The Impact of COVID-19 On Sustainable Business Mod

Article
The Impact of COVID‐19 on Sustainable Business

Models in SMEs
Iva Gregurec, Martina Tomičić Furjan and Katarina Tomičić‐Pupek *
Faculty of Organization and Informatics, University of Zagreb, 42000 Varaždin, Croatia;

iva.gregurec@foi.unizg.hr (I.G.); martina.tomicic@foi.unizg.hr (M.T.F.)
* Correspondence: katarina.tomicic@foi.unizg.hr
Abstract: Businesses have been exposed to various challenges during the global pandemic, and their
response to this disruption has impacted their resilience as well as their chances to overcome this
crisis. Small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) are changing their business models in order to
adapt to this changing environment. Service‐based industries have been hit particularly hard. This
research investigates how SMEs operating in service industries have been coping with the
disruptions caused by the COVID‐19 pandemic. This research aims to gain insights into which
transformation drivers they have focused on and which technologies they have selected as a means
to respond to the disruption. These insights regarding SMEs are then explored according to their
influence on the redefinition of sustainable business models in SMEs. The review data was analyzed
via a customized research framework that contains three dimensions and 30 subconcepts. The
results show the distribution of drivers and technologies across service sectors. They are organized
into a Business Model Canvas and could be considered useful for academia and practitioners. The
highly unpredictable environment allows for only a few feasible strategic approaches regarding an
Citation: Gregurec, I.; SME’s decision on to follow incumbents, to become a challenger, or to reinvent themselves based
Tomičić Furjan, M.; Tomičić‐Pupek, on their own transformation drivers and readiness to apply digital technologies.
K. The Impact of COVID‐19 on
Sustainable Business Models in
Keywords: SMEs; COVID 19; service sector; transformation drivers; digital technologies; business
SMEs. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1098.
model
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031098
Academic Editor: Artūras

Kaklauskas and Ajith Abraham
1. Introduction
Received: 16 December 2020 The global health crisis that started in 2020 impacted businesses of all sizes and in all
Accepted: 19 January 2021 industries. Although some industries have shown a certain level of resilience or even
Published: 21 January 2021 found a new operating niche, most small and medium‐sized entrepreneurs in the services
industry found themselves in “new normal” operating environments. The negative
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays
impacts of the pandemic have been reported in all spheres of life, and have had economic,
neutral with regard to jurisdictional
political, social, and psychological consequences [1–3]. However, the strongest impact has
claims in published maps and
been on human health and the perception of human health [4]. In order to slow down the
institutional affiliations.
pandemic, several countries have suspended business activities, and have adopted social
distancing in order to reduce human‐to‐human transmission of COVID‐19. This has led
to lockdowns, reductions in consumption, the closure of communities, and the
elimination of businesses [1]. Numerous economic experts see this pandemic as a
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
metaphorical “black swan” event, “that is, a surprising, unpredictable event of great
This article is an open access article significance and severe consequences that dramatically changes the political and
distributed under the terms and economic environment” [5] that may cause business failures [6,7]. Technology
conditions of the Creative Commons professionals refer to this as a global disruption, which can be seen as an opportunity or
Attribution (CC BY) license as a challenge to transform business models or implement new technology as a support
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses for business processes. According to Walsh (2020), regardless of their size, numerous
/by/4.0/). companies, large, medium, and small, are, “succumbing to the effects of the coronavirus”.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1098. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031098 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 1098 2 of 24
The year 2020 has been projected to “set a record for so‐called mega bankruptcies” of
many companies (taken from [7]). Moreover, as mentioned, “Things have changed, and
the future is uncertain” [8]. The high unpredictability of the business environment in
combination with the high malleability [9] demands for a strategy for change, whereby a
total renewal could also be seen as a viable option.
New strategy approaches for small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) should
help increase the likelihood of overcoming the impact of the pandemic since SMEs have
been badly hit financially due to their limited resources and expertise [10]. Based on a
common understanding of factors that could impact how businesses are coping with their
survival, an approach with three dimensions could be of interest. First, the operating
industry and sectors within the industry influence the exposure of SMEs because SMEs
tend to be more concentrated in sectors that have been directly affected by COVID‐19
response measures (e.g., retail and services). They are typically more credit constrained
than larger businesses [11]. For this reason, focusing on how SMEs respond to all
challenges posed by a pandemic made sense, especially in the service sector, which has
been severely impacted by lockdowns in most countries. Second, various transformation
drivers set the course of response and form the direction of transformation. Third, as a
means of raising effectiveness, exponential technology development in previous years
was seen as a promising tool. At that time, digital technologies did not find a strong and
widely based application in the SME sector; however, due to the COVID‐19 disruption,
SMEs are now trying to avoid a total shut down of economic activities by introducing
digital technologies that were not considered a high priority earlier. All three dimensions
are in‐line with the transformational scenarios seen before the COVID‐19 disruption, and
could form a solid sustainability framework for changing business models of SMEs.
Based on these three dimensions of coping with the disruption caused by the COVID‐
19 pandemic, this article aims to provide insights into the following research questions:
 What drives SME transformation in the service sector, and which technologies are
being selected to respond to the pandemic disruption?
 How does the operating service sector, transformation drivers, and selected
technology influence the redefinition of sustainable business models in SMEs?
To achieve the aim of finding academic and practical implications for making SME
business models more sustainable, a comprehensive literature review was preformed to
bridge the gap in understanding how this pandemic affected the existing business models
of SMEs. Collected data was analyzed and its impact on business models was explored.
This corresponds with the structure of the paper. First, the theoretical background and the
research framework are presented in order to introduce the dimensions and their
subconcepts used in the review. The next section presents the literature review results and
gives an overview of most important findings. The review results are presented in the
context of a business model’s transformation in order to support the sustainability of
businesses. The discussion and conclusions are given at the end.
2. Theoretical Background
The theory of business [12] states that all organizations have to take into
consideration three types of assumptions affecting their way of doing work: assumptions
relating to the organizational environment, assumptions relating to the accomplishment
of the mission, and assumptions about the competencies and resources enabling the
fulfillment of the mission. Further on though, the theory has to be rethought, especially
when the organization has experienced a great success or failure. The COVID‐19
pandemic has exposed great flaws in the current business models and operations of many
SMEs. The theory of business enables organizations to rethink their three elemental
assumptions when the business environment becomes chaotic [13].
A business model presents what benefits an organization provides to its customers
and partners, as well as how benefits flow back into the organization in the form of
revenue [14]. Business models present the current or future state of organizations,
showing simple and easy to understand illustrations of some or all aspects of the how
they do business, and how they communicate with others in that same field of work [15].
There is no single, or generally agreed on, definition of the term “business model”,
but, as the study made by [16] shows, most definitions can be interpreted in a way such
that a business model is a model representing an organizational system, an organizational
unit characteristic represented in an abstract way, or as an individual means adjusted to
an author’s representation.
Business Model Canvas—BMC [17], is the most commonly used business model
framework (as shown in [18–20]). The use of BMC goes beyond the creation of a business
model. It helps in organizing management and in improving each of the nine business
model elements, namely: relationships with customers, customer segments and channels
(related to customer definition and understanding); key partners, activities, and resources
(directed towards crucial organizational factors improvement); value proposition (that
refers to the core of innovations within the product or service); and costs and revenue
streams (which refers to the financial component of the model).
The roots of innovation in business models have been examined in [21]. Their
research has shown that “knowledge absorptive capacity, organizational agility, and top
management mindfulness” are influence factors. They have a significant impact on
creating changes within business models. If they are incorporated within the innovation
process with care, newly created and improved business models can serve a mediation
role between those factors and the improved performance of organizations. The sharing
of knowledge connected to new ways of creating and delivering value through emerging
technologies has a significant role in improving companies’ performance as well;
regardless of whether it is implemented through organizational platforms for knowledge
exchange on the corporate governance level [22], or the use of a specific technology.
Authors [23] describe how Artificial intelligence (AI) can be used for building a
knowledge management system that changes organizational culture and directs
innovation towards creating better business performance. Thereby, the knowledge about
how new technologies can contribute to better business models, and consequently better
performance, can start as an internal process. For example, it can come from the
employees of the organization itself. Alternatively, it can also start as an external process,
coming from other stakeholders involved in the value creation and delivery process [24].
According to the researchers in [25], the development of a completely new or
enhanced version of an existing business model is a strategic venture, which usually
results from “(a) certain previous concepts evolving, mainly due to technological
advancements, (b) the achievement of social/user acceptance for previous concepts,
generating economies of scale or the snowball effect, and/or (c) disruptive and
breakthrough innovations”. The disruptive innovations are defined as rather passive
entities [26] that “prevent something, esp. a system, process, or event, from continuing as
usual or as expected” [27]. In this manner, the global COVID‐19 pandemic is a passive
entity because organizations have no influence on its appearance or spread; nevertheless,
they have to act accordingly and rethink (or rebuild) their business models.
Sustainable business models, as by definition “simplified representation of the
elements, the interrelationship between these elements, and the interactions with its
stakeholders that an organizational unit uses to create, deliver, capture, and exchange
sustainable value” [28], have become the focus of many studies, due to the knowledge gap
relating to how to determine elements focusing on the transformation of business models
[29]. Thereby, the business model should be a result of organizational innovation for
sustainable processes [30].
According to the bibliometric analysis of research done so far, made by [31],
sustainable business models are mostly presented in the Journal of Cleaner Production,
which is published by three prominent institutions in business management—Technische
Universiteit Delft, the University of Cambridge, and Lunds Universitet. The focus of
research is on: “(1) sustainable business models and innovation, (2) sustainable business
models and circular economy, (3) sustainable business models and value creation”, which
brings this study on a justified path of research in line with these previous analyses and
research.
The literature review on sustainable innovation made by [32] has considered
published work from three perspectives; namely: (1) internal–managerial, showing that
what an organization does in its strategic and management planning has a great impact
on innovations and the development of novel business models; (2) external–relational,
proving that sustainable innovation results from collaboration among all stakeholders
involved and; (3) performance evaluation, whereby organizational measurement values
can be used to evaluate innovation as well. Another initiative for sustainable performance
improvement was presented in [33], pointing out the possibility of using integrated
reporting and integrated thinking (for combining financial and nonfinancial indicators).
This is considered a significant contribution to sustainable development initiatives such
that it demonstrates how the company can use its own resources and capital to generate
value for itself and all stakeholders connected to its operations. The study [34] explains
the impact of organizational and environmental context factors on technology usage in
small and medium‐sized manufacturing firms in developing countries. It shows that the
support of top management and competitive pressures influence decisions on using e‐
commerce. For two other factors from this study—government support and adoption
costs—no significant influence was confirmed due to, among other reasons, the
availability of appropriate government policies and funding, and the cost‐effectiveness of
online e‐commerce platforms [34].
The influence of the pandemic on sustainable business models has been identified to
be one of the emerging trends in research about the impact of disruptions on sustainable
business models [31]. This has been recognized by other authors as well. Thereby, the
influence of either one or a combination of several digital technologies, driven by different
change initiatives in one or several industrial sectors in the pandemic era have been
investigated. In [35], the use of artificial intelligence in agriculture has been evaluated in
regards to it being successful in developing sustainable business models, as it can
contribute to reducing the influence of the environment. As well, when AI is combined
with other digital technologies, it can promote digital communication and collaboration,
and can contribute to achieving the social distance measures related to the COVID‐19
pandemic. Transformation from traditional to additive manufacturing based on Industry
4.0 technologies, researched in [36], shows that through performance measurement
methods sustainable business models can be achieved. It enables “optimizing material
consumption, creating new shapes, customizing designs and shortening production
times”. Lastly, aviation is one industry that has experienced many risks and
vulnerabilities connected to the pandemic. Stakeholders in this industry should consider
how to achieve a balance between short‐term help and resilience to other disruptions in
order to overcome future crises [37]. Brought by the pandemic, the unpredictability and
the uncertainty in which businesses operate are influencing severely the “environmental,
economic, technological, educational and training, and social” dimensions [35] when
rethinking business models and enabling or raising sustainability.
3. Methodology and Data Collection

The literature review was conducted in the following steps: preforming a search of
relevant research databases and platforms, constructing a research framework for a
qualitative analysis, applying the qualitative analysis framework, and exploring the
impact on the business model by relying on Business Model Canvas [17].
In order to visualize the steps of the methodology applied in this research, a model
showing the sequences of activities that need to be performed along with the optionality
in the sequences, is given in the process model in Figure 1. The model is created in
accordance with BPMN 2.0. Ref. [38] using the Bizagi Process Modeler [39]. Vertical swim
lanes are showing the main steps of the methodology.
Figure 1. Research methodology scheme.
The model in Figure 1 shows the steps represented as activities (blue rectangles) in
sequences starting in the upper left corner of the figure (green circle). The first two
activities of identifying relevant databases and keyword search combinations could start
in parallel (yellow rhombus with “+” sign). They had to be finished before performing
searches in the databases and platforms, and before creating the main dimension
constructs. Therefore, the literature gathering process started with the identification of
relevant databases for this research where the following databases and platforms were
selected: Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), Emerald, Wiley, Proquest, EbscoHost,
ScienceDirect, and Taylor and Francis Online. The search strategy was based on the
keyword combination: ‘SME’, ‘entrepreneurship’ ‘service sector’, ‘pandemic’, and
‘COVID‐19′. It was conducted in December 2020. The search resulted in a total of 89 hits.
After merging all 89 papers, duplicated papers were excluded, leaving 85 different papers
for further analysis. Parallel to the search, the dimensions of the research framework
(Figure 2) for the study were constructed based on the goal to investigate the three
dimensions of how SME’s are coping with the challenges posed by the disruption. The
three dimensions included: (1) Scope dimension related to the operating service sector, (2)
Driver dimension related to the change driving force, and (3) Technology dimension
related to selected technology for responding to disruptions in the market. The research
framework was inspired by similar existing frameworks [40,41], which have been proven
to identify the implications relating to both theory and practice. Relevant meta‐data (e.g.,
authors, title, journal, year of publication) and content analysis data across the three
dimensions from the selected 85 papers were extracted and coded. Based on the three
dimensions, the gathered scientific literature was investigated for appearing subconcepts
across dimensions. Each time a new subconcept was recognized, it was added to the
framework and recorded (activities with yellow rhombs with “×” signs). Finally, the
content of the articles was extracted and analyzed.
The content analysis of gathered papers about service sectors was filtered in 12
identified groups (subconcepts in Table 1): healthcare, financial, retail, education,
entrepreneurship, franchising, food, travel and transportation, tourism, the entertainment
sector, and lastly the general services group (i.e., no specific service sector or referred to
as general services). Some publications referred to more than one service sector; therefore,
the sum of matching publications to sectors presented as frequencies across all service
groups was greater than the number of analyzed papers (85).
Table 1. Content analysis in the scope dimension in relation to its focus on the service sector.
Subconcepts Frequency Publications

SC01: Healthcare sector 7 [1,42–47]
SC02: Financial sector 4 [1,48–50]
SC03: Retail sector 2 [1,51]
SC04: Education sector 9 [1,8,52–58]
SC05: Entrepreneurship sector 33 [1,2,4,6–8,11,43,48,57,59–81]
SC06: Franchising sector 1 [1]
SC07: Food service sector 6 [1,61,82–85]
SC08: Fashion sector 2 [1,86]
SC09: Travel/transport sector 6 [3,45,57,82,87,88]
SC10: Tourism sector 10 [3,45,57,82,87,89–93]
SC11: Entertainment sector 3 [82,94,95]
SC12: General services 29 [10,44,47,56,89,93,95–117]
Since transformation drivers are the least explicitly stated dimension in the gathered
literature, its subconcepts were derived as the following: Organizational driven changes,
Customer driven changes, Technology driven changes, Financially driven changes, and
General social changes (Table 2). Similar to the content analysis on the operations of the
service sector, it was possible to match a publication’s content to more than one driver. As
a result, the sum of frequencies across all drivers is greater than the number of analyzed
papers.
Table 2. Content analysis in the transformation driver dimension.

TD01: Organizationally [1–4,6–8,10,11,42–46,48,54–60,62,64–68,70–74,76,78,80,81,86,87,90,91,97–99,102–
53
driven changes 104,106,111,113–116]
TD02: Customer driven [1,3,6,8,42–47,49–59,61,62,64,66,68,70–73,76,78,81,82,84–90,92,94,95,97–99,103–
56
changes 106,108,111–113,117]
TD03: Technology [2–4,6,8,11,42,43,50,52,54,55,57–
34
driven changes 59,62,64,66,67,70,79,87,88,94,97,99,101,103,105,113–117]
TD04: Financially [1,3,4,7,8,10,43,45,48,50,60,62,64,66,68,70,72,74,76–78,80–
43
driven changes 83,86,88,91,93,95,97,100,101,103,106,107,109–112,114,116,117]
TD05: General social [2,3,6,8,44–47,49–51,53,55,57,58,61–63,65,66,68–70,72,75–77,80–86,88–98,101–
58
changes 105,107–110,112,113,115,117]
Content analysis on the technology dimension revealed 13 technology subconcepts:
Artificial intelligence, Internet of Things, Big data and data analytics, Cloud computing,
Virtual reality, Augmented reality, Deep learning, Blockchain, 3D scanning/printing,
Social media and platforms, Autonomous robots, Mobile technology, and Digital
innovative technologies in general. Similar to the content analysis of the other two
dimensions, it was possible to match the publication’s content to more than one
technology. As a result, the sum of frequencies across all technologies in Table 3 is also
greater than the number of analyzed papers.
Table 3. Content analysis in the technology dimension.

TC1: Artificial intelligence 18 [4,42,43,47,49,52,55,58,59,62,79,88,97,99,103,113,115,117]
TC2: Internet of Things 10 [4,42,43,47,58,59,97,99,103,115]
TC3: Big data and data analytics 8 [4,42,43,58,59,99,103,115]
TC4: Cloud computing 6 [42,43,47,99,103,115]
TC5: Virtual reality 11 [42,43,47,57,58,89,91,93,97,103,108]
TC6: Augmented reality 5 [42,52,55,95,103]
TC7: Deep learning 3 [43,58,59]
TC8: Blockchain 6 [43,48,59,99,115,116]
TC9: 3D scanning/printing 4 [4,42,97,103]
[1,4,8,43,44,51,54,55,58,61,64,66,68,69,72,77,79,86,92–95,104–
TC10: Social media and platforms 28
106,108,111,115]
TC11: Autonomous systems/robotics 10 [42,58,62,79,85,88,97,103,108,115]
TC12: Mobile technology 24 [1,4,43,46,47,49–51,57–59,66,79,91,93–95,97,99,104,105,108,111,116]
[2,3,6,7,10,11,45,53,56,60,63,65,67,70,71,73–76,78,80–
TC13: Innovative tech. in general 37
84,87,90,96,98,100–102,107,109,110,112,114]
The research framework in Figure 2 shows the starting three dimensions along with
the subconcepts in each dimension derived from the gathered literature. Subconcepts
were added each time a new one appeared, which could not be systemized under existing
ones. Therefore, the subconcepts do not include all possible options (which is most
evident in the technology dimension), but only those which appeared in reviewed articles.
Research framework
Scope dimension: operating service

Transformation drivers (TR) Technology dimension (TC)
sector (SC)
SC1: Healthcare sector TD1: Organizationally driven changes TC1: Artificial intelligence
SC2: Financial sector TD2: Customer driven changes TC2: Internet of Things
SC3: Retail sector TD3: Technology driven changes TC3: Big data and data analytics
SC4: Education sector TD4: Financially driven changes TC4: Cloud computing
SC5: Franchising sector TD5: General social changes TC5: Virtual reality
SC6: Food service sector TC6: Augmented reality
SC7: Fashion sector TC7: Deep learning
SC8: Travel/transport sector TC8: Blockchain
SC9: Tourism sector TC9: 3D scanning/printing
SC10: Entertainment sector TC10: Social media and platforms

SC11: General services TC11: Autonomous robot
TC12: Mobile technology
TC13: Innovative tech. in general
Figure 2. Research dimensions and subconcepts.

The substructure allows for a comparative approach and distribution measuring of

subconcepts. It also allows for the identification of correlative dimension matches.
Although keeping a neutral perspective was aimed, the set of appearing subconcepts can
be seen as a limitation of this research, along with the comprehension objectivity.
4. Results
The analysis data presented in previous section in Tables 1–3, show the content
matching the three dimensions and their subconcepts through reported transformations
in regard to scope, i.e., operating service sector, transformation drivers, and digital
technologies selected for transformational support. From the content analysis of 85
publications in relation to the three dimensions and their 12 sector subconcepts, 5 driver
subconcepts and 13 technology subconcepts, 526 records of publications matching the
subconcepts were analyzed, where each publication had to be matched to at least one
subconcept in each of the three dimensions. Based on the findings from the literature
review, the impact on business models is explored via Osterwalder’s Business Model
Canvas [17].
4.1. Reflection on the Scope Dimension in Relation to Focus on the Service Sector
The content analysis in the scope dimension in relation to its focus on the service
sector in Table 1 shows that most publications are related to profit‐oriented
entrepreneurship and to services in general. Tourism, education, healthcare, food, and
Travel/transport are sectors that are most often explicitly reported about in the recorded
scientific publications. Financial, entertainment, fashion, retail, and franchising sectors are
not the subject of focus in many scientific publications. They appear only in a few articles.
Agility is critical for SMEs. It allows them to deal successfully with these economic,
political, social and psychological challenges. SMEs need to cultivate capabilities and
skills in order to leverage their flexibility in responding to market needs and social
demands. They need to quickly adjust their operations [62]. The market context or sector
within which SMEs operate, may influence their readiness of adjust, and how the business
model can be transformed [4].
Some sectors have become more vulnerable than others during the COVID‐19
pandemic. Travel, tourism, hotels, hospitality, aviation, restaurants, retail, public
entertainment, education, and sports were the sectors with the highest disruptions to
business while other sectors such as food, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, and information
technology seem to be less vulnerable [1–3,7,43,45,59,82,87,97,99]. Some sectors were
challenged by specific issues in regard to social changes, which has been demonstrated
through the example of sharing platforms. These platforms aim to offer sustainable
production chains and new consumption behaviors, and provide budget‐based and
environment friendly alternatives [86]. Meanwhile, some challenges have become
common for more sectors. For example, in the transportation or tourism industry [87] and
in the fashion industry, the sharing paradigms experience the same potential challenges,
e.g., hygiene and health risks—associated with close or skin contact; psychological and
social risk—related to the need for social distancing; and a lack of trust in service
providers. The impact of challenges may also magnify during this pandemic. Customers’
needs, buying habits, purchasing, decision making, and routines have changed demand
patterns as customers are now working more from home. Various social and professional
events have been postponed, cancelled, or held virtually in online environments. Due to
these changes, some industries profited and experienced a greater demand (e.g., fashion
and rental platforms). However, during the COVID‐19 pandemic, the concern is that the
current layout of demands and the initiatives that are being implemented to respond will
eventually be disrupted again [86]. Since the impact of the COVID‐19 disruption was
different depending on particular sectors, SMEs operating in these sectors have responded
differently to the challenges ahead of them in terms of focusing on a transformation driver
and by applying different technological solutions.
4.2. Reflection on the Transformation Driver Dimension

The content analysis in the transformation driver dimension shows that most
occurrences are related to the general social changes as a driver, which can be understood
in a way that SMEs strongly focus on their environment and their role in society. Social
changes are closely followed by the customer and organizational drivers. This means that
SMEs are aware of the significance of customer centricity, internal organizational
capacities, and maturity. Financial elements and issues are drivers for roughly half of the
publications, and in this study they are considered even more relevant than technology as
a driver. Technology as a driving force in boosting SME’s resilience during COVID‐19 was
the least cited driver.
The significant shift of business operations into online environments has been
witnessed during 2020 due to changes in consumers’ purchasing behavior as a result of
national lockdowns and restrictions on movement. In order to make this shift, SMEs have
had to fully utilize all available digital technologies, learn new skills, and acquire
knowledge that is needed to operate in new digital‐oriented environments. Most countries
have had to balance between restrictions and protection instruments for their economies
during the COVID‐19 pandemic. The restrictions and their duration impacted businesses
regardless of their size and operating industry. The mitigating relief measures aimed to
protect employment and ensure the continuation of production and service activity in this
period is considered to be short term. The focus of relief initiatives is, therefore, oriented
on protecting present businesses. The long term effects of the pandemic on economic
activity have yet to be handled [75]. Financial aid as economy‐relief instruments should
be fast and focused enough to give numerous SMEs a chance to survive. Nevertheless,
financial support is not a guarantee that survival is given. New services, new models of
delivering services, new means and channels of consuming services (e.g., entertainment),
new collaboration options in communities, i.e., all that impacts the value proposition
customers need and expect, is required. To effectively capitalize on opportunities,
companies need appropriate, as a well as often new, organizational capabilities.
Concerning behavior they need to have the readiness for innovation, and operate in an
entrepreneurial mindset [62]. Lastly, social changes can also drive SMEs to transform.
Transformation allows them to become resilient.
Besides focusing on transformation drivers, initiatives for transformation can also
arise from trends in the SME’s operating context. These trends include competitor trends,
market trends, and other environmental trends. These trends seem to influence SMEs
differently now during the COVID‐19 disruption than they did previously. This sounds
promising for further research, such that it contributes to understanding the behavior of
competitors and how market paradigms have shifted during this crisis.
4.3. Reflection on the Technology Dimension

The content analysis in the Technology dimension shows that most occurrences are
related to innovative technologies in general. Social media and platforms (with
appearances in 28 publications) and mobile technologies (in 24 publications) are the two
most commonly appearing technologies in this study; followed by artificial intelligence
(in 18 publications). Virtual reality, Internet of Things, and autonomous systems/robotics
are mentioned in 10 of the 85 publications. Other technologies in this framework appear
only a few times.
Service sectors that have been more affected had to adjust significantly more. They
have had to change their business models, business strategies, and operations. SMEs have
had to seek and find opportunities to reinvent themselves or their services, develop new
business strategies, and deliver remote operations by digitizing business activities. Many
SMEs have had to go digital, meaning that they had to switch to virtual operations to
sustain competitiveness, productivity, and business performance. They have also had to
implement a techno‐economic paradigm, which features digitalization, robotization, and
the formation of smart businesses. Many of the new digital technologies can be considered
disruptive for some market players. At the same time though, they can be considered a
tool for success for others during the pandemic [4,42,43,103].
Digital technologies can have different impacts on different sectors. This also
depends on the countries and regions where the SME operates. The potential to make the
transition to industry 4.0 can vary [97] and can lead to technological, economic, social, and
cultural changes, as well as changes in the class structure of societies [103]. The selection
of appropriate technology as a response, depends on the driver transforming operations,
as well as on the applicability of the technology in the core processes of SMEs.
4.4. Sector–Driver–Technology Relations

In order to explore the appearances of triplet combinations in “sector–driver–
technology,” all 526 records from the qualitative content analysis were isolated and listed.
Numerical values (available in Appendix A) were used to create visual representations in
the form of bar charts (Figures 3–5) and are not intended to be statistically analyzed. Bar
chart visualizations are given since the goal is to ensure that the findings can be easily
read and understood as guidelines. The lack of a bar in the bar chart is read in a way such
that the content analysis of the publications in this research were not recognized to report
on the appearance of the subconcept in a dimension. The visualizations present results in
following matter:
 In Figure 3: The distribution of operating service sectors (SC) in relation to
transformation drivers (TD) and selected technologies (TC); e.g., SC10: The tourism
sector was mostly reported to be driven by TD05 and TD02. The SMEs in this service
sector relied on TC13 and TC5.
 In Figure 4: The distribution of transformation drivers (TD) across operating sectors
(SC) and selected technologies (TC): e.g., Driver TD02 was the most important driver
of change in SC01, and the most important responding technology was T10.
 In Figure 5: The distribution of technologies (TC) across operating service sectors (SC)
and as means of transformation by focusing on drivers (TD): TC10 was the
technology that was selected the most often for service sector SC04. It was used to
address transformations which were driven by TD05 general social changes.
Figure 3. Service sectors (SC) in relation to transformation drivers (TD) and selected technologies (TC).
Figure 4. Transformation drivers (TD) across operating sectors (SC) and selected technologies (TC).
Figure 5. Technologies (TC) across operating service sectors (SC) and transformation drivers (TD).
The triple‐dimensioned combinations presented in the bar charts in Figures 3–5 are
limited to publications published in 2020, and can be indicative of SMEs responses to the
disruptions caused by the pandemic. Furthermore, the results are considered in the
context of business models in order to explore their impact on the redefinition of the
elements of business models.
4.5. Impact on Business Models

The adaption of SMEs and their business models (redefined by relying on digital
technologies) aims to ensure continuity and improve business activities during
lockdowns. Even if the implementation of digital technologies that support business
activities was not planned and decided involuntary, it leads gains in terms of
competitiveness and resilience [4]. Digital Darwinism, as mentioned by [118], condemns
organizations to shut down if they fail to adapt to changes faster than the available
technologies and the environment do. That means that SMEs have to use their advantages
in terms of size and flexibility to incorporate new strategies and new business models for
sustainable business operations [59]. This will enable them to survive.
Every crisis, regardless of the origin, has an immediate effect on financial markets as
well. So, one of the biggest problem facing SMEs when they need to transform their
existing business model, and consider new one, may be acquiring the needed capital. If
this pandemic lasts longer, businesses may run out of money (if they have not already)
[48]. SMEs face very specific and unique problems regarding access to external capital.
This relates to their informational opacity and their ownership structure. These problems
are often compounded by a lack of physical and tangible assets that can be used as
collateral against loans. This means that many SMEs are overly reliant on internally
generated funds to capitalize on their operations and provide the necessary liquidity to
fund their day‐to‐day operations.
Uncertainty caused by the COVID‐19 pandemic has resulted in new ways of
understanding the paradigm of entrepreneurship [2,7]. This is especially the case when
we combine the pandemic with accelerating digital transformation [97]. This is important
to consider since SMEs play a vital role in fostering innovation, economic growth, and
reducing unemployment [100].
Competitiveness in operating industries puts pressure on SMEs to continuously
create new innovative value propositions and become more resilient in relation to
industry incumbents [4]. Due to this, they also need to consider possible collaborative
work with other SMEs in the same sector or field of work [119]. They can do this by
adopting digital technology. In this period of COVID‐19, the pandemic can actually
trigger SMEs in any industry to create new strategies and set the stage for long‐term
growth and market leadership [43]. Adopting digital technologies can also help SMEs to
enhance the digitization of internal operations and processes, to improve performance
effectiveness and efficiencies, to reengineer business models, to ensure business survival
or even to enhance business process innovation [43].
In order to analyze the research described in Sections 4.1–4.4., in terms of how the
operating service sector, transformation drivers, and selected technology influence the
redefinition of sustainable business models in SMEs in practice, we rely on Business
Model Canvas—BMC [17].
This subchapter tries to define in which of the nine elements a special emphasis
should be made. This has been conducted in order to contribute to enabling better
organizational resilience and perform faster adapting processes, as well as improve
further disruption response, sustainability, and growth. To do so, three (3) steps need to
be implemented:
1. The operating service sector, in which the organization (creating the new business
model) is working in, need to be identified.
2. Technologies within this specific sector, which are already used by other companies,
can then be sorted out. In that way, the technologies have the potential to be
considered for use such that they change the value proposition of the product or
service that needs to be improved or redefined. The number of appearances of each
technology can be the decision factor, whereby the organization can choose to use
the technology with the highest number of appearances and be the Follower SME.
Alternatively, it can choose one of the technologies with the fewest number of
appearances (if possible 0) and be the Challenger SME. These strategy
operationalization options are described in more detail in the discussion chapter.
3. The transformational driver, which initiated the change, indicates which of the nine
elements of BMC is the most important one. The framework for positioning the five
subconcepts of the transformational driver dimension has been found and
broadened from the initial business model option (BMO) matrix, defined by [120]
and previous research on influence of digital transformation drivers onto the BMO
matrix dimensions [121]. For each positioned driver, the number of appearances
within the investigated operating service sector is again the decision factor, whereby
the one with the highest number of appearances indicates which BMC element
should be given the greatest emphasis.
In Figure 6, the positioning of the transformational drivers has been conducted,
whereby some drivers can have an impact on more than one of the nine BMC elements.
The same figure shows an illustrative example, where a company is active within the
tourism sector (SC10). In this example, 10 of the explored papers in this research are
referred to. The blue text in Figure 6 highlights specific values for the sector in the
example.
Figure 6. Positioning transformation drivers into Business Model Canvas (BMC) elements via an illustrative example.
The technologies applied as reported from 10 publications are: TC5—Virtual reality

(4 of 10); TC10—Social media and platforms (2 of 10); TC12—Mobile technology (3 of 10);
and TC13—Innovative technology in general (5 of 10). The transformation was mostly
driven by TD05—General social changes (9 of 10), then by TD02—Customer driven
changes (8 of 10), which leads to a conclusion that Key partners and targeted Customer
segments are elements of the BMC that have to be considered with special care and
attention.
5. Discussion and Recommendations

The results of this research could be useful for both academia and in practice. The
following subsections show the discussion on managerial and academic implications,
comparable studies, as well as policy recommendations.
5.1. Academic Implications

Academia can use the results as means to direct future research in three ways:
1. Investigating more in‐depth how specific drivers interact together and explore if the
focus on more than one driver causes complementary or opposite effects on the
business model redefinition. To give an example of this issue, creating new customer‐
oriented value propositions often increases the complexity of business processes,
which can have an effect on organizational elements, such as the need for new skills
and competencies. If these two initiatives are intertwined, it would have a positive
impact on the sustainability of SMEs. In other words, if the customer initiative is not
followed by organizational initiatives, this could have a negative impact on a SME’s
resilience and sustainability.
2. Investigating new technology options and the application of possibilities in service
sectors where according to the review results no reported cases have been found
(blanks in Figures 3–5) or where certain technologies have not been considered
within this review (due to methodology described in Section 3, which is referring
only to technologies reported at least once in gathered publications).
3. Applying the research methodology to other sectors (or possible new disruptions),
and investigating how other sectors have responded to the disruptions in their
operations and markets.
Digital transformation initiatives have been thoroughly investigated in this recent
period. Technology development is exponentially growing, and it sets the stage for the
digital environment in which businesses operate. This research shows that SMEs have
shifted their focus from technology driven transformation towards more socially‐related
driven transformation initiatives. Social media and platforms, as well as mobile
technologies, were technologies most often selected as a tool for the transformation of
channels of communication and/or service delivery. A possible explanation for this can be
found in the common use and experience of service providers and consumers with these
broadly available technologies. Yet, other technologies may result in more impacts;
however, they are not so commonly used by the broader broad public due to the
complexity of the technology, lack of competencies among the public on its use, long
implementation periods, the need for additional equipment, etc. Building more easy‐to‐
use technology solutions with short implementation periods and that are oriented
towards enabling desired value propositions would contribute to supporting SMEs in
their efforts to quickly respond to disruptions. More research is needed to identify typical
scenarios relating to the implementation of technologies in SME’s operating sectors.
Further research is also needed to support the development of appropriate and feasible
methodologies for designing sustainable business models.
5.2. Managerial Implications

Overall comprehensiveness and scale was not the focus of this research, but this
study succeeded in gaining timely and actual insights into alternative approaches used by
SMEs to cope with the pandemic. At the strategic level, out of five strategic approaches
defined [9], the only ones referring to a highly unpredictable environment are feasible in
the pandemic crisis faced by today’s businesses include: the followers (adaptive
approach), the challengers (shaping approach), or a total redefinition (the renewal
approach). The operationalization of the strategic approach selected is offered through the
process of business model redefinition. Each of the options for SMEs brings potential
benefits and risks:
1. The follower SME decides to follow the way competitors from the same service sector
operate, which puts a certain driver in focus. It implements similar technologies, like
the others (following the results in Figures 3–5). When implementing the same
technology solutions, they can benefit from choosing an off‐the‐shelf solution or a
“one size fits all” solution. This would constitute a fast response to the changing
market and customer behavior. On the other side, this “blending in” with
competitors means that the SME cannot differentiate itself. This is a risk, and it
depends on the readiness of the SME to apply the same digital technology.
2. The challenger SME can benefit from filling the “blanks” in Figures 3–5 in order to
differentiate itself and offer a value proposition that is different than the others. This
custom value proposition can arise from a different driver focus and/or from
applying a technology which others did not consider. Customization‐driven
technology solutions pose a risk in the short‐ term, but they also offer to build
accompanying skills and competencies, which can be beneficiary for long‐term
resilience and sustainability.
3. The “reinvent myself SMEs” (those who are applying the renewal strategy approach)
could rethink their operating service sector if the driver and technology niches, as
well as existing specific skills and competencies, can be identified. This approach has
the potential to bring big benefits, but it is also the most risky (which is in accordance
with the entrepreneurial spirit of SMEs).
In regular environments, SMEs struggle on deciding when and how to balance
between the exploitation of existing products or services and the exploration of new ones
(referred as strategic ambidexterity [122]). Unstable and unpredictable environments
force SMEs to rethink their business strategy and change their operating model. In the
COVID‐19 disruption, strategic ambidexterity has cascaded into operational processes in
terms of changing purchase and inbound logistics scenarios, new ways of providing
services, and the development of alternative delivery channels. SMEs rely on existing
paradigms, but they are also exploiting new possibilities. The flexibility of SMEs and their
agile response can be seen as an advantage in relation to large businesses concerning
strategic ambidexterity. Nevertheless, they often lack competences and capacity to take
advantage of the situation. Building capacities and competencies for future growth
opportunities should be a priority when business activities are reduced due to health
measures.
5.3. Reflection on Comparable Studies

As mentioned in the theoretical background, business models developed under
theory of business have been the focus of academia and practitioners in their research,
with an exponential growth. Business model canvas [17], Digital transformation compass
[123], Digital matrix [124], Digital vortex [125], and many other frameworks and methods
have been developed in order to help organizations understand and improve their way
of doing business. These frameworks and methods also contribute to allowing SMEs to
adapt better and faster to disruptions affecting their work, such as new digital
technologies being regarded as standards in their operating industry, economic crises,
and/or the COVID‐19 pandemic.
Among many recent studies that have been performed on how the pandemic has
influenced business models, the previously mentioned research put attention on the use
of artificial intelligence in the agri‐food industry [35], the influence of additive
manufacturing on the sustainability of business models [36], and the impact of the
COVID‐19 pandemic on aviation [37]. When comparing the research in this paper with
the other research, they all lead to common conclusions despite that fact that they are
dealing with different technologies, sectors, and drivers. The current situation has led
many companies to rethink their business models, try to learn from others, as well as focus
on environmental, sectoral, economic, technological, and social factors that influence the
way business is done.
5.4. Policy Recommendations

A limitation of this research is clearly the fact that the results are based solely on
secondary sources, i.e., the publications reporting on this issue cannot be seen as
comprehensive. In future studies, this type of qualitative research could be performed by
surveying SMEs directly. In this case, the results could also be used for improved targeting
of aid and funding initiatives. Balancing between “open business—closed business”
health measures and at the same time building future capacities can be exhausting for
SMEs in many respects, i.e., financially and non‐financially. Mitigating relief measures in
form of financial aid can help retain employment and contribute to the continuation of
business activities only temporarily. Nonfinancial measures in the form of improving
digital competencies, designing customer journeys with higher social interactions,
developing new and more sustainable ecosystems and alliances, creating new value
propositions oriented towards the quality of life, and a safe and sustainable work
environment should be the focus of long‐term policies.
6. Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Research

The limitations of this research can be found in the broad scope of the study because
the term “Service sector” is a generic concept. Moreover, the analysis was conducted
without focus on specific country or region. Furthermore, the study is based only on
scientific literature from academic databases and platforms, which tends to lag behind
other professional reports. On the other hand, the aim of the paper is not to offer an overall
comprehensive literature review on the global level, but to gain insights into what has
been reported so far in scientific publications about how SMEs are responding to the
recent disruption (relating to the COVID‐19 pandemic). It also investigates drivers and
technologies that are strategically relevant for SMEs when they decide on an approach to
redefining their business models.
These insights could be helpful to academia and professionals when planning,
designing, and steering further scientific or professional research in more detail on
industry sectors of interest, on interactions of drivers, or on specific technologies. Further
research could be directed towards examining SMEs’ response scenarios and designing
feasible methodologies for the development of sustainable business models.
This research aimed to investigate how SMEs operating in the service industry were
coping with the COVID‐19 disruption and to gain insights into drivers and technologies
which impacted their response to the COVID‐19 pandemic. The literature review showed
that the focus of transformational initiatives of SMEs during the COVID‐19 disruption
slightly shifted from technology to social, customers, and organizationally driven
changes. This relied on social media platforms and on mobile technologies. The choice of
technology could be related to the SME’s existing equipment, basic digital competencies
to use these technologies, as well as on already established digital communication
channels with customers. Lack of resources and expertise [10] connected to the use of more
advanced technological solutions could also play role, and this should be taken into
account by policymakers when defining new policies relating to future support measures.
According to [23], innovation challenges that arise from including digital
technologies like artificial intelligence in developing sustainable business models can
have ”ethical, social, economic, and legal aspects,” which should be addressed in relation
to the Sustainable Development Goals proposed in the United Nations 2030 Agenda. In
this context, the collaboration of scholars, professionals, and institutions in continuing
research and “implementing a public–private partnership network to anticipate and
manage the profound social changes connected to the digital revolution” [23] is
mandatory for achieving sustainability. Gaining new competencies, enhancing
knowledge and experience, and building alliances and ecosystems with stakeholders can
be performed during lockdowns, i.e., when businesses cannot operate. Academia and
consulting professionals should also contribute more in accordance to their role in the
community, offering more lifelong learning programs via open online platforms,
performing research, development, and innovation oriented projects in cooperation with
different stakeholders. Innovation in creating sustainable business models for delivering
services, remote operations, means of substitution and channels of service delivery,
innovative collaboration environments, and new service consumption opportunities
enable and improve the value proposition. SMEs often need external inputs on these
matters.
The influence of COVID‐19 motivates SMEs to rethink their core competencies, seek
new opportunities, and redefine sustainable business models in a more intense and timely
manner. Strategic ambidexterity in shorter cycles, balancing between measures and

concentrating on building innovation is not limited to only SMEs in this period.
Developing new competencies, improving experience management, and enhancing the
experience of professionals (including academia, consultants, etc.) regarding the
application of new technologies within business models during this period is an essential
regional development need over the long‐term. By focusing on this, SMEs will not just
survive this disruption. They will emerge capable of adopting new technologies, and
become more competitive under these challenging conditions.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.T.‐P. and I.G.; methodology, M.T.F. and K.T.‐P.;
validation, K.T.‐P., M.T.F., and I.G.; formal analysis, M.T.F.; investigation, I.G.; data curation, I.G.
and K.T.‐P.; writing—original draft preparation, K.T.‐P., M.T.F. and I.G.; writing—review and
editing, M.T.F. and I.G.; visualization, K.T.‐P.; supervision, M.T.F. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The paper has been prepared in the context of the ABCitiEs Interreg Europe project which
has received funding from the European Regional Development Fund.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data sharing not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1. Appearances of service sectors (SC) in relation to transformation drivers (TD) and selected technologies (TC).
Sector TD01 TD02 TD03 TD04 TD05 TC01 TC02 TC03 TC04 TC05 TC06 TC07 TC08 TC09 TC10 TC11 TC12 TC13
SC01 6 7 2 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 1
SC02 2 3 1 3 2 1 1 1 3
SC03 1 2 1 1 2 2
SC04 7 9 6 2 5 3 1 1 2 2 1 5 1 3 2
SC05 27 18 14 19 18 5 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 12 2 7 17
SC06 1 1 1 1 1
SC07 1 5 3 5 2 1 1 3
SC08 2 2 2 1 2 1
SC09 4 6 4 4 5 1 1 1 1 4
SC10 6 8 3 5 9 4 2 3 5
SC11 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1
SC12 15 17 10 16 21 7 5 3 4 6 2 3 2 9 4 10 12
Table A2. Appearances of transformation drivers (TD) across operating sectors (SC) and selected technologies (TC).
Driver SC01 SC02 SC03 SC04 SC05 SC06 SC07 SC08 SC09 SC10 SC11 SC12 TC01 TC02 TC03 TC04 TC05 TC06 TC07 TC08 TC09 TC10 TC11 TC12 TC13
TD01 6 2 1 7 27 1 1 2 4 6 15 12 9 8 5 7 3 3 6 4 17 6 14 24
TD02 7 3 2 9 18 1 5 2 6 8 3 17 15 8 6 5 9 5 3 3 3 22 8 19 17
TD03 2 1 6 14 4 3 1 10 16 9 8 5 6 4 3 5 4 12 8 13 9
TD04 3 3 1 2 19 1 3 2 4 5 2 16 7 4 3 2 5 2 1 3 3 14 4 11 20
TD05 4 2 1 5 18 5 1 5 9 3 21 11 5 3 3 9 3 1 1 2 20 8 16 24
Table A3. Appearances of technologies (TC) across operating service sectors (SC) and transformation drivers (TD).
Tech SC01 SC02 SC03 SC04 SC05 SC06 SC07 SC08 SC09 SC10 SC11 SC12 TD01 TD02 TD03 TD04 TD05
TC01 3 1 3 5 1 7 12 15 16 7 11
TC02 3 1 3 5 9 8 9 4 5
TC03 2 1 3 3 8 6 8 3 3
TC04 3 1 4 5 5 5 2 3
TC05 3 2 2 1 4 6 7 9 6 5 9
TC06 1 2 1 2 3 5 4 2 3
TC07 1 1 2 3 3 3 1 1
TC08 1 1 3 3 6 3 5 3 1
TC09 1 1 2 4 3 4 3 2
TC10 3 1 2 5 12 1 2 2 2 2 9 17 22 12 14 20
TC11 1 1 2 1 1 4 6 8 8 4 8
TC12 4 3 2 3 7 1 1 1 1 3 2 10 14 19 13 11 16
TC13 1 2 17 3 4 5 1 12 24 17 9 20 24
References
1. Bretas, V.P.G.; Alon, I. The impact of COVID‐19 on franchising in emerging markets: An example from Brazil. Glob. Bus. Organ.
Excell. 2020, 39, 1–11, doi:10.1002/joe.22053.
2. Ratten, V. Coronavirus and international business: An entrepreneurial ecosystem perspective. Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev. 2020,
62, 629–634, doi:10.1002/tie.22161.
3. Sigala, M. Tourism and COVID‐19: Impacts and implications for advancing and resetting industry and research. J. Bus. Res.
2020, 117, 312–321, doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.015.
4. Akpan, I.J.; Soopramanien, D.; Kwak, D.‐H. Cutting‐edge technologies for small business and innovation in the era of COVID‐
19 global health pandemic. J. Small Bus. Entrep. 2020, 1–11, doi:10.1080/08276331.2020.1799294.
5. Winston, A. Is the COVID‐19 Outbreak a Black Swan or the New Normal? Available online:
https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/is‐the‐covid‐19‐outbreak‐a‐black‐swan‐or‐the‐new‐normal/ (accessed on 16 December
2020).
6. Kuckertz, A.; Brändle, L.; Gaudig, A.; Hinderer, S.; Reyes, C.A.M.; Prochotta, A.; Steinbrink, K.M.; Berger, E.S. Startups in times
of crisis—A rapid response to the COVID‐19 pandemic. J. Bus. Ventur. Insights 2020, 13, e00169, doi:10.1016/j.jbvi.2020.e00169.
7. Amankwah‐Amoah, J.; Khan, Z.; Wood, G. COVID‐19 and business failures: The paradoxes of experience, scale, and scope for
theory and practice. Eur. Manag. J. 2020, doi:10.1016/j.emj.2020.09.002.
8. Maritz, A.; Perényi, Á.; De Waal, G.A.; Buck, C. Entrepreneurship as the Unsung Hero during the Current COVID‐19 Economic
Crisis: Australian Perspectives. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4612, doi:10.3390/su12114612.
9. Reeves, M.; Haanes, K.; Sinha, J. Your Strategy Needs a Strategy—How to Choose and Execute the Right Approach; Harvard Business
Review Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2015; ISBN 978‐1‐62527‐586‐8.
10. Islam, D.M.Z.; Khalid, N.; Rayeva, E.; Ahmed, U. COVID‐19 and Financial Performance of SMEs: 643 Examining the Nexus of
Entrepreneurial Self‐Efficacy, Entrepreneurial Resilience and Innovative Work 644 Behavior. Rev. Argent. Clín. Psicol. 2020, 29,
587–593, doi:10.3390/su12114612.
11. Humphries, J.E.; Neilson, C.; Ulyssea, G. The Evolving Impacts of COVID‐19 on Small Businesses Since the CARES Act; Social Science
Research Network: Rochester, NY, USA, 2020.
12. Drucker, P.F. Theory of the business. Harvard Business Review, 1 September 1994. Available online: https://hbr.org/1994/09/the‐
theory‐of‐the‐business (accessed on 3 January 2021).
13. Daly, P.; Walsh, J.S. Drucker’s theory of the business and organisations: Challenging business assumptions. Manag. Decis. 2010,
48, 500–511, doi:10.1108/00251741011041319.
14. Brown, A.; Fishenden, J.; Thompson, M. Organizational Structures and Digital Transformation. In Digitizing Government:
Understanding and Implementing New Digital Business Models; Brown, A., Fishenden, J., Thompson, M., Eds.; Business in the
Digital Economy; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2014; pp. 165–183, ISBN 978‐1‐137‐44364‐9.
15. Becker, W.; Ulrich, P.; Botzkowski, T.; Eurich, S. Digitalisierung von Geschäftsmodellen. In Digitale Transformation von
Geschäftsmodellen—Grundlagen, Instrumente und Best Practices; Springer Gabler: Berlin, Germany, 2017; pp. 283–309, ISBN 978‐3‐
658‐12387‐1.
16. Geissdoerfer, M.; Vladimirova, D.; Evans, S. Sustainable business model innovation: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 198, 401–416,
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.240.
17. Osterwalder, A.; Pigneur, Y.; Bernarda, G.; Smith, A.; Papadakos, T. Value Proposition Design: How to Create Products and Services
Customers Want; John Wiley and Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014.
18. Li, X.; Qiao, H.; Wang, S. Exploring evolution and emerging trends in business model study: A co‐citation analysis. Science 2017,
111, 869–887, doi:10.1007/s11192‐017‐2266‐5.
19. Cardeal, G.; Höse, K.; Ribeiro, I.; Götze, U. Sustainable Business Models–Canvas for Sustainability, Evaluation Method, and
Their Application to Additive Manufacturing in Aircraft Maintenance. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9130, doi:10.3390/su12219130.
20. Koprivnjak, T.; Peterka, S.O. Business Model as a Base for Building Firms’ Competitiveness. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9278,
doi:10.3390/su12219278.
21. Bhatti, S.H.; Santoro, G.; Khan, J.; Rizzato, F. Antecedents and consequences of business model innovation in the IT industry. J.
Bus. Res. 2021, 123, 389–400, doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.003.
22. Di Vaio, A.; Palladino, R.; Pezzi, A.; Kalisz, D.E. The role of digital innovation in knowledge management systems: A systematic
literature review. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 123, 220–231, doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.09.042.
23. Di Vaio, A.; Palladino, R.; Hassan, R.; Escobar, O. Artificial intelligence and business models in the sustainable development
goals perspective: A systematic literature review. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 121, 283–314, doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.019.
24. Scuottobc, V.; Santoro, G.; Bresciani, S.; Del Giudice, M. Shifting intra‐ and inter‐organizational innovation processes towards
digital business: An empirical analysis of SMEs. Creativity Innov. Manag. 2017, 26, 247–255, doi:10.1111/caim.12221.
25. Kotarba, M. Digital Transformation of Business Models. Found. Manag. 2018, 10, 123–142, doi:10.2478/fman‐2018‐0011.
26. Kilkki, K.; Mäntylä, M.; Karhu, K.; Hämmäinen, H.; Ailisto, H. A disruption framework. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 129,
275–284, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.034.
27. DISRUPT. Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary. Available online:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/disrupt (accessed on 3 January 2021).
28. Geissdoerfer, M.; Bocken, N.M.; Hultink, E.J. Design thinking to enhance the sustainable business modelling process—A
workshop based on a value mapping process. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135, 1218–1232, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.020.
29. Priyono, A.; Moin, A.; Putri, V.N.A.O. Identifying Digital Transformation Paths in the Business Model of SMEs during the
COVID‐19 Pandemic. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 104, doi:10.3390/joitmc6040104.
30. Lemus‐Aguilar, I.; Morales‐Alonso, G.; Ramirez‐Portilla, A.; Hidalgo, A. Sustainable Business Models through the Lens of
Organizational Design: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5379, doi:10.3390/su11195379.
31. Marczewska, M.; Kostrzewski, M. Sustainable Business Models: A Bibliometric Performance Analysis. Energies 2020, 13, 6062,
doi:10.3390/en13226062.
32. Cillo, V.; Petruzzelli, A.M.; Ardito, L.; Del Giudice, M. Understanding sustainable innovation: A systematic literature review.
Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 1012–1025, doi:10.1002/csr.1783.
33. Di Vaio, A.; Syriopoulos, T.; Alvino, F.; Palladino, R. “Integrated thinking and reporting” towards sustainable business models:
A concise bibliometric analysis. Meditari Account. Res. 2020, doi:10.1108/medar‐12‐2019‐0641.
34. Hussain, A.; Shahzad, A.; Hassan, R. Organizational and Environmental Factors with the Mediating Role of E‐Commerce and
SME Performance. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 196, doi:10.3390/joitmc6040196.
35. Di Vaio, A.; Boccia, F.; Landriani, L.; Palladino, R. Artificial Intelligence in the Agri‐Food System: Rethinking Sustainable
Business Models in the COVID‐19 Scenario. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4851, doi:10.3390/su12124851.
36. Godina, R.; Ribeiro, I.; Matos, F.; Ferreira, B.T.; Carvalho, H.; Peças, P. Impact Assessment of Additive Manufacturing on
Sustainable Business Models in Industry 4.0 Context. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7066, doi:10.3390/su12177066.
37. Gössling, S. Risks, resilience, and pathways to sustainable aviation: A COVID‐19 perspective. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2020, 89,
101933, doi:10.1016/j.jairtraman.2020.101933.
38. About the Business Process Model and Notation Specification Version 2.0. Available online:
https://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/About‐BPMN/ (accessed on 31 December 2020).
39. Bizagi. Intelligent Process Automation Leader. Available online: https://www.bizagi.com/ (accessed on 31 December 2020).
40. Niehaves, B.; Plattfaut, R. Collaborative business process management: Status quo andquo vadis. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 2011,
17, 384–402, doi:10.1108/14637151111136342.
41. Ismagiloiva, E.; Hughes, L.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Raman, K.R. Smart cities: Advances in research—An information systems
perspective. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 47, 88–100, doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.01.004.
42. Javaid, M.; Haleem, A.; Vaishya, R.; Bahl, S.; Suman, R.; Vaish, A. Industry 4.0 technologies and their applications in fighting
COVID‐19 pandemic. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Clin. Res. Rev. 2020, 14, 419–422, doi:10.1016/j.dsx.2020.04.032.
43. Akpan, I.J.; Udoh, E.A.P.; Adebisi, B. Small business awareness and adoption of state‐of‐the‐art technologies in emerging and
developing markets, and lessons from the COVID‐19 pandemic. J. Small Bus. Entrep. 2020, 1–18,
doi:10.1080/08276331.2020.1820185.
44. Breier, M.; Kallmuenzer, A.; Clauss, T.; Gast, J.; Kraus, S.; Tiberius, V. The role of business model innovation in the hospitality
industry during the COVID‐19 crisis. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 92, 102723, doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102723.
45. Kaushal, V.; Srivastava, S. Hospitality and tourism industry amid COVID‐19 pandemic: Perspectives on challenges and
learnings from India. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 92, 102707, doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102707.
46. Baum, T.; Mooney, S.K.; Robinson, R.N.; Solnet, D. COVID‐19’s impact on the hospitality workforce—New crisis or
amplification of the norm? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 32, 2813–2829, doi:10.1108/ijchm‐04‐2020‐0314.
47. Schiavone, F.; Leone, D.; Sorrentino, A.; Scaletti, A. Re‐designing the service experience in the value co‐creation process: An
exploratory study of a healthcare network. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 2020, 26, 889–908, doi:10.1108/bpmj‐11‐2019‐0475.
48. Cowling, M.; Brown, R.; Rocha, A. Did you save some cash for a rainy COVID‐19 day? The crisis and SMEs. Int. Small Bus. J.
Res. Entrep. 2020, 38, 593–604, doi:10.1177/0266242620945102.
49. Haq, I.U.; Awan, T.M. Impact of e‐banking service quality on e‐loyalty in pandemic times through interplay of e‐satisfaction.
Vilakshan XIMB J. Manag. 2020, 17, 39–55, doi:10.1108/xjm‐07‐2020‐0039.
50. Baicu, C.G.; Gârdan, I.P.; Gârdan, D.A.; Epuran, G. The impact of COVID‐19 on consumer behavior in retail banking. Evidence
from Romania. Manag. Mark. Chall. Knowl. Soc. 2020, 15, 534–556, doi:10.2478/mmcks‐2020‐0031.
51. Chowdhury, T.; Sarkar, A.; Saha, P.K.; Anik, R.H. Enhancing supply resilience in the COVID‐19 pandemic: A case study on
beauty and personal care retailers. Mod. Supply Chain Res. Appl. 2020, 2, 143–159, doi:10.1108/mscra‐07‐2020‐0018.
52. Ratten, V.; Jones, P. Covid‐19 and entrepreneurship education: Implications for advancing research and practice. Int. J. Manag.
Educ. 2020, 100432, 100432, doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2020.100432.
53. Lawrence, L.; Wu, J. China’s higher education governance during COVID: A mixed‐methods study of policy analysis and
student perspectives. Asian Educ. Dev. Stud. 2020, doi:10.1108/aeds‐05‐2020‐0115.
54. Demir, A.; Maroof, L.; Khan, N.U.S.; Ali, B.J. The role of E‐service quality in shaping online meeting platforms: A case study
from higher education sector. J. Appl. Res. High. Educ. 2020, doi:10.1108/jarhe‐08‐2020‐0253.
55. Ratten, V. Coronavirus (Covid‐19) and the entrepreneurship education community. J. Enterprising Communities People Places
Glob. Econ. 2020, 14, 753–764, doi:10.1108/jec‐06‐2020‐0121.
56. Forhad, A.R.; Ahsan, R.; Alam, G.M. Impact of introducing a customer services component during secondary school education
to improve small and medium‐sized enterprises: A case study in Bangladesh. Soc. Bus. Rev. 2020, doi:10.1108/sbr‐07‐2020‐0097.
57. Parveen, M. Challenges Faced by Pandemic Covid 19 Crisis: A Case Study in Saudi Arabia. Challenge 2020, 63, 349–364,
doi:10.1080/05775132.2020.1822659.
58. Bonfield, C.A.; Salter, M.; Longmuir, A.; Benson, M.; Adachi, C. Transformation or evolution?: Education 4.0, teaching and
learning in the digital age. High. Educ. Pedagog. 2020, 5, 223–246, doi:10.1080/23752696.2020.1816847.
59. Papadopoulos, T.; Baltas, K.N.; Balta, M.E. The use of digital technologies by small and medium enterprises during COVID‐19:
Implications for theory and practice. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 55, 102192, doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102192.
60. Fairlie, R. The impact of COVID‐19 on small business owners: Evidence from the first three months after widespread social‐
distancing restrictions. J. Econ. Manag. Strat. 2020, 29, 727–740, doi:10.1111/jems.12400.
61. Kim, J.; Wang, Y. Uncertainty risks and strategic reaction of restaurant firms amid COVID‐19: Evidence from China. Int. J. Hosp.
Manag. 2021, 92, 102752, doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102752.
62. Liu, Y.; Lee, J.M.; Lee, C. The challenges and opportunities of a global health crisis: The management and business implications
of COVID‐19 from an Asian perspective. Asian Bus. Manag. 2020, 19, 277–297, doi:10.1057/s41291‐020‐00119‐x.
63. Syriopoulos, K. The Impact of Covid‐19 on Entrepreneurship and SMES. J. Int. Acad. Case Stud. 2020, 26, 1–2.
64. Obrenovic, B.; Du, J.; Godinic, D.; Tsoy, D.; Khan, M.A.S.; Jakhongirov, I. Sustaining Enterprise Operations and Productivity
during the COVID‐19 Pandemic: “Enterprise Effectiveness and Sustainability Model”. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5981,
doi:10.3390/su12155981.
65. Arora, N.; Singh, B. Determinants of oversubscription of SME IPOs in India: Evidence from quantile regression. Asia Pac. J. Bus.
Adm. 2020, 12, 349–370, doi:10.1108/apjba‐05‐2020‐0160.
66. Balogh, G.; Sipos, N.; Rideg, A. An empirical study of the internal factors influencing the application of compensation incentives
in SMEs. Compet. Rev. 2020, doi:10.1108/cr‐01‐2020‐0016.
67. Singh, N.; Bamel, U.; Vohra, V. The mediating effect of meaningful work between human resource practices and innovative
work behavior: A study of emerging market. Empl. Relat. 2020, doi:10.1108/er‐04‐2020‐0150.
68. Prah, D.; Sibiri, H. The resilience of African migrant entrepreneurs in China under COVID‐19. J. Entrep. Emerg. Econ. 2020,
doi:10.1108/jeee‐05‐2020‐0111.
69. Ratten, V. Coronavirus (Covid‐19) and entrepreneurship: Cultural, lifestyle and societal changes. J. Entrep. Emerg. Econ. 2020,
doi:10.1108/jeee‐06‐2020‐0163.
70. Castro, M.P.; Zermeño, M.G.G. Being an entrepreneur post‐COVID‐19—Resilience in times of crisis: A systematic literature
review. J. Entrep. Emerg. Econ. 2020, doi:10.1108/jeee‐07‐2020‐0246.
71. Zainal, M. Innovation orientation and performance of Kuwaiti family businesses: Evidence from the initial period of COVID‐
19 pandemic. J. Fam. Bus. Manag. 2020, doi:10.1108/jfbm‐09‐2020‐0086.
72. Sultan, S.; Sultan, W.I.M. Women MSMEs in times of crisis: Challenges and opportunities. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2020, 27,
1069–1083, doi:10.1108/jsbed‐06‐2020‐0226.
73. Kitchot, S.; Siengthai, S.; Sukhotu, V. The mediating effects of HRM practices on the relationship between SCM and SMEs firm
performance in Thailand. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2020, doi:10.1108/scm‐05‐2019‐0177.
74. Grandy, G.; Cukier, W.; Gagnon, S. (In)visibility in the margins: COVID‐19, women entrepreneurs and the need for inclusive
recovery. Gend. Manag. Int. J. 2020, 35, 667–675, doi:10.1108/gm‐07‐2020‐0207.
75. Kuckertz, A.; Berger, E.S.; Prochotta, A. Misperception of entrepreneurship and its consequences for the perception of
entrepreneurial failure—The German case. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2020, 26, 1865–1885, doi:10.1108/ijebr‐02‐2020‐0060.
76. Cannavale, C.; Nadali, I.Z.; Esempio, A. Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance in a sanctioned economy—Does the
CEO play a role? J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2020, 27, 1005–1027, doi:10.1108/jsbed‐11‐2019‐0366.
77. Mucha, S. Ethnic Albanian family businesses and COVID‐19 pandemic: A gender‐based comparison. J. Fam. Bus. Manag. 2020,
doi:10.1108/jfbm‐07‐2020‐0074.
78. Nurunnabi, M. Recovery planning and resilience of SMEs during the COVID‐19: Experience from Saudi Arabia. J. Account.
Organ. Chang. 2020, doi:10.1108/jaoc‐07‐2020‐0095.
79. Norris, L. The spatial implications of rural business digitalization: Case studies from Wales. Reg. Stud. Reg. Sci. 2020, 7, 499–510,
doi:10.1080/21681376.2020.1841674.
80. Cooke, F.L.; Xiao, M. Women entrepreneurship in China: Where are we now and where are we heading. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int.
2020, 1–18, doi:10.1080/13678868.2020.1842983.
81. Dvorský, J.; Belás, J.; Gavurova, B.; Brabenec, T. Business risk management in the context of small and medium‐sized
enterprises. Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraživanja 2020, 1–19, doi:10.1080/1331677x.2020.1844588.
82. Gunay, S.; Kurtulmuş, B.E. COVID‐19 social distancing and the US service sector: What do we learn? Res. Int. Bus. Financ. 2021,
56, 101361, doi:10.1016/j.ribaf.2020.101361.
83. Song, H.J.; Yeon, J.; Lee, S. Impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic: Evidence from the U.S. restaurant industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.
2021, 92, 102702, doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102702.
84. Zhang, Y.; Diao, X.; Chen, K.Z.; Robinson, S.; Fan, S. Impact of COVID‐19 on China’s macroeconomy and agri‐food system—
An economy‐wide multiplier model analysis. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2020, 12, 387–407, doi:10.1108/caer‐04‐2020‐0063.
85. Popovic, J.; Kvrgić, G.; Coric, G.; Avakumović, J.; Milošević, D. Uncertainty in SMEs’ assessment of Coronavirus pandemic risk
impact on agri‐food sector in Western Balkans. Èkon. Poljopr. 2020, 67, 445–460, doi:10.5937/ekopolj2002445p.
86. Brydges, T.; Heinze, L.; Retamal, M.; Henninger, C.E. Platforms and the pandemic: A case study of fashion rental platforms
during COVID‐19. Geogr. J. 2020, 12366, doi:10.1111/geoj.12366.
87. Škare, M.; Soriano, D.R.; Porada‐Rochoń, M. Impact of COVID‐19 on the travel and tourism industry. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Chang. 2021, 163, 120469, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120469.
88. Abu‐Rayash, A.; Dincer, I. Analysis of mobility trends during the COVID‐19 coronavirus pandemic: Exploring the impacts on
global aviation and travel in selected cities. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 68, 101693, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2020.101693.
89. Chan, J.H.; Hashim, I.H.M.; Khoo, S.L.; Lean, H.H.; Piterou, A. Entrepreneurial orientation of traditional and modern cultural
organisations: Cases in George town UNESCO world heritage site. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2020, 6, 1810889,
doi:10.1080/23311886.2020.1810889.
90. Movono, A.; Hughes, E. Tourism partnerships: Localizing the SDG agenda in Fiji. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 1–15,
doi:10.1080/09669582.2020.1811291.
91. McCartney, G. The impact of the coronavirus outbreak on Macao. From tourism lockdown to tourism recovery. Curr. Issues
Tour. 2020, 1–10, doi:10.1080/13683500.2020.1762549.
92. Haywood, K.M. A post COVID‐19 future—Tourism re‐imagined and re‐enabled. Tour. Geogr. 2020, 22, 599–609,
doi:10.1080/14616688.2020.1762120.
93. Ho, J.M.; Sia, J.K.M. Embracing an uncertain future: COVID‐19 and MICE in Malaysia. Local Dev. Soc. 2020, 1–15,
doi:10.1080/26883597.2020.1818533.
94. Saleh, Y. ICT, social media and COVID‐19: Evidence from informal home‐based business community in Kuwait City. J.
Enterprising Communities People Places Glob. Econ. 2020, doi:10.1108/jec‐07‐2020‐0131.
95. Ratten, V. Coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) and sport entrepreneurship. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2020, 26, 1379–1388,
doi:10.1108/ijebr‐06‐2020‐0387.
96. Akpan, I.J.; Ezeume, I.C.; Udomboso, E.; Ezeume, A.; Akpan, A. An Analysis of the Conceptual Structure of SARS‐CoV‐2 and
COVID‐19 Using Network Analysis and Visual Analytics. SSRN Electron. J. 2020, doi:10.2139/ssrn.3593142.
97. Zemtsov, S.P. New technologies, potential unemployment and ‘nescience economy’ during and after the 2020 economic crisis.
Reg. Sci. Policy Pract. 2020, 12, 723–743, doi:10.1111/rsp3.12286.
98. Seetharaman, P. Business models shifts: Impact of Covid‐19. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 54, 102173,
doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102173.
99. Chen, S. What Implications Does COVID‐19 Have on Sustainable Economic Development in the Medium and Long Terms?
Front. Econ. 2020, 15, 380–395, doi:10.3868/s060‐011‐020‐0017‐8.
100. Dhewanto, W.; Nazmuzzaman, E.; Fauzan, T.R. Cross‐Countries’ Policies Comparison of Supporting Small and Medium‐Sized
Enterprises During Covid‐19 Pandemic—ProQuest. In Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Innovation and
Entrepreneurship, Rome, Italy, 17–18 September 2020; pp. 218–225.
101. Murad, H. Designing a Startup Ecosystem Model Using the Socio‐Economic Theory of Organizations. Organ. Dev. J. Chesterland
2020, 38, 45–58.
102. AlZgool, M.R.H.; Ahmed, U.; Pahi, M.H.; Ahmed, A. COVID‐19 and Work Engagement: Understanding the Nexus of Leaders
Emotional Intelligence, Self‐Efficacy and Resilience in the Banking Sector of Bahrain. Rev. Argent. Clín. Psicol. 2020, 29, 568–586,
doi:10.24205/03276716.2020.760.
103. Şen, E.; Irge, N.T. Industry 4.0 and Agile Firms. In Agile Business Leadership Methods for Industry 4.0; Emerald: Bingley, UK, 2020;
pp. 209–231.
104. Saleh, F.I.M.; Karia, N. Benchmarks for INGOs’ effective responses during COVID‐19 pandemic. Benchmarking Int. J. 2020, 27,
2863–2886, doi:10.1108/bij‐04‐2020‐0157.
105. Tavares, F.; Santos, E.; Diogo, A.; Ratten, V. Teleworking in Portuguese communities during the COVID‐19 pandemic. J.
Enterprising Communities People Places Glob. Econ. 2020, doi:10.1108/jec‐06‐2020‐0113.
106. Raudeliuniene, J.; Albats, E.; Kordab, M. Impact of information technologies and social networks on knowledge management
processes in Middle Eastern audit and consulting companies. J. Knowl. Manag. 2020, doi:10.1108/jkm‐03‐2020‐0168.
107. Poljašević, J.; Grbavac, J.; Mikerević, D. Budgetary responses to a global pandemic in Bosnia and Herzegovina. J. Public Budg.
Account. Financ. Manag. 2020, 32, 949–956, doi:10.1108/jpbafm‐07‐2020‐0114.
108. Hollebeek, L.D.; Smith, D.L.; Kasabov, E.; Hammedi, W.; Warlow, A.; Clark, M.K. Customer brand engagement during service
lockdown. J. Serv. Mark. 2020, doi:10.1108/jsm‐05‐2020‐0199.
109. Webb, A.; McQuaid, R.; Rand, S. Employment in the informal economy: Implications of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Int. J. Sociol.
Soc. Policy 2020, 40, 1005–1019, doi:10.1108/ijssp‐08‐2020‐0371.
110. Vakulenko, V.; Khodachek, I.; Bourmistrov, A. Ideological and financial spaces of budgetary responses to COVID‐19 lockdown
strategies: Comparative analysis of Russia and Ukraine. J. Public Budg. Account. Financ. Manag. 2020, 32, 865–874,
doi:10.1108/jpbafm‐07‐2020‐0110.
111. Abd‐Elrahman, A.‐E.H.; Kamal, J.M.A. Relational capital, service quality and organizational performance in the Egyptian
telecommunication sector. Int. J. Emerg. Mark. 2020, doi:10.1108/ijoem‐11‐2019‐0983.
112. Bislimi, K. Determinants of family entrepreneurship in the beekeeping sector. J. Fam. Bus. Manag. 2020, doi:10.1108/jfbm‐07‐
2020‐0070.
113. Battaglia, D.; Paolucci, E.; Ughetto, E. The fast response of academic spinoffs to unexpected societal and economic challenges.
Lessons from the COVID‐19 pandemic crisis. R&D Manag. 2020, 12444, doi:10.1111/radm.12444.
114. Aliasghar, O.; Sadeghi, A.; Rose, E.L. Process innovation in small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises: The critical roles of external
knowledge sourcing and absorptive capacity. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2020, 1–28, doi:10.1080/00472778.2020.1844491.
115. Kamal, M.M. The triple‐edged sword of COVID‐19: Understanding the use of digital technologies and the impact of productive,
disruptive, and destructive nature of the pandemic. Inf. Syst. Manag. 2020, 37, 310–317, doi:10.1080/10580530.2020.1820634.
116. Coffie, C.P.K.; Hongjiang, Z.; Mensah, I.A.; Kiconco, R.; Simon, A.E.O. Determinants of FinTech payment services diffusion by
SMEs in Sub‐Saharan Africa: Evidence from Ghana. Inf. Technol. Dev. 2020, 1–22, doi:10.1080/02681102.2020.1840324.
117. Salamzadeh, A.; Dana, L.‐P. The coronavirus (COVID‐19) pandemic: Challenges among Iranian startups. J. Small Bus. Entrep.
2020, 1–24, doi:10.1080/08276331.2020.1821158.
118. Kreutzer, R.T. Treiber und Hintergründe der digitalen Transformation. In Digitale Transformation von Geschäftsmodellen:
Grundlagen, Instrumente und Best Practices; Schallmo, D., Rusnjak, A., Anzengruber, J., Werani, T., Jünger, M., Eds.; Springer
Fachmedien: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2017; pp. 33–58, ISBN 978‐3‐658‐12388‐8.
119. Hagemans, I.; van Hemert, P.; Meerkerk, J.; Risselada, A.; van Winden, W. Interreg Europe—ABCitiEs—Policy Evaluation
Report—AUAS; Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Municipality of Amsterdam, Mykolas Romeris University, Sunrise
Valley Science and Technology Park, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester City Council, Faculty of Organization
and Informatics of the University of Zagreb, City of Varaždin, City of Čakovec, Harokopio University and Athens Munici‐
pality, 2020. Available online:
https://www.interregeurope.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/tx_tevprojects/library/file_1601985586.pdf (accessed on 16 December
2020).
120. Gregurevic, K. Roadmap zur Digitalen Transformation von Geschaftsmodellen—Grundlagen, Instrumente und Best Practices.
In Digitale Transformation von Geschäftsmodellen; Gabler Verlag; Springer Fachmedien: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2017; pp. 127–157,
ISBN 978‐3‐658‐12387‐1.
121. Hrustek, L.; Tomičić Furjan, M.; Pihir, I. Influence of Digital Transformation Drivers on Business Model Creation. In Proceedings
of the 42nd International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics;
Croatian Society for Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics, Opatija, Croatia, 20–24
May 2019; pp. 1509–1513.
122. Exponential Evolution of Technology. How Technology Changes Business. Available online:
https://www.coursera.org/lecture/bcg‐uva‐darden‐digital‐transformation/exponential‐evolution‐of‐technology‐a7T8h
(accessed on 31 December 2020).
123. Westerman, G.; Bonnet, D.; McAfee, A. Leading Digital: Turning Technology into Business Transformation; Harvard Business
Review Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2014; ISBN 978‐1‐62527‐248‐5.
124. Venkatraman, V. The Digital Matrix: New Rules for Business Transformation Through Technology; LifeTree Media: Los Angeles, CA,
USA, 2017; ISBN 978‐1‐928055‐20‐4.
125. Loucks, J.; Macaulay, J.; Noronha, A.; Wade, M. Digital Vortex: How Today’s Market Leaders Can Beat Disruptive Compet‐itors at
Their Own Game; DBT Center Press: Lausanne, Switzerland, 2016; ISBN 978‐1‐945010‐01‐9.

The Impact of COVID-19 On Sustainable Business Mod

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Impact of COVID-19 On Sustainable Business Mod

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Impact of COVID-19 On Sustainable Business Mod

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article

The Impact of COVID‐19 on Sustainable Business

Faculty of Organization and Informatics, University of Zagreb, 42000 Varaždin, Croatia;

Academic Editor: Artūras

Sustainability 2021, 13, 1098. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031098 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

3. Methodology and Data Collection

Figure 1. Research methodology scheme.

Subconcepts Frequency Publications

Table 2. Content analysis in the transformation driver dimension.

Subconcepts Frequency Publications

Table 3. Content analysis in the technology dimension.

Subconcepts Frequency Publications

Scope dimension: operating service

SC6: Food service sector TC6: Augmented reality

SC7: Fashion sector TC7: Deep learning

SC8: Travel/transport sector TC8: Blockchain

SC9: Tourism sector TC9: 3D scanning/printing

SC10: Entertainment sector TC10: Social media and platforms

TC12: Mobile technology

TC13: Innovative tech. in general

Figure 2. Research dimensions and subconcepts.

The substructure allows for a comparative approach and distribution measuring of

4.2. Reflection on the Transformation Driver Dimension

4.3. Reflection on the Technology Dimension

4.4. Sector–Driver–Technology Relations

4.5. Impact on Business Models

The technologies applied as reported from 10 publications are: TC5—Virtual reality

5. Discussion and Recommendations

5.1. Academic Implications

5.2. Managerial Implications

5.3. Reflection on Comparable Studies

5.4. Policy Recommendations

6. Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Research

manner. Strategic ambidexterity in shorter cycles, balancing between measures and

You might also like