INTRODUCTION

Studies have focused on investigating sustainability issues in large companies, mainly in multinationals, requiring more research that addresses smaller firms (Sarango-Lalangui et al., 2018). Small and medium-sized firms are increasingly showing interest in developing actions that show their commitment to issues related to sustainability (Sarango-Lalangui et al., 2018). The search for incorporating sustainability into business points to signs of transformation in the competitive scenario and firms are developing new ways of thinking about products, technologies, and processes (Nidumolu et al., 2009).

Studies carried out with small and medium-sized firms have highlighted essential issues related to sustainability, such as knowledge sharing, social capital (Meflinda et al., 2018), integration of knowledge (Hájek & Stejskal, 2018), obtaining information, resources, and performance (Li et al., 2017), and absorptive capacity (ACAP) (Aboelmaged & Hashem, 2019). ACAP is the firm’s ability to recognize the value of new external information, assimilate it and apply it for commercial purposes (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). The adoption of practices aimed at sustainability can be influenced by the absorptive capacity (Langenus & Dooms, 2018; Riikkinen et al., 2017).

Small and medium-sized firms face greater challenges compared to large ones, mainly due to the scarcity of resources, capacity, knowledge, and experience (Heras et al., 2020; Lubatkin et al., 2006; Voss & Voss, 2013). Recognizing, assimilating, and applying new information is a determining factor for firms’ survival and permanence in a world that presents constant changes (Lane et al., 2006), becoming increasingly dynamic and turbulent (Teece et al., 1997).

This study seeks to respond to the call made by Annunziata et al. (2018) to analyze the role of firms’ specific capabilities in adopting sustainability-oriented practices. Amui et al. (2017) and Salim et al. (2019) point out that studies are carried out to identify types of dynamic capacities, which in this study is the absorptive capacity (Wang & Ahmed, 2007), capable of developing sustainability. In addition, Gelhard and Delft (2016) argue that it is necessary to deepen the understanding of organizational capabilities and their relation with sustainability.

It is noteworthy that studies that address ACAP and sustainability tend to focus on individual firms and end up neglecting the geographic context, such as acting in clusters. Galdeano-Gómez et al. (2008) argue that the moderating role of the environment in which firms operate needs to be analyzed with a moderating function. Business networks and industrial agglomeration are important moderators to consider (Galdeano-Gómez et al., 2008). Research such as that of Li et al. (2019) used agglomerations of firms as a moderating variable between ACAP and performance.

Studies have focused on analyzing the role of clusters (Zeng et al., 2019), since the interactions established within the cluster (Larentis et al., 2013) can help firms identify, assimilate, transform, and use external information (Zhang et al., 2015) to generate sustainability practices (McLennan et al., 2016). When developing activities within a cluster, firms form a network (Rocha & Sternberg, 2005), each having a participation level (Gulati et al., 2000; Lima et al., 2009).

It is necessary to investigate whether the firm’s greater involvement in the cluster generates any effect on the relation between ACAP and sustainability practices, contributing to the field theory’s advancement. Although it is understood that in the cluster environment there is a greater exchange of knowledge impacting the generation of sustainability practices (Friedman & Miles, 2001; Lis & Rozkwitalska, 2020; Revell & Rutherfoord, 2003; Segarra-Oña et al., 2016), it is still insufficient to deepen the role that clusters play as environments enable knowledge and knowledge generation of new practices by firms (Lis & Rozkwitalska, 2020). Thus, this study seeks to answer the following research question: What is the role of the firm’s participation level in a cluster in the relation between absorptive capacity and sustainability practices?

This study aims to analyze the moderating role of the firm’s participation level in a cluster in the relation between absorptive capacity and practices of economic, social, and environmental sustainability in small and medium-sized firms. Original data were collected through a survey, structured on a Likert-type scale of seven points to test the hypotheses. The sample consists of 417 small and medium-sized firms that are part of a cluster in Santa Catarina, Brazil. The results indicate that the absorptive capacity positively and directly influences the adoption of economic, social, and environmental sustainability practices. These relations are moderated by the firm’s level of participation in a cluster.

This study presents two main theoretical contributions: (a) broadens the understanding of the effect of ACAP on economic, social, and environmental sustainability practices in small and medium-sized firms, which participate in a cluster; (b) adds to the literature of the field an understanding of the moderating effect of the level of participation in the cluster on the relation between ACAP and sustainability practices. It also presents two managerial contributions: (a) it is necessary to constantly develop managers and employees so that they remain attentive to external information and knowledge to acquire, assimilate, transform, and use them in the generation of new practices, among them, those of sustainability; (b) by actively participating in a cluster, small and medium-sized firms now can establish partnerships, exchange knowledge, and access resources, which are not possible if the performance is isolated.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES

This section includes questions regarding the relation between absorptive capacity and sustainability practices, especially about the former’s effect on the latter. It also addresses the role of the firm’s participation level in a cluster as a moderating variable.

Absorptive capacity and sustainability practices

The increasingly dynamic, competitive, and rapidly changing environment (Teece et al., 1997) requires firms to learn to build new practices. When developing its absorptive capacity (Zahra & George, 2002), the firm has more significant possibilities to acquire external information, assimilate it, transform it, and use it (Behnam et al., 2018) by applying it in its processes. In addition to improving their operations, firms that use external knowledge can develop skills and practices (Zhang et al., 2015). Such improvement occurs because the knowledge base influences how the firm recognizes and uses new knowledge (Zahra & George, 2002).

Although the use of absorptive capacity to understand sustainability practices is relatively recent (Garay et al., 2017), studies indicate that ACAP facilitates the adoption of successful sustainability strategies (Liu et al., 2019) because firms need to combine information from various sources, usually external to them (Ferro et al., 2019). It is observed that the adoption of sustainability practices is affected, in some way, by access to external knowledge (Liu et al., 2019). In this sense, keeping in touch with engaging internet channels, magazines, and even newspapers dealing with sustainability can help acquire relevant information (Garay et al., 2017).

ACAP can assist firms in adopting sustainability practices (Dzhengiz & Niesten, 2020), and new learning and practices aimed at sustainability can act as facilitators to generate competitive advantage and achieve better performance (Aboelmaged & Hashem, 2019). Thus, it is challenging to imitate ACAP and sustainability initiatives since they are related to complex processes and tacit knowledge. Therefore, the competitive advantage generated by such factors will be difficult to be copied by competitors (Garay et al., 2017).

Small and medium-sized firms can, based on ACAP, boost their sustainable innovation practices, needing to continually improve their technological and organizational capabilities (Brasil et al., 2016; Widya-Hasuti et al., 2018). Firms are challenged to consider economic, social, and environmental sustainability, also based on the success achieved in sustainable innovation, which, in turn, is significantly influenced by ACAP (Widya-Hasuti et al., 2018). In this sense, sustainability itself has been considered a form of innovation (Hjalager, 1997), and using several external sources of information is relevant for firms to innovate (Chen et al., 2015).

Firms must develop and improve their ability to acquire, assimilate, transform, and use external knowledge (Zahra & George, 2002), as this ability impacts the development of their operations and practices (Delmas et al., 2011). Those with high ACAP, when adopting economic, social, and environmental sustainability practices, tend to attract advantages, such as cost reduction (Garay et al., 2017).

The economic, social, and environmental sustainability dimensions are still not fully considered, providing the possibility of deepening sustainability practices in these dimensions, based on knowledge, as one of the most critical resources for the firm (Segarra-Oña et al., 2016). The adoption of environmental (Delmas et al., 2011) economic and social strategies (Pinkse et al., 2010) will be facilitated the more the firm develops its ability to identify, assimilate, transform, and use specific environmental information (Riikkinen et al., 2017). Firms that seek to develop eco-efficient operations have, in the absorptive capacity, assistance to identify that knowledge that is most important (Effiong & Singhal, 2014).

The development of new practices that pay attention to sustainability aspects is related to the generation of ideas and innovative ways of carrying out organizational tasks. Knowing what the internal needs are, and keeping an eye on the external environment (Dzhengiz & Niesten, 2020) to identify important information, assimilating them to integrate with internal knowledge, allows the firm to generate sustainable operations (Albort-Morant, Leal-Rodríguez et al., 2018). The motivation of managers of small and medium-sized firms to adopt sustainability practices is linked to channels and information sources about sustainability, and the perceived usefulness of the information acquired (Garay et al., 2017).

TBL has become the most widely used theoretical understanding to explain sustainability in the business world (Milne & Gray, 2013), and researchers are using the concept of ACAP to explain sustainability strategies in firms (Liu et al., 2019). What still needs to be tested is the effect of ACAP on economic, social, and environmental sustainability practices. It is still necessary to analyze and deepen sustainability practices (Garay et al., 2017) to explain the influence of absorptive capacity on its adoption (Dzhengiz & Niesten, 2020).

Turning attention to economic sustainability practices, Garay et al. (2017) indicate that ACAP can be considered a predecessor, acting as a mechanism to explain practices aimed at economic sustainability. ACAP allows firms to reduce costs (Delmas et al., 2011) and obtain better results than their competitors (Garay et al., 2017). Thus, the first research hypothesis was formulated:

H1: Absorptive capacity positively and directly influences economic sustainability practices.

Compared to environmental and economic sustainability practices, social sustainability has been little researched (Engert et al., 2016), perhaps because it is less tangible (Branco & Rodrigues, 2006). It appears that ACAP can generate social sustainability practices (Riikkinen et al., 2017). The absorptive capacity helps the firm turn its gaze and attention to issues involving society (Shahzad et al., 2020), enabling the implementation of practices aimed at this audience (Ling, 2013). In knowledge-intensive organizations, managers understand the role of ACAP in influencing social sustainability actions (Crilly & Sloan, 2012). Therefore, the second hypothesis is presented:

H2: Absorptive capacity positively and directly influences social sustainability practices.

Consumers’ increasing attention to environmental issues is leading firms to integrate environmental practices into their operations (Borland et al., 2016). Considering environmental practices as a matter of competitive advantage, firms are investing in the identification and development of capabilities focused on the area (Hesselbarth & Shaltegger, 2014). There are indications that the absorptive capacity generates environmental sustainability (Dzhengiz & Niesten, 2020). Firms that seek to develop sustainability practices focused on environmental issues can benefit from ACAP to identify the most important and useful knowledge (Delmas et al., 2011; Effiong & Singhal, 2014; Riikkinen et al., 2017). Thus, the third research hypothesis is:

H3: Absorptive capacity positively and directly influences environmental sustainability practices.

Level of firm participation in a cluster as moderator

Small and medium-sized firms face challenges in adopting sustainability practices (Bruijn & Lulofs, 2000; Revell & Rutherfoord, 2003), and partnerships with other firms in a cluster can help overcome these barriers (Hunt, 2000; Revell & Rutherfoord, 2003). In addition, participation in some clusters is an incentive for organizational learning in small and medium-sized firms (Simpson et al., 2004), for the search for knowledge (Segarra-Oña et al., 2016), and participation in programs aimed at sustainability (Friedman & Miles, 2001).

When looking for sustainability concepts, the firm may have doubts about how to adopt the practices, what their scope is, and the relation with the cost, since the profit will not come only because the firm is doing good (Eccles & Serafeim, 2013). Knowing the sustainability practices that other firms adopt help develop sustainability strategically (Garlet et al., 2017). Participating more actively in a cluster or a network can strengthen the relation between absorptive capacity and firms’ adoption of practices (Tsai, 2001). It is noteworthy that different levels of participation in the cluster generate different results regarding access to knowledge, resources, development of ACAP, and the adoption of technological practices (Grimstad & Burgess, 2014; Lis & Rozkwitalska, 2020).

A firm that participates in a cluster and has a high ACAP will seek new knowledge/information, allowing interconnections between firms (Chandrashekar & Hillemane, 2018). The authors indicate that participating in a cluster makes it possible to move resources and establish partnerships. When considering the global economy, it can be understood that elements such as knowledge, motivations, and relations established in a geographic space or region make it possible to generate sustainable competitive advantages.

Clustering allows firms to train workers and suppliers and reduce business costs - the firms participating in a cluster share worldviews, resources, and knowledge (Di-Serio, 2007). The interactions between the firms’ internal resources and the locality resources allow them to be heterogeneous, given the contextual aspects of the resources and capacities (Hervas-Oliver & Albors-Garrigos, 2009) - understanding that the firms that make up a cluster form a network (Berg et al., 2001). The level of participation in the cluster will reflect their strength of competition and cooperation. In addition, it will impact their learning and the establishment of their practices.

Sustainability practices appear to be different when the analysis is carried out in the cultural cluster that comprises more than one country than when it is carried out only at the level of the same country (Miska et al., 2018). Thus, the relations established in the clusters seem to have greater importance than being located in a given country. In clusters, firms, because a collaboration network links them, explore new business opportunities, seeking to increase their economic performance, minimize environmental impacts, and create benefits for the local community (Bellantuono et al., 2017). The cluster is inserted in the place where its performance encompasses economic, social, and environmental issues, with challenges for managers to develop practices focused on these three issues (Larentis et al., 2013).

Economic, social, and environmental practices in the cluster context have been little investigated in the literature, reinforcing the need to measure how much the cluster environment contributes to the firm’s learning in generating sustainability (Garay et al., 2017; McLennan et al., 2016). A firm’s participation in the cluster is based on the business carried out, the strategies outlined, and the relations maintained with other firms in the cluster (Wilkinson & Young, 2002).

Firms that participate in a cluster can share experiences, processes, learning, and practices (Eisingerich et al., 2010) since clusters are like repositories of knowledge that can originate from external sources (McLennan et al., 2016). The network of firms established within the cluster enables sharing ideas, technologies, and knowledge, based on the interaction established between the participants (Eisingerich et al., 2010), facilitating the learning process (Young, 2010).

Firms, small and medium-sized ones, are interested in participating in a cluster, as they see a greater possibility of obtaining an advantage, such as economies of scale (Gardiner & Scott, 2014). Participating in a cluster can lead small and medium-sized firms to access external knowledge and information (Granek & Hassanali, 2006). Clustering can be a more straightforward path to achieving sustainability (McLennan et al., 2016) and having a greater possibility of developing sustainability practices.

In general, putting economic, social, and environmental sustainability into practice is still a challenge for firms. However, the cluster environment, which makes it possible to learn from other firms, can facilitate sustainability practices. There is a possibility to learn from the experiences and relations established through partnerships (Giuliani & Bell, 2005). The environment where the firm is installed, and the relations established can enhance the learning processes to generate sustainability practices. Therefore, the H4 hypothesis arises:

H4: The level of firm participation in a cluster moderates the relation between ACAP and sustainability practices. Higher levels of participation in the cluster will have a more significant effect of ACAP on economic, social, and environmental sustainability practices than lower levels of participation.

METHOD

Procedures, data, and sample

The primary data were collected between January and March 2020, in small and medium-sized firms participating in any of the 11 clusters in the state of Santa Catarina, Brazil (Begnini & Carvalho, 2021). The clusters are spread across the territory of the state of Santa Catarina and refer to the following economic activities and municipalities: textile products (Blumenau - 1 and Brusque - 2); wood products (Caçador); food products (Chapecó); electrical machines, appliances, and materials (Jaraguá do Sul); metallurgy and manufacture of machinery and equipment (Joinville); manufacturing of transport equipment, except motor vehicles (Navegantes); leather, travel items, and footwear (São João Batista); computer equipment, electronic and optical products (São José); and non-metallic, mobile mineral products (Criciúma).

Data were collected using a questionnaire with Likert-type scales with a seven-point scale. The elaboration of the research instrument questions sought to meet the criteria established by Fink (2003) considering that after each analysis the indicated improvements were made. After being prepared, the questions were sent for analysis by students in the area. Subsequently, the instrument was sent to specialists in the area and, afterward, presented and discussed in the research group and at the ANPAD Annual Meeting (EnANPAD).

The next step was to apply the questionnaire to six entrepreneurs followed by an informal conversation. The survey instrument was then inserted into the Survey Monkey platform and a pre-test was carried out with 41 responses from managers of firms participating in the Chapecó food cluster. With these data in hand, some statistical tests were carried out and, given the results, the data collection was carried out. The questions that make up the questionnaire are presented in Annex 1.

Eleven questionnaires were built, one for each cluster, and the link of each questionnaire was forwarded to the managers of the firms. The firms’ contacts came from two sources: (a) from a database formed by the researcher; and (b) from a firm specialized in databases that, based on the National Classification of Economic Activities (Classificação Nacional de Atividades Econômicas - CNAE), extracts the contacts of firms from each of the eleven municipalities, according to the main activity of each cluster. Contact was made with 5,718 small and medium-sized firms participating in any of the indicated clusters. In total, 456 responses were received, of which 417 proved to be valid and formed the sample.

Preparation and adequacy of data for analysis

Altogether, 456 firms sent the answered instrument. When analyzing missing data, five responses were excluded because they were incomplete. Univariate outliers were sought through data standardization and identification of cases with scores greater than 3 (Field, 2011; Hair et al., 2009) and multivariate outliers by calculating the Mahalanobis distance divided by degrees of freedom, considering those with a value greater than 3.5 (Field, 2011; Hair et al., 2009), 16 observations being excluded. The reliability test was performed using Cronbach’s alpha (AC) and inter-item and item-total correlations.

In these cases, the AC was always greater than 0.7, and no variable was excluded (Field, 2011; Hair et al., 2005). Observations were found to be independent (Hair, Black et al., 2014). It was observed that the variables are linear because the covariance values were different from zero (Cooper & Schindler, 2016; Hair, Black et al., 2014). As for normality, it was noted that the values of asymmetry and kurtosis did not exceed 2 and 7, respectively (Finney & DiStefano, 2013). Although it is possible to notice that there is multicollinearity in some variables, the values of the variance inflation factor (VIF) remained below 10, which is acceptable (Field, 2011; Hair et al., 2009; Kline, 2015). Eighteen observations were also excluded because large firms answered them. In the end, the sample was composed of 417 firms.

Constructs

There are three endogenous constructs: economic sustainability practices, social sustainability practices, and environmental sustainability practices. It refers to the adoption of sustainability practices by small and medium-sized firms that participate in a cluster. The statements used to measure each of the three constructs were prepared based on the field’s literature. The constructs identified as reflective were measured by five statements each. Sustainability practices have been used as endogenous constructs in some studies (Fairfield et al., 2011; Padilha et al., 2020; Riikkinen et al., 2017).

Absorptive capacity was the exogenous reflexive construct. It used the ACAP formed by four dimensions (Zahra & George, 2002), the construct being measured by an assertion by dimension. ACAP has been used as an exogenous construct in some studies (Aboelmaged & Hashem, 2019; Albort-Morant, Leal-Rodríguez et al., 2018; Riikkinen et al., 2017).

The level of firm’s participation in a cluster was the reflective moderator construct. The four statements used to measure it were elaborated based on the existing literature. Moderation was carried out through multi-group analysis. First, a new variable was formed with the observations’ averages and then the average of the new variable. Of the total, 205 firms remained with values above the average. They were classified with a high level of participation in the cluster. Two hundred and twelve firms remained with the value below the average, classified with a low level of participation in the cluster. Cluster participation was used as a moderating variable (Frazão, 2018).

Control variables

As control variables, firm size and age were used. These are variables widely used as controls (Zou et al., 2018). The control variables, size, and age were tested to identify whether they influenced endogenous constructs. It is possible to affirm, with 95% confidence, that neither the age group nor the firms’ size influences the adoption of economic, social, and environmental sustainability practices.

RESULTS

Direct relations

The collected data were tabulated in Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and treated with SPSS and AMOS software. Of the 417 firms that made up the sample, 32.85% were between 10 and 19 years old, 27.09 between 20 and 29 years old, 20.62% over 30 years old, and 19.44% up to nine years old. Most of the answers originated from the clusters in the municipalities of Chapecó, Joinville, and Blumenau with 98 (food products), 93 (metallurgy and manufacture of machines and equipment), and 93 (textile products) answers respectively. Subsequently, São José (43 - computer equipment, electronic and optical products), Brusque (24 - textile), Jaraguá do Sul (20 - electrical machinery, equipment, and materials), Criciúma (16 - non-metallic mineral products), Caçador (12 - wood products), São Bento do Sul (10 - furniture), São João Batista (7 - leather, travel items, and footwear), and Navegantes (1 - transport equipment, except motor vehicles).

After addressing issues related to missing data, outliers, reliability, independence of observations, linearity, normality, and absence of multicollinearity, the next step was to organize the analysis model employing SEM, using AMOS (Awang, 2012). Usually, the initial model needs to be changed to arrive at an acceptable and reliable adjustment (Hair, Black et al., 2014). To assess the model, the use of X² associated with degrees of freedom, the CFI, and the RMSEA (Hair et al., 2005) is sufficient. In addition to these, it was decided to include the GFI. Table 1 shows the values for the initial and final models, after the necessary adjustments, and the reference values.

Table 1

Adjustment index, initial and final model values, and reference value

Note. X² = 375.58; df = 114; p = 0.000.

In comparison with the initial model, the end has undergone some changes:

1. (a) The variable PSECO3 was excluded;

2. (b) The PSAMB1 variable was excluded;

3. (c) Covariance between the error terms of PSSOC1 and PSSOC2 was introduced;

4. (d) Covariance between the error terms of PSSOC2 e PSSOC3 was inserted.

The exclusions occurred because the factorial loads presented were below 0.50 and 0.60. Covariance was included because when analyzing the research instrument’s assertions, it was noticed that they maintain a relation with each other. For convergent validity, calculations were performed for extracted average variance (AVE), whose values must be greater than 0.50, of composite reliability (CC), which must be greater than 0.70. AVE and CC’s values were not calculated for the cluster’s constructive level (NPC). They were used as moderator multi-groups and did not participate in the model (Awang, 2012; Hair et al., 2009). Cronbach’s alpha (AC) was also calculated, whose values must be greater than 0.70. These are expressed in Table 2.

As for the discriminant validity, the correlation loads between the constructs were used. Diagonally, the correlation loads were replaced by the values of the AVE root. Such values need to be greater than the correlation values between the constructs (Malhotra, 2019). Table 3 shows the results.

Table 2

Convergent validity

Table 3

Discriminant validity

It can be seen that the model presented adjustment, reliability, and validity. It was observed that all the factor loads between the construct and the latent variables were more significant than 0.60, meeting the expectations (Hair, Hult et al., 2014; Kline, 2015; Malhotra, 2019). Table 4 shows the hypothesis test, where the relations between the exogenous construct and the endogenous constructs were tested.

Table 4

Hypothesis test

Such results support the hypotheses H1, H2, and H3, indicating that absorptive capacity generates economic, social, and environmental sustainability practices. Figure 1 shows the path coefficients’ values and the factor loads between the observed variables and the constructs.

Figure 1
Complete path diagram, with standardized estimates.

It appears ACAP explains about 30% of the data variance in PSECO, 24% of the variance in PSAMB, and 39% of the variance in PSSOC. The greater the effect size, the greater the degree to which the phenomenon under study is manifested (Hair, Black et al., 2014). Following the parameters of Cohen (1998) considering the r², the effect size was large (0.30) in the ACAP-PSECO ratio, medium (0.24) in the ACAP-PSAMB ratio, and large (0.39) in the ACAP ratio - PSSOC

Moderating effect

Moderation is an effect that occurs when there is the inclusion of a third variable that influences the relation between the endogenous and exogenous constructs (Awang, 2012; Hair et al., 2005). The moderating effect can be verified by a metric or categorical variable, which divides the sample into two or more subgroups (Hair, Black et al., 2014; Vieira, 2009). In this case, the objective is to verify how the structural model fits into different groups (Vieira, 2009). Before considering the moderating variable, the exogenous construct’s effect must exist and be significant on the endogenous (Awang, 2012). It is then necessary to test whether the exogenous construct’s effect on the endogenous changes according to the condition of the moderator (Hair, Black et al., 2014).

After forming a new variable, which is the average of the four variables of participation in the cluster ((CL1CRESC + CL2PARCE + CL3INOVA + CL4 PR OD) / 4), its average was established, which was 4.57. Below the average, the level 1 (low) group was constituted with 212 observations, and above the average, the level 2 (high) group was formed with 205 firms.

The free structural model was estimated with the level 1 group, which presented an X² of 276.574, with 114 degrees of freedom. The restricted model had an X² of 302.997, with 117 degrees of freedom. The low level of participation showed an X² variation of 26.423 and a variation of degrees of freedom of 3; Using the chi-square distribution formula with ‘n’ degrees of freedom, the significance of the difference between group level 1 and ‘n’ [level 2] was calculated, which was p-value 0.000. As a result, the presented p-value < 0.005 shows that the models are different and moderation occurs (Hair, Black et al., 2014).

Afterward, the free and restricted structural model for the level 2 (high) group was estimated. The X² variation was 22.050, and the degrees of freedom were 3. While in the free model, the value of X² was 274.740, with 114 degrees of freedom, in the restricted model, it was 296.790, with 117 degrees of freedom. When calculating the significance of the difference between the models, the value was p-value 0.000. With a p-value < 0.005, it can be said that there is a significant difference between the models, and moderation occurs (Hair, Black et al., 2014), as shown in Table 5.

Table 5

Free and restricted model for low level and high level of moderation

The adjustment indexes, in this case, X²/df, CFI, GFI, and RMSEA, were compared between the free model and the restricted model. If the restricted model has adjustments as reasonable as those of the free model, then moderation cannot be sustained (Hair et al., 2009). If the free model presents better adjustments than the restricted model, then moderation is sustained (Awang, 2021; Hair et al., 2009).

For group 1 - low level of participation -, the free model presented the results 2.426 (X²/df), 0.869 (GFI), 0.912 (CFI), and 0.082 (RMSEA). The restricted model had 2.590 for X²/df, 0.855 for GFI, 0.899 for CFI, and 0.087 for RMSEA. For the high level of participation, the free model’s adjustment indexes were 2.410 for X²/df, 0.857 for GFI, 0.920 for CFI, and 0.083 for RMSEA. Moreover, the restricted model presented 2.537 for X²/df, 0.846 for GFI, 0.911 for CFI, and 0.087 for RMSEA.

It is noticed that both at the low and at the high level, the restricted model presented adjustment results not as good as the free model, supporting the existence of moderation (Hair et al., 2009). As the results indicate moderation, we started to explore how the effect varies between groups, analyzing the β values in each relation. The values are shown in Table 6.

Table 6

Values of β coefficients of multi-group analysis

It was decided to present both the standardized beta and the non-standardized beta (Vieira, 2009), and that the analysis would be on the non-standardized (Kline, 2015). In the relation between ACAP and PSECO, the path coefficient was 0.62 for high level and 0.46 for low level. In the relation between ACAP and PSAMB, the high level showed a beta of 0.57 and the low level a beta of 0.38. In the third relation between ACAP and PSSOC, the beta for the low level was 0.49, and for the high level it was 0.73. The high level of participation in the cluster allows ACAP to significantly affect economic, social, and environmental sustainability practices, supporting H4, as shown in Table 7.

Table 7

Result of hypothesis H4

DISCUSSION

The results indicate that small and medium-sized firms participating in a cluster adopt economic, social, and environmental sustainability practices. This discovery points out the lack of clarity on how to best implement sustainability practices. However, a challenge for firms (Maletič et al., 2018), especially for small and medium-sized ones, is being overcome. When adopting sustainability practices, these firms become more valued in the market (Lourenço et al., 2014) and see opportunities to achieve competitive advantage (Babu et al., 2018; Gurtu et al., 2017). In addition, the impact of sustainability practices on these firms’ performance is positive (Govindan et al., 2020), making it possible to achieve superior performance (Singh et al., 2019).

It was also found that the average adoption of economic sustainability practices was higher than the average of environmental and social practices and that the difference in the mean was statistically significant. This discovery is directly related to the fact that firms need to obtain financial results to remain active in the market, prioritizing economic practices (Høgevold et al., 2015). This fact indicates that, when developing economic sustainability practices, the firm can efficiently use its resources (Miska et al., 2018), guaranteeing a positive result and becoming more competitive (Elkington, 2012). It is also necessary to consider that there is no single way to adopt sustainability practices (Maletič et al., 2018) and that the implementation requires time to make the necessary changes (Liu et al., 2019), in addition to the manager’s attention to coordinate the processes (Zhu et al., 2012).

The support of the first three hypotheses confirmed that absorptive capacity generates economic, social, and environmental sustainability practices. The literature also indicates the research results that have also identified ACAP as a generator of sustainability practices (Aboelmaged & Hashem, 2019; Padilha et al., 2020). It is understood that through routines and processes, the firm can analyze, interpret, and understand the recognized external information, combining it with the already existing internal knowledge, which can trigger the adoption of new practices (Zhang et al., 2015). The integration of external, complex, and interdisciplinary knowledge impacts the adoption of practices (Dzhengiz & Niesten, 2020; Liu et al., 2019).

Having access to external knowledge enables firms to learn, leading to the establishment of necessary changes to adopt new practices aimed at sustainability (Albort-Morant, Henseler et al., 2018). Firms need to develop internal capacities to recognize and absorb new knowledge to facilitate new practices (Hashim et al., 2015). Capacity development by the firm makes it possible to change routines and activities to achieve actions aimed at sustainability (Dzhengiz & Niesten, 2020).

According to the capacity to absorb, assimilate and transform external information into internal knowledge (Padilha et al., 2020), the dimension ‘transformation’ of ACAP requires the company to unlearn existing unsustainable practices and build and adopt other methods that are sustainable (Dzhengiz & Niesten, 2020). ACAP influences the development of firm practices that participate in a cluster toward sustainability, as such actions return in some benefit (Aboelmaged & Hashem, 2019). Contributing to these arguments is the fact that a firm, by developing its ACAP, improves its mode of operation and the adoption of sustainability practices (Riikkinen et al., 2017). Evidence has shown that sustainability is considered a form of innovation that encourages competitiveness, based on the acquisition of environmental information and knowledge creation (Delmas et al., 2011; Garay et al., 2017).

Firms that participate in a cluster have actions aimed at adopting sustainability practices based on ACAP. It is argued that adopting real and sustainable practices is a decisive factor for the firm’s permanence in the market and an essential competitive advantage generator. When treating sustainability issues as an objective of the present, pioneers will develop skills that rivals will have difficulties matching (Nidumolu et al., 2009).

ACAP generates sustainability practices, and, based on this process, improvements can be seen (Padilha et al., 2020). In the economic dimension, practices make it possible to improve performance as innovations, especially eco-innovations, are incorporated into the production process, triggering positive results such as, for example, cost reduction (Brasil et al., 2016; Delmas et al., 2011; Garay et al., 2017). In the social dimension, the practices adopted result in a better image of the firm before consumers and in improvements in relations with suppliers, employees, and other stakeholders (Horbach et al., 2012; Klassen & Whybark, 1999). In the environmental dimension, firms’ practices can reduce water and electricity consumption, increase the separation and recycling of waste, and encourage customers and suppliers to be environmentally friendly (Font et al., 2016).

The fourth hypothesis’ support indicates that the higher level of participation in the cluster increases the effect of ACAP on the practices of economic, social, and environmental sustainability concerning the lower level of participation. The empirical findings of this study are in line with the theoretical predictions presented that the firms participating in a cluster show different levels of growth (Porter, 1998; Villar & Walter, 2017), partnerships (Albuquerque, 2016; Porter, 1998), innovations (Albuquerque, 2016; Porter, 1998), and productivity (Di-Serio, 2007). Because it participates in a cluster, geographic proximity to other firms allows access to knowledge and resources, impacting the firm’s performance (Porter, 1990). However, participation levels tend to be different, even if the cluster firms’ participants share knowledge and worldviews (Di-Serio, 2007).

The establishment of partnerships between the firms in the cluster enables the exchange of knowledge to reduce the uncertainties present in the market, promoting increased social interaction (Albuquerque, 2016; Cortés et al., 2020; Gray, 2006). For the firm to access that information relevant to its business, at the right time, aiming to adopt economic, social, and environmental sustainability practices, the establishment of partnerships with other firms is essential (Hunt, 2000), especially for generating confidence (Porter, 1998). In the cluster, the firm can still operate in a network with other firms, access new knowledge, improve economic performance, minimize environmental impacts, and create benefits to society, making it possible to explore new business opportunities (Bellantuono et al., 2017). In this sense, the higher the firm’s participation level in the cluster, the greater the possibility of accessing external information and developing knowledge (Giuliani et al., 2019).

In this aspect, it is important to highlight that a process of organizational mimicry can occur (Abernethy & Chua, 1996). That is, the adoption of sustainability practices may be anchored in the movement of observation and imitation of characteristics of other firms considered successful. However, firms adopt imitation processes when they have insufficient absorptive capacity, making it difficult to form their core competitiveness (Li et al., 2019). In this study, firms present ACAP developed, if not fully, at intermediate levels.

The literature also indicates that different levels of participation in the cluster represent different possibilities to access relevant knowledge to generate new practices (Tsai, 2001). The knowledge transfer process between the cluster firms allows the best practices to be disseminated quickly (Hervas-Oliver et al., 2012). Interactions within the cluster, for example, make it possible to both access and transmit knowledge that, shared among the members of the cluster, generate learning (Lis & Rozkwitalska, 2020), affecting the adoption of sustainability practices (Garay et al., 2017).

Another issue is that the growth levels of each company are different, even if they are all participating in a cluster (Villar & Walter, 2017). The characteristics of each firm can act promoting or limiting its growth (Penrose, 1959). The cluster firms’ level of growth directly impacts the cluster’s success or failure (Villar & Walter, 2017). It is worthwhile to pay attention to the fact that the firm’s growth requires attention to sustainability (Vaz & Nijkamp, 2009) to adopt sustainability practices (Hashim et al., 2015).

To grow, the firm needs, in some way, to increase productivity, and the increase in productivity cannot be a sign of lack of control, mainly environmental and social (Vaz & Nijkamp, 2009). A cluster is more or less productive to the extent that the firms that participate in it are more or less productive. They are not expected to reach the same levels of productivity. Productivity is related to the use of technology and the generation of innovation (Porter, 1998).

Participating in a cluster allows each firm, at different levels, to increase its capacity for innovation, thus creating differentials for the cluster itself (Albuquerque, 2016). Clusters are considered to facilitate the transfer of knowledge and technologies that assist in adopting innovative practices aimed at sustainability (Aboelmaged & Hashem, 2019). Although external knowledge can be obtained internationally (Patel et al., 2018), it is the local environment that offers useful and unique knowledge and that becomes difficult for other firms to access (Solano et al., 2020).

The local cluster constitutes a valuable and unique source of knowledge (Porter, 1998), capable of promoting the absorptive capacity and achieving higher market positions (Plumer & Acs, 2014). As it is known that clusters vary in knowledge bases and sharing intensity, the development of ACAP of firms in each cluster will also not be uniform (Solano et al., 2020). Even so, the cluster is a possibility for the firm to access innovations or obtain information to develop them to meet its needs (Albuquerque, 2016; Porter, 1998). The adoption of innovations and sustainable practices is related to the firm’s ability to acquire external information, assimilate it, transform it, and use it (Aboelmaged & Hashem, 2019).

Firms that have a higher level of participation in the cluster have the possibility of greater access to resources, more remarkable capacity development, as well as an increase in the quality of products and services (Lis & Rozkwitalska, 2020). Participating in the cluster makes it possible to identify customer needs more quickly, greater flexibility in decisions, and agility in adopting actions aimed at sustainability (Larentis et al., 2013). More helpful knowledge sharing allows for generating more sustainability practices (Riikkinen et al., 2017). In this same sense, greater participation in the cluster allows greater connection with the participants, generating benefits and advantages for members (Pinkse et al., 2018).

Making the adoption of sustainability practices a reality is still a challenge for firms, even for those that operate in clusters, those form partnerships and establish networks, and even more difficult for those firms that carry out some actions in isolation (Larentis et al., 2013). Most participants in a cluster can acquire, assimilate, transform, and use external knowledge to generate sustainability practices compared to firms with a lower participation level.

CONCLUSION

This study aimed to analyze the role of the firm’s participation level in a cluster in the relation between absorptive capacity and practices of economic, social, and environmental sustainability in small and medium-sized firms. We sought to respond to research calls to deepen the relation between organizational capabilities and sustainability (Annunziata et al., 2018; Gelhard & Delft, 2016; Langenus & Dooms, 2018; Riikkinen et al., 2017; Salim et al., 2019), as well as to the need to study the moderating function of the context and the agglomerations where firms are located (Galdeano-Gómez et al., 2008).

It is understood that in small and medium-sized firms participating in a cluster, the absorptive capacity influences the adoption of sustainability practices in a heterogeneous way since the size of the effect generated differs in each of the dimensions. Therefore, in a certain period, the focus may be on economic practices, and in another period on environmental or social practices. This reality leads the firm to seek external information and use it according to the moment experienced and its resources. Such results contribute to the literature as they approach the calls made by Salim et al. (2019), Annunziata et al. (2018), Amui et al. (2017), and Gelhard and Delft (2016). It was found that the adoption of sustainability practices is influenced by the firm’s ability to acquire, assimilate, transform, and use external information and that this relation is enhanced as the firm’s level of participation in the cluster increases. This result contributes to Galdeano-Gómez et al.’s (2008) study of the moderating role of the geographic context, such as cluster participation.

Therefore, it is suggested that it is necessary for small and medium-sized firms participating in a cluster to develop their absorptive capacity, considering that knowledge is a resource with essential characteristics for the adoption of sustainability practices.

Firms need to devise strategies to achieve competitive advantages, and the adoption of sustainability practices is a possibility to achieve a performance superior to that of their competitors. The results indicated that absorptive capacity generates practices of economic, social, and environmental sustainability. It also reinforces the importance of firms to acquire external information, assimilate it, transform it, and use it. That way, they will be more prepared to operate in a dynamic and competitive market.

It is concluded that participation in the cluster allows the firm to achieve advantages since both the high level and the low level of participation moderate the relation between absorptive capacity and practices of economic, social, and environmental sustainability. However, the high level had a more significant effect than the low level, indicating that the firms that most participate in the cluster have greater strength in the effect of ACAP as a generator of sustainability practices. In this sense, firms must return efforts to increase their relation with other firms within the cluster, either by intensifying specific commercial transactions or by establishing long-term relation with other actors in the cluster.

When adopting sustainability practices, doubts may arise. When this occurs, it is suggested that managers seek to identify and acquire important external information to develop the firm’s activities. One suggestion is to establish partnerships with other firms, universities, and research centers. Based on their routines and processes, it is indicated that firms analyze, process, interpret, and understand the information acquired. In possession of the acquired knowledge externally, one can decide what could/should be changed in their routines and processes. The next step is to leverage the skills or create others, to facilitate the adoption of new practices - in this case, sustainability practices.

Some aspects can be considered as limitations in this study. One of them refers to the number of cases collected per cluster. In the case of many cases per cluster, the results can be compared to deepen the relations between the constructs. Another limitation related to the previous one is that in some clusters, the number of respondents was small, with the possibility of bias, since the analysis was performed based on all respondents.

Another limitation to be highlighted refers to the issue of technological intensity. On this subject, the study made small approximations. Technological intensity is related to the development of a place or nation. High technological intensity is related to the generation of new jobs in sophisticated and high technology services. This relation also drives salaries in the sectors. However, in some regions, especially in some countries, this stage is not reached and is restricted to middle income, which may be linked to low technology and complexity.

Future studies may expand the collection to have a closer number of respondents per cluster and make it possible to compare the results between the clusters, such as, for sample, the food sector, compared to the metallurgy and furniture sector. Future studies may also address the technological intensity in the clusters and seek explanations for their relation with the generation of jobs and income, to understand the reality of the place under study. One can also study the relation between technological intensity and knowledge flows within the clusters.

REFERENCES

Abernethy, M. A., & Chua, W. F. (1996). A field study of control system “redesign”: The impact of institucional process on strategic choice. Contemporary Accounting Research, 13(2), 569-606. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1996.tb00515.x

Aboelmaged, M., & Hashem, G. (2019). Absorptive capacity and green innovation adoption in SMEs: The mediating effects of sustainable organisational capabilities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 220, 853-863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.150

Albort-Morant, G., Henseler, J., Cepeda-Carrión, G., & Leal-Rodrígues, A. (2018). Potential and realized absorptive capacity as complementary drivers of green product and process innovation performance. Sustainability, 10(2), 381. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020381

Albort-Morant, G., Leal-Rodríguez, A., & Marchi, V. (2018). Absorptive capacity and relationship learning mechanisms as complementary drivers of green innovation performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(2), 432-452. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-07-2017-0310

Albuquerque, D. S. (2016, February). Os clusters e o desenvolvimento das regiões: Cluster na cestaria em Gonçalo - uma realidade ou utopia? Proceedings of XXVI Jornadas Luso-Espanholas de Gestão Científica, Idanha-a-Nova, Portugal.

Awang, Z. A. (2012). Handbook on structural equation modeling using AMOS. Kelantan University Technology MARA Press

Amui, L. B. L., Jabbour, C. J. C., Jabbour, A. B. L. S., & Kannan, D. (2017). Sustainability as a dynamic organizational capability: A systematic review and a future agenda toward a sustainable transition. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 308-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.103

Annunziata, E., Pucci, T., Frey, M, & Zanni, L. (2018). The role of organizational capabilities in attaining corporate sustainability practices and economic performance: Evidence from Italian wine industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 171, 1300-1311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.035

Awang, Z., Afthanorhan, A., Mamat, M., & Aimran, N. (2017). Modeling structural model for higher order constructs (HOC) using marketing model. World Applied Sciences Journal, 35(8), 1434-1444. https://www.idosi.org/wasj/wasj35(8)17/29.pdf

Babu, D. E., Kaur, A., & Rajendran, C. (2018). Sustainability practices in tourism supply chain: Importance performance analysis. Benchmarking, 25(4), 1148-1170. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-06-2016-0084

Begnini, S., & Carvalho, C. E. (2021). Identificação de clusters industriais: Um estudo quantitativo no estado de Santa Catarina. Interações, 22(2) 489-512. https://doi.org/10.20435/inter.v22i2.3206

Behnam, S., Cagliano, R., & Grijalvo, M. (2018). How should firms reconcile their open innovation capabilities for incorporating external actors in innovations aimed at sustainable development? Journal of Cleaner Production, 170, 950-965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.168

Bellantuono, N., Carbonara, N., & Pontrandolfo, P. (2017). The organization of eco-industrial parks and their sustainable practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 161, 362-375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.082

Berg, V. D., Braun, E., & Winden, W. V. (2001). Growth clusters in European cities: An integral approach. Urban Studies, 38(1), 185-205. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980124001

Borland, H., Ambrosini, V., Lindgreen, A., & Vanhamme, J. (2016). Building theory at the intersection of ecological sustainability and strategic management. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(2), 293-307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2471-6

Branco, M. C., & Rodrigues, L. L (2006). Corporate social responsibility and resource-based perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 69, 111-132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9071-z

Brasil, M. de O., Abreu, M. C., Silva, J. Da, Filho, & Leocádio, A. L. (2016). Relationship between eco-innovations and the impact on business performance: An empirical survey research on the Brazilian textile industry. Revista de Administração, 51(3), 276-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rausp.2016.06.003

Bruijn, T., & Lulofs, K. (2000). Driving small and medium-sized enterprises towards environmental management: Policy implementation in networks. In R. Hillary (Ed.), Small and medium-sized enterprises and the environment (pp. 263-275). Routledge.

Chandrashekar, D., & Hillemane, B. (2018). Absorptive capacity, cluster linkages, and innovation: An evidence from Bengaluru high-tech manufacturing cluster. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 29(1), 121-148. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-05-2017-0087

Chen, Y.-S., Lin, Y.-H., Lin, C.-Y., & Chang, C.-W. (2015). Enhancing green absorptive capacity, green dynamic capacities and green service innovation to improve firm performance: An analysis of structural equation modeling (SEM). Sustainability, 7(11), 15674-15692. https://doi.org/10.3390/su71115674

Cohen, J. (1998). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2 ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553

Cooper, D., & Schindler, P. (2016). Métodos de pesquisa em administração (12 ed.). Bookman.

Cortés, E. C., Lajara, B. M., García, E. S., Larrosa, P. S., Manresa, E., Fernández, L. R., & Pareja, E. P. (2020). A literature review on the effect of industrial clusters and the absorptive capacity on innovation. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology - International Journal of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, 14(7), 489 - 498. http://waset.org/Publication/10011302

Crilly, D., & Sloan, P. (2012) . Enterprise logic: Explaining corporate attention to stakeholders from the ‘inside-out’. Strategic Management Journal, 33(10), 1174-1193. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.1964

Delmas, M., Hoffmann, V. H., & Kuss, M. (2011). Under the tip of the iceberg: Absorptive capacity, environmental strategy, and competitive advantage. Business & Society, 50(1), 116-154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650310394400

Di-Serio, L. C. (2007). Clusters empresariais no Brasil - Casos selecionados. Editora Saraiva.

Dzhengiz, T., & Niesten, E. (2020). Competences for environmental sustainability: A systematic review on the impact of absorptive capacity and capabilities. Journal of Business Ethics, 162(4), 881-906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04360-z

Eccles, R. G., & Serafeim, G. (2013). The performance frontier: Innovating for a sustainable strategy. Harvard Business Review, 91(5), 1-15. https://hbr.org/2013/05/the-performance-frontier-innovating-for-a-sustainable-strategy

Effiong, J., & Singhal, N. (2014). Impact of green business model on sustainability management of Indian corporate organisations: A review of issues and opportunities for business growth. FIIB Business Review, 3(3), 7-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/2455265820140302

Eisingerich, A. B., Bell, S. J., & Tracey, P. (2010). How can clusters sustain performance? The role of network strength, network openness, and environmental uncertainty. Research Policy, 39(2), 239-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.12.007

Elkington, J. (2012). Sustentabilidade: Canibais com garfo e faca. M. Books.

Engert, S., Rauter, R., & Baumgartner, R. J. (2016). Exploring the integration of corporate sustainability into strategic management: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 2833-2850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.031

Fairfield, K. D., Harmon, J., & Behson, S. J. (2011). Influences on the organizational implementation of sustainability: An integrative model. Organisation Management Journal, 8(1), 4-20. https://doi.org/10.1057/omj.2011.3

Ferro, C., Padin, C., Høgevold, N., Svensson, G., & Varela, J. C. S. (2019). Validating and expanding a framework of a triple bottom line dominant logic for business sustainability through time and across contexts. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 34(1), 95-116. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-07-2017-0181

Field, A. (2011). Descobrindo a estatística usando o SPSS (2 ed.). Artmed.

Fink, A. (2003). How to ask survey questions (2 ed.). SAGE Publications.

Finney, S., & DiStefano, C. (2013). Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In G. Hancock & R. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (2 ed., pp. 439-492). Information Age Publishing.

Font, X., Garay, L., & Jones, S. (2016). Sustainability motivations and practices in small tourism enterprises in European protected areas. Journal of Cleaner Production, 137, 1439-1448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.071

Frazão, I. P. (2018). Capacidade dinâmica das alianças no cluster dos recursos minerais [Doctoral dissertation]. Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Portugal. https://repositorio.iscte-iul.pt/bitstream/10071/18899/4/phd_ines_paulo_frazao.pdf

Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2001). SMEs and the environment: Two case studies. Eco-Management and Auditing, 8(4), 200-209. https://doi.org/10.1002/ema.166

Galdeano-Gómez, E., Céspedes-Lorente, J., & Martínez-del-Rio, J. (2008). Environmental performance and spillover effects on productivity: Evidence from horticultural firms. Journal of Environmental Management, 88(4), 1552-1561. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.07.028

Garay, L., Font, X., & Pereira-Moliner, J. (2017). Understanding sustainability behaviour: The relationship between information acquisition, proactivity and performance. Tourism Management, 60, 418-429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.12.017

Gardiner, S., & Scott, N. (2014). Successful tourism clusters: Passion in paradise. Annals of Tourism Research, 46, 171-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.01.004

Garlet, V., Bento, M. H., Madruga, L. R., Oliveira, M. O., & Bichueti, R. (2017). Estratégia e sustentabilidade: Caracterização dos estudos realizados de 2006 a 2015. Caderno de Administração, 25(2), 93-106. https://doi.org/10.4025/cadadm.v25i2.37859

Gelhard, C., & Delft, S. V. (2016). The role of organizational capacabilities in achieving superior sustainability performance. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4632-4642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.053

Giuliani, E., Balland, P.-A., & Matta, A. (2019). Straining but not thriving: Understanding network dynamics in underperforming industrial clusters. Journal of Economic Geography, 19(1), 147-172. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbx046

Giuliani, E., & Bell, M. (2005). The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: Evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy, 34(1), 47-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.10.008

Govindan, K., Rajeev, A., Padhi, S. S., & Pati, R. K. (2020). Supply chain sustainability and performance of firms: A meta-analysis of the literature. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 137, 101923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2020.101923

Granek, F., & Hassanali, M. (2006). The Toronto region sustainability program: Insights on the adoption of pollution prevention practices by small to medium-sized manufacturers in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(6-7), 572-579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.07.008

Gray, C. (2006). Absorptive capacity, knowledge management and innovation in entrepreneurial small firms. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 12(6), 345-360. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550610710144

Grimstad, S., & Burgess, J. (2014). Environmental sustainability and competitive advantage in a wine tourism micro-cluster. Management Research Review, 37(6), 553-573. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-01-2013-0019

Gulati, R., Nohria, N., & Zaheer, A. (2000). Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 203-215. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:3<203::AID-SMJ102>3.0.CO;2-K

Gurtu, A., Searcy, C., & Jaber, M. Y. (2017). Sustainable supply chains. In M. Khan, M. Hussain, & M. Ajmal (Ed.), Green supply chain management for sustainable business practice (pp. 1-26). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0635-5.ch001

Hair, J., Babin, B., Money, A., & Samouel, P. (2005). Fundamentos de métodos de pesquisa em administração. Bookman.

Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7 ed.). Pearson Education Limited.

Hair, J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2009). Análise multivariadas de dados (6 ed.). Bookman.

Hair, J., Hult, T., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2 ed.). SAGE Publications

Hájek, P., & Stejskal, J. (2018). R&D cooperation and knowledge spillover effects for sustainable business innovation in the chemical industry. Sustainability, 10(4), 1064. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041064

Hashim, R., Bock, A. J., & Cooper, S. (2015). The relationship between absorptive capacity and green inovation. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, Open Science Index 100, International Journal of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, 9(4), 1065-1072. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1099940

Heras, H. A., Garcia, M. E., & Larrea, M. (2020). Organizactional ambidexterity in policy networks. Competitiveness Review, 30(2), 219-242. http://doi.org/10.1108/CR-02-2018-0013

Hesselbarth, C., & Schaltegger, S. (2014). Educating change agents for sustainability-Learnings from the first sustainability management master of business administration. Journal of Cleaner Production, 62, 24-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.042

Hervas-Oliver, J.-L., & Albors-Garrigos, J. (2009). The role of the firm’s internal and relational capabilities in clusters: When distance and embeddedness are not enough to explain innovation. Journal of Economic Geography, 9(2), 263-283. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbn033

Hervas-Oliver, J.-L., Albors-Garrigos, J., De-Miguel, B., & Hidalgo, A. (2012). The role of a firm’s absorptive capacity and the technology transfer process in clusters: How effective are technology centres in low-tech clusters? Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 24(7-8), 523-559. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2012.710256

Hjalager, A.-M. (1997). Innovation patterns in sustainable tourism: An analytical typology. Tourism Management, 18(1), 35-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(96)00096-9

Høgevold, N. M., Svensson, G., Klopper, H. B., Wagner, B., Valera, J. C. S., Padin, C., Ferro, C., & Petzer, D. (2015). A triple bottom line construct and reasons for implementing sustainable business practices in companies and their business networks. Corporate Governance, 15(4), 427-443. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-11-2014-0134

Horbach, J., Rammer, C., & Rennings, K. (2012). Determinants of eco-innovations by type of environmental impact - The role of regulatory push/pull, technology push and market pull. Ecological Economics, 78, 112-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.005

Hunt, J. (2000). Environment, information and networks: How does information reach small and medium-sized enterprises? In R. Hillary (Ed.), Small and medium-sized enterprises and the environment: Business imperatives (pp. 194-202). Routledge.

Klassen, R. D., & Whybark, D. C. (1999). The impact of environmental technologies on manufacturing performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 599-615. https://doi.org/10.2307/256982

Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. (4 ed.). The Guilford Press.

Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., & Pathak, S. (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 833-863. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.22527456

Langenus, M., & Dooms, M. (2018). Creating an industry-level business model for sustainability: The case of the European ports industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 195, 949-962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.150

Larentis, F., Giovanella, R., & Cislaghi, T. (2013). Sustainability in clusters: Proposal of a conceptual model. Revista Ibero-Americana de Estratégia, 12(3), 212-241. https://doi.org/10.5585/ijsm.v12i3.1937

Li, A., Han, S., & Shen, T. (2019) How can a firm innovate when embedded in a cluster? Evidence from the automobile industrial cluster in China. Sustainability, 11(7), 1837. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11071837

Li, E., Zhou, L., & Wu, A. (2017). The supply-side of environmental sustainability and export performance: The role of knowledge integration and international buyer involvement. International Business Review, 26(4), 724-735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2017.01.002

Ling, Y.-H. (2013). The influence of intellectual capital on organizational performance: Knowledge management as moderator. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 30(3), 937-964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-011-9257-5

Lima, V., Eiriz, V., & Barbosa, N. (2009). Recursos, posição e desempenho empresarial num “cluster”. Revista Portuguesa de Estudos Regionais, (21), 101-121. http://hdl.handle.net/10316.2/24635

Lis, A. M., & Rozkwitalska, M. (2020). Technological capability dynamics through cluster organizations. Baltic Journal of Management, 15(4), 587-606. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-02-2020-0046

Liu, L., Zhang, M., & Ye, W. (2019). The adoption of sustainable practices: A supplier’s perspective. Journal of Environmental Management, 232, 692-701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.067

Lourenço, I. C., Callen, J. L., Branco, M. C., & Curto, J. D. (2014). The value relevance of reputation for sustainability leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(1), 17-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1617-7

Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration, Journal of Management, 32(5), 646-672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306290712

Maletič, M., Maletič, D., & Gomišček, B. (2018). The role of contingency factors on the relationship between sustainability practices and organizational performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 171, 423-433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.172

Malhotra, N. (2019). Marketing research: An applied orientation (7 ed.). Pearson.

McLennan, C. J., Becken, S., & Watt, M. (2016). Learning through a cluster approach: Lessons from the implementation of six Australian tourism business sustainability programs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 111, 348-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.085

Meflinda, A., Mahyarni, M., Indrayani, H., & Wulandri, H. (2018). The effect of social capital and knowledge sharing to the small medium enterprise’s performance and sustainability strategies. International Journal of Law and Management, 60(4), 988-997. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-03-2017-0073

Milne, M. J., & Gray, R. (2013). W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the global reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(1), 13-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1543-8

Miska, C., Szőcs, I., & Schiffinger, M. (2018). Culture’s effects on corporate sustainability practices: A multi-domain and multi-level view. Journal of World Business, 53(2), 263-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.12.001

Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C., & Rangaswami, M. (2009). Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2009/09/why-sustainability-is-now-the-key-driver-of-innovation

Padilha, L. S., Piekas, A. A. S., Kuzma, E. L., Begnini, S., & Carvalho, C. E. (2020). The impact of the environmental dimensions and the relationship between absorptive capacity and sustainability practices. International Journal of Development Research, 10(9), 39990-39996. https://doi.org/10.37118/ijdr.19853.09.2020

Patel, P., Criaco, G., & Naldi, L. (2018). Geographic diversification and the survival of born-globals. Journal of Management, 44(5), 2008-2036. https://doi.org./10.1177/0149206316635251

Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.

Pinkse, J., Kuss, M. J., & Hoffmann, V. H. (2010). On the implementation of a ‘global’ environmental strategy: The role of absorptive capacity. International Business Review, 19(2), 160-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2009.11.005

Pinkse, J., Vernay, A.-L., & D’Ippolito, B. (2018). An organisational perspective on the cluster paradox: Exploring how members of a cluster manage the tension between continuity and renewal. Research Policy, 47(3), 674-685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.02.002

Plumer, L. A., & Acs, Z. J. (2014). Localizes competition in the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1), 121-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.10.003

Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations.: Free Press.

Porter, M. E. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 77-90. https://hbr.org/1998/11/clusters-and-the-new-economics-of-competition

Revell, A., & Rutherfoord, R. (2003). UK environmental policy and the small firm: Broadening the focus. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12(1), 26-35. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.347

Riikkinen, R., Kauppi, K., & Salmi, A. (2017). Learning sustainability? Absorptive capacities as drivers of sustainability in MNCs’ purchasing. International Business Review, 26(6), 1075-1087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2017.04.001

Rocha, H. O., & Sternberg, R. (2005). Entrepreneurship: The role of clusters theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence from Germany. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 267-292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-005-1993-9

Salim, N., Rahman, M. N., & Wahab, D. A. (2019). A systematic literature review of internal capabilities for enhancing eco-innovation performance of manufacturing firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 209, 1445-1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.105

Sarango-Lalangui, P., Álvarez-García, J., & Río-Rama, M. (2018). Sustainable practices in small and medium-sized enterprises in Ecuador. Sustainability, 10(6), 2105. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10062105

Segarra-Oña, M., Peiró-Signes, Á., & Mondéjar-Jiménez, J. (2016). Twisting the twist: How manufacturing & knowledge-intensive firms excel over manufacturing & operational and all service sectors in their eco-innovative orientation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 138, 19-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.010

Shahzad, M., Qu, Y., Rehman, S. U., Zafar, A. U., Ding, X., & Abbas, J. (2020). Impact of knowledge absorptive capacity on corporate sustainability with mediating role of CSR: Analysis from the Asian context. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 63(2), 148-174. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1575799

Simpson, M., Taylor, N., & Barker, K. (2004). Environmental responsibility in SMEs: Does it deliver competitive advantage? Business Strategy and the Environment, 13(3), 156-171. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.398

Singh, S. K., Pradhan, R. K., Panigrahy, N. P., & Jena, L. K. (2019). Self-efficacy and workplace well-being: Moderating role of sustainability practices. Benchmarking, 26(6), 1692-1708. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-07-2018-0219

Solano, G., Larrañeta, B., & Aguilar, R. (2020). Absorptive capacity balance and new venture performance: Cultivating knowledge from regional clusters. Technology Analysis & Strategics Management, 32(11) 1264-1276. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2020.1760236

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z

Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996-1004. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069443

Vaz, T. de N., & Nijkamp, P. (2009). Knowledge and innovation: The strings between global and local dimensions of sustainable growth. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 21(4), 441-455. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985620903020094

Vieira, V. A. (2009). Moderator, mediator, moderator-mediator and indirect effects in structural equation modeling: An application in the expectation model. Revista de Administração - RAUSP, 44(1), 17-33.

Villar, E. G., & Walter, S. A. (2017). The influence of the clusterization process in the growth of small entrerprises: A case study in the “cachaça” industry of Santa Catarina. REGEPE, 6(1), 75-100. https://doi.org/10.14211/regepe.v6i1.419

Voss, G. B., & Voss, Z. G. (2013). Strategic ambidexterity in small and medium-sized enterprises: Implementing exploration and exploitation in product and market domains. Organization Science, 24(5), 1459-1477. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0790

Wang, C. L. & Ahmed, P. K. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(1), 31-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00201.x

Widya-Hasuti, A., Mardani, A., Streimikiene, D., Sharifara, A., & Cavallaro, F. (2018). The role of process innovation between firm-specific capabilities and sustainable innovation in SMEs: Empirical evidence from Indonesia. Sustainability, 10(7), 2244. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072244

Wilkinson, I., & Young, L. (2002). On cooperating: Frms, relations and networks. Journal of Business Research, 55(2), 123-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00147-8

Young, R. F. (2010). The greening of Chicago: Environmental leaders and organisational learning in the transition toward a sustainable metropolitan region. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 53(8), 1051-1068. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2010.508948

Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. The Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185-203. https://doi.org/10.2307/4134351

Zeng, J. J., Liu, D. J., & Yi, H. T. (2019). Agglomeration, structural embeddedness, and enterprises’ innovaton performance: An empirical study of Wuhan biopharmaceutical industrial cluster network. Sustainability, 11(14), 3922. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143922

Zhang, M., Zhao, X., Lyles, M. A., & Guo, H. (2015). Absorptive capacity and mass customization capability. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 35(9), 1275-1294. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2015-0120

Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K. (2012). Examining the effects of green supply chain management practices and their mediations on performance improvements. International Journal of Production Research, 50(5), 1377-1394. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.571937

Zou, T., Ertug, G., & George, G. (2018). The capacity to innovate: A meta-analysis of absorptive capacity. Innovation, 20(2), 87-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2018.1428105

Annex 1 - Research instrument used for data collection

Table A1

Sustainability practices construct

Table A2

Absorptive capacity construct

Table A3

Level of participation in the cluster construct

Note. * The spaces xxx and xxxx were replaced respectively by the cluster name and the name of the municipality where the cluster is established. When forwarding to companies in another cluster, the xxx and xxxx were again replaced.

Notes

Author notes

* Corresponding author