigating the role of business experience. J. Bus. Ventur. 2010,25, 524–539. 47. Tjahjadi, B.; Soewarno, N.; Hariyati, H.; Nafidah, L.N.; Kustiningsih, N.; Nadyaningrum, V. The role of green innovation between green market orientation and business performance: Its implication for open innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020,6, 173. 48. Abdullah, M.; Zailani, S.; Iranmanesh, M.; Jayaraman, K. Barriers to green innovation initiatives among manufacturers: The Malaysian case. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2016,10, 683–709. 49. Flores, P.J.; Jansson, J. The role of consumer innovativeness and green perceptions on green innovation use: The case of shared e-bikes and e-scooters. J. Consum. Behav. 2021,20, 1466–1479. [CrossRef] 50. Pan, Z.; Liu, L.; Bai, S.; Ma, Q. Can the social trust promote corporate green innovation? Evidence from China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021,28, 52157–52173. [CrossRef] 51. Tölkes, C. The role of sustainability communication in the attitude–behaviour gap of sustainable tourism. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2020 , 20, 117–128. 52. Tih, S.; Zainol, Z. Minimizing waste and encouraging green practices. J. Ekon. Malays. 2012,46, 157–164. 53. Guo, Y.; Wang, L.; Chen, Y. Green entrepreneurial orientation and green innovation: The mediating effect of supply chain learning. SAGE Open 2020,10, 2158244019898798. [CrossRef] 54. Weng, H.H.R.; Chen, J.S.; Chen, P.C. Effects of green innovation on environmental and corporate performance: A stakeholder perspective. Sustainability 2015,7, 4997–5026. [CrossRef] 55. Yousaf, Z. Go for green: Green innovation through green dynamic capabilities: Accessing the mediating role of green practices and green value co-creation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021,28, 54863–54875. [CrossRef] 56. Guo, Y.; Wang, L.; Yang, Q. Do corporate environmental ethics influence firms’ green practice? The mediating role of green innovation and the moderating role of personalities. J. Clean. Prod. 2020,266, 122054. [CrossRef] 57. Qiu, L.; Hu, D.; Wang, Y. How do firms achieve sustainability through green innovation under external pressures of environmental regulation and market turbulence? Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020,29, 2695–2714. [CrossRef] 58. Wang, X.; Zhao, Y.; Hou, L. How does green innovation affect supplier-customer relationships? A study on customer and relationship contingencies. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2020,90, 170–180. [CrossRef] 59. Zhang, H.; He, J.; Shi, X.; Hong, Q.; Bao, J.; Xue, S. Technology characteristics, stakeholder pressure, social influence, and green innovation: Empirical evidence from Chinese express companies. Sustainability 2020,12, 2891. [CrossRef] 60. Sharma, P.K.; Kumar, N.; Park, J.H. Blockchain technology toward green IoT: Opportunities and challenges. IEEE Netw. 2020 ,34, 263–269. [CrossRef] 61. Thukral, M.K. Emergence of blockchain-technology application in peer-to-peer electrical-energy trading: A review. Clean Energy 2021,5, 104–123. [CrossRef] 62. El-Kassar, A.N.; Singh, S.K. Green innovation and organizational performance: The influence of big data and the moderating role of management commitment and HR practices. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2019,144, 483–498. [CrossRef] J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 62 18 of 19 63. Feng, H.; Wang, X.; Duan, Y.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, X. Applying blockchain technology to improve agri-food traceability: A review of development methods, benefits and challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 2020,260, 121031. [CrossRef] 64. Alshurideh, M.; Kurdi, B.A.; Shaltoni, A.M.; Ghuff, S.S. Determinants of pro-environmental behaviour in the context of emerging economies. Int. J. Sustain. Soc. 2019,11, 257–277. [CrossRef] 65. Ru, X.; Wang, S.; Chen, Q.; Yan, S. Exploring the interaction effects of norms and attitudes on green travel intention: An empirical study in eastern China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018,197, 1317–1327. [CrossRef] 66. Alsharari, N. Integrating blockchain technology with internet of things to efficiency. Int. J. Technol. Innov. Manag. 2021 ,1, 1–13. [CrossRef] 67. Ahmad, A.; Madi, Y.; Abuhashesh, M.; Nusairat, M.N.; Masa’deh, R.E. The knowledge, attitude, and practice of the adoption of green fashion innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020,6, 107. 68. Adolphs, R.; Nummenmaa, L.; Todorov, A.; Haxby, J.V. Data-driven approaches in the investigation of social perception. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2016,371, 20150367. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 69. Li, R.; Crowe, J.; Leifer, D.; Zou, L.; Schoof, J. Beyond big data: Social media challenges and opportunities for understanding social perception of energy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019,56, 101217. [CrossRef] 70. Montero, O.P.; Batista, C.M. Social perception of coastal risk in the face of hurricanes in the southeastern region of Cuba. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2020,184, 105010. [CrossRef] 71. Singh, H.; Jain, G.; Munjal, A.; Rakesh, S. Blockchain technology in corporate governance: Disrupting chain reaction or not? Corp. Gov. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2019,20, 67–86. [CrossRef] 72. Anggadwita, G.; Dhewanto, W. The influence of personal attitude and social perception on women entrepreneurial intentions in micro and small enterprises in Indonesia. Int. J. Entrep. Small Bus. 2016,27, 131–148. 73. Ye, C.; Hofacker, C.F.; Peloza, J.; Allen, A. How online trust evolves over time: The role of social perception. Psychol. Mark. 2020 , 37, 1539–1553. 74. Huang, J.W.; Li, Y.H. Green innovation and performance: The view of organizational capability and social reciprocity. J. Bus. Ethics 2017,145, 309–324. [CrossRef] 75. Tang, M.; Walsh, G.; Lerner, D.; Fitza, M.A.; Li, Q. Green innovation, managerial concern and firm performance: An empirical study. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018,27, 39–51. [CrossRef] 76. Singh, S.K.; Del Giudice, M.; Chierici, R.; Graziano, D. Green innovation and environmental performance: The role of green transformational leadership and green human resource management. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2020 ,150, 119762. [CrossRef] 77. Abir, Y.; Sklar, A.Y.; Dotsch, R.; Todorov, A.; Hassin, R.R. The determinants of consciousness of human faces. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2018,2, 194–199. [CrossRef] 78. Kouhizadeh, M.; Saberi, S.; Sarkis, J. Blockchain technology and the sustainable supply chain: Theoretically exploring adoption barriers. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021,231, 107831. [CrossRef] 79. Bai, C.; Sarkis, J. A supply chain transparency and sustainability technology appraisal model for blockchain technology. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020,58, 2142–2162. [CrossRef] 80. Roldán, J.L.; Sánchez-Franco, M.J. Variance-based structural equation modeling: Guidelines for using partial least squares in information systems research. In Research Methodologies, Innovations and Philosophies in Software Systems Engineering and Information Systems; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2012; pp. 193–221. 81. Chang, S.E.; Chen, Y.C.; Lu, M.F. Supply chain re-engineering using blockchain technology: A case of smart contract based tracking process. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019,144, 1–11. [CrossRef] 82. Kouhizadeh, M.; Sarkis, J.; Zhu, Q. At the nexus of blockchain technology, the circular economy, and product deletion. Appl. Sci. 2019,9, 1712. [CrossRef] 83. Parmentola, A.; Petrillo, A.; Tutore, I.; De Felice, F. Is blockchain able to enhance environmental sustainability? A systematic review and research agenda from the perspective of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022 ,31, 194–217. [CrossRef] 84. Cocco, L.; Pinna, A.; Marchesi, M. Banking on blockchain: Costs savings thanks to the blockchain technology. Future Internet 2017 , 9, 25. [CrossRef] 85. Pournader, M.; Shi, Y.; Seuring, S.; Koh, S.L. Blockchain applications in supply chains, transport and logistics: A systematic review of the literature. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020,58, 2063–2081. [CrossRef] 86. Paliwal, V.; Chandra, S.; Sharma, S. Blockchain technology for sustainable supply chain management: A systematic literature review and a classification framework. Sustainability. 2020,12, 7638. [CrossRef] 87. Esmaeilian, B.; Sarkis, J.; Lewis, K.; Behdad, S. Blockchain for the future of sustainable supply chain management in Industry 4.0. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020,163, 105064. [CrossRef] 88. Andoni, M.; Robu, V.; Flynn, D.; Abram, S.; Geach, D.; Jenkins, D.; Peacock, A. Blockchain technology in the energy sector: A systematic review of challenges and opportunities. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019,100, 143–174. [CrossRef] 89. Khatoon, A.; Verma, P.; Southernwood, J.; Massey, B.; Corcoran, P. Blockchain in energy efficiency: Potential applications and benefits. Energies 2019,12, 3317. [CrossRef] 90. Zhang, Y.; Wen, J. The IoT electric business model: Using blockchain technology for the internet of things. Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl. 2017,10, 983–994. [CrossRef] J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022,8, 62 19 of 19 91. Miglani, A.; Kumar, N.; Chamola, V.; Zeadally, S. Blockchain for Internet of Energy management: Review, solutions, and challenges. Comput. Commun. 2020,151, 395–418. [CrossRef] 92. Wang, Q.; Su, M. Integrating blockchain technology into the energy sector—From theory of blockchain to research and application of energy blockchain. Comput. Sci. Rev. 2020,37, 100275. [CrossRef] 93. Durst, S.; Gerstlberger, W. Financing responsible small-and medium-sized enterprises: An international overview of policies and support programmes. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2021,14, 10. [CrossRef] 94. Durst, S.; Svensson, A.; Palacios Acuache, M.M.G. Peruvian small and medium-sized enterprises in times of crisis—Or what is happening over time? Sustainability 2021,13, 13560. [CrossRef] 95. Gharleghi, B.; Jahanshahi, A.A. The way to sustainable development through income equality: The impact of trade liberalisation and financial development. Sustain. Dev. 2020,28, 990–1001. [CrossRef] 96. Lumpkin, G.T.; Dess, G.G. Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. J. Bus. Ventur. 2001,16, 429–451. [CrossRef] 97. Dinc, M.S.; Hadzic, M. The mediating impact of personality traits on entrepreneurial intention of women in Northern Montenegro. Int. J. Entrep. Small Bus. 2018,33, 400–416. 98. Baron, R.A.; Markman, G.D. Beyond social capital: The role of entrepreneurs’ social competence in their financial success. J. Bus. Ventur. 2003,18, 41–60. [CrossRef] 99. Li, J. Blockchain technology adoption: Examining the fundamental drivers. In Proceedings of the 2020 2nd International Conference on Management Science and Industrial Engineering, Hsinchu City, Taiwan, 7–9 April 2020; pp. 253–260. 100. Cao, H.; Chen, Z. The driving effect of internal and external environment on green innovation strategy—The moderating role of top management’s environmental awareness. Nankai Bus. Rev. Int. 2019,10, 342–361. [CrossRef] 101. Comrey, A.L.; Lee, H.B. (Eds.) Interpretation and Application of Factor Analytic Results. In A First Course in Factor Analysis; Psychology Press: East Sussex, UK, 1992; Volume 2. 102. Armstrong, J.S.; Overton, T.S. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J. Mark. Res. 1977,14, 396–402. [CrossRef] 103. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Sarstedt, M.; Hopkins, L.; Kuppelwieser, V.G. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2014,26, 106–121. [CrossRef] 104. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Sarstedt, M.; Matthews, L.M.; Ringle, C.M. Identifying and treating unobserved heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: Part I–method. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2016,28, 63–76. [CrossRef] 105. Vinzi, V.E.; Trinchera, L.; Amato, S. PLS Path Modeling: From Foundations to Recent Developments and Open Issues for Model Assessment and Improvement. In Handbook of Partial Least Squares; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 47–82. 106. Peng, D.X.; Lai, F. Using partial least squares in operations management research: A practical guideline and summary of past research. J. Oper. Manag. 2012,30, 467–480. [CrossRef] 107. Becker, J.M.; Rai, A.; Ringle, C.M.; Völckner, F. Discovering unobserved heterogeneity in structural equation models to avert validity threats. MIS Q. 2013,37, 665–694. [CrossRef] 108. Nunnaly, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. Psychoneric Theory, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. 109. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis Jbr the Behavioral Sciences; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1988; pp. 18–74. 110. Chin, W.W. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Mod. Methods Bus. Res. 1998,295, 295–336. 111. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res. 1981,18, 382–388. [CrossRef] 112. Henseler, J.; Fassott, G. Testing Moderating Effects in PLS Path Models: An Illustration of Available Procedures. In Handbook of Partial Least Squares; Aluja, T., Casanovas, J., Esposito Vinzi, V., Morineau, A., Tenenhaus, M., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2005; pp. 371–377. 113. Bickel, W.K.; Jarmolowicz, D.P.; Mueller, E.T.; Koffarnus, M.N.; Gatchalian, K.M. Excessive discounting of delayed reinforcers as a trans-disease process contributing to addiction and other disease-related vulnerabilities: Emerging evidence. Pharmacol. Ther. 2012,134, 287–297. [CrossRef] [PubMed]