Introduction
The growing emphasis on sustainable performance (SP) has increased pressure on manufacturers to become more sustainability-oriented and innovative to mitigate climate change and environmental degradation’s adverse effects (Van der Vorst, Beulens & van Beek, Reference Van der Vorst, Beulens and van Beek2010). Manufacturing is responsible for nearly a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gases, primarily due to high energy consumption, the production of goods and materials, and transportation (Mitra, Reference Mitra2010; Mishra, Biswas & Bhattacherjee, Reference Mishra, Biswas and Bhattacherjee2019; Ghadiri, Yousefian, Taheri & Rezaei, Reference Ghadiri, Yousefian, Taheri and Rezaei2021). As noted, stakeholders play a critical role in driving the adoption of sustainable practices in manufacturing organisations. This is because stakeholders, including customers, investors, and regulators, can influence organisational behaviour through their decisions and actions (Bello‐Pintado, Machucaz & Danese, Reference Bello‐Pintado, Machucaz and Danese2023; Dahlander & Wallin, Reference Dahlander and Wallin2020).
Therefore, manufacturing organisations, especially in developing countries such as Nigeria, Ghana, South Africa, Argentina and Bolivia, must consider their operations’ social, economic, and environmental impacts in adopting more sustainable practices (Elkington, Reference Elkington2010; Schaltegger, Hansen & Lüdeke-Freund, Reference Schaltegger, Hansen and Lüdeke-Freund2020). Manufacturing companies are required to implement sustainable practices by reducing emissions, minimising natural resource use, and cutting waste (McKenna, Brinkman, Coates & Stone, Reference McKenna, Brinkman, Coates and Stone2021; Roser, Ritchie & Ortiz-Ospina, Reference Roser, Ritchie and Ortiz-Ospina2019; World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2010). However, implementing these practices can be challenging due to limited technology, insufficient skills, and tight budgets within organisations (Schaltegger et al., Reference Schaltegger, Hansen and Lüdeke-Freund2020; Van Hemert, Nijkamp & Masurel, Reference Van Hemert, Nijkamp and Masurel2010; Gan, Ng & Yuen, Reference Gan, Ng and Yuen2015). Notably, open innovation (OI) has helped companies use outside ideas, cooperate with various communities, and form sustainable answers (Cano & Londoño-Pineda, Reference Cano and Londoño-Pineda2020). It also helped firms share their knowledge, address challenges, improve relationships with stakeholders, and enhance the organisation’s reputation and success (Dahlander & Wallin, Reference Dahlander and Wallin2020). Researchers, non-governmental organisations, universities and other intermediaries can help companies design more sustainable products and services (Rauter, Globocnik, Perl-Vorbach & Baumgartner, Reference Rauter, Globocnik, Perl-Vorbach and Baumgartner2019).
Still, there is insufficient exploration of the connection between OI and SP, particularly in developing countries. While several researchers have demonstrated that combining OI and SP may enhance an organisation’s resilience and endurance over time (Demirel, Kesidou & Wade, Reference Demirel, Kesidou and Wade2020; Liu, Wang, Zhang & Liu, Reference Liu, Wang, Zhang and Liu2020; Serrano-Cinca & Ramírez-Alesón, Reference Serrano-Cinca and Ramírez-Alesón2010), most of this research has occurred in developed countries with well-established laws, solid networks and a culture that promotes creativity such as Germany, the United States, Japan, and China (Li, Wang & Cai, Reference Li, Wang and Cai2019; Schaltegger et al., Reference Schaltegger, Hansen and Lüdeke-Freund2020). Additionally, the majority of studies focus on large corporations rather than small and medium firms or businesses that depend on traditional technologies and are essential to the economies of developing countries (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Wang, Zhang and Liu2020; Watson et al., Reference Watson, Wilson, Smart and Macdonald2018).
Because of these conditions, researchers wonder if the findings apply to manufacturers in developing countries; that is, the ability to take advantage of OI in resource-poor areas is likely much lower. In developing countries, it is unclear how firms use OI methods to address SP problems arising from poor government regulations, difficulties caused by cultures and low levels of innovation. To fill the research gap, we look into how experience from developed countries can lead to SP in developing countries. To support this enquiry, we engage in a systematic review of literature to spot key areas, theories and check if existing findings about the OI–SP link differ (Katarzyna & Qaisar, Reference Katarzyna and Qaisar2023; Pacheco, Turro & Urbano, Reference Pacheco, Turro and Urbano2025). Based on the preceding discourse, this study addresses the following research questions:
RQI: What does historical analysis show on research trends on OI and SP?
RQ2: What are the dominant methodological approaches and research focuses in existing OI and SP research?
RQ3: Which types of OI are most frequently explored in relation to Sustainable Practices?
RQ4: What are the other thematic areas and research focuses in the existing body of knowledge on OI and SP?
RQ5: What theoretical gaps exist in the current literature, particularly regarding manufacturing industries in developing countries?
Given that manufacturing companies in developing countries face challenges such as insufficient knowledge, resistance to new methods, and poorly established support structures, this inquiry is particularly imperative. Therefore, it is crucial to further investigate how OI can support SP in these environments and to determine what enables such collaboration to succeed. Therefore, the primary aim of this study is to examine and evaluate the current state of research on OI and SP by identifying notable issues in the literature, such as historical trends, methodological approaches, types of OI investigated, main research focuses, and other relevant aspects, in order to uncover gaps and opportunities that could inspire future research, particularly in developing countries. The next section outlines a review of the literature and establishment of research questions, followed by the ‘Methodology’ section. Subsequently, the results from the articles reviewed are reported, followed by a theoretical framework, discussion and future research agenda.
Literature review
The manufacturing industry is responsible for discharging greenhouse gases into the atmosphere because it uses a great deal of energy, is involved in various industrial actions and transports goods (UNEP, 2022; Mitra, Reference Mitra2010). As a result of this impact, companies are feeling increased pressure to practise sustainability by lowering emissions, using fewer resources and producing less waste (McKenna et al., Reference McKenna, Brinkman, Coates and Stone2021; Roser et al., Reference Roser, Ritchie and Ortiz-Ospina2019). More customers, investors, regulators and the communities they are part of want manufacturing companies to take environmental and social responsibility. Such stakeholders play a significant role in guiding the organisation and encouraging businesses to focus on sustainable development (Dahlander & Wallin, Reference Dahlander and Wallin2020).
Consequently, many companies in developing nations focus on balancing different aims while encountering challenges in resources and technology (Gan et al., Reference Gan, Ng and Yuen2015; Schaltegger et al., Reference Schaltegger, Hansen and Lüdeke-Freund2020). This is where using OI is very important. Partnering with suppliers, non-governmental organisations, and research institutions allows manufacturers to make innovative changes that support a sustainable business approach (Cano & Londoño-Pineda, Reference Cano and Londoño-Pineda2020; Rauter et al., Reference Rauter, Globocnik, Perl-Vorbach and Baumgartner2019). For this reason, manufacturers should understand how using OI practices can improve their sustainability and meet the needs of stakeholders, considering the demands made on the environment.
Open innovation
OI involves organisations using inside and outside sources to develop their technologies and models. It may require people outside a company such as customers, suppliers, universities, or even rivals, to work together with internal team members and increase the speed of innovation. Defined by Chesbrough (Reference Chesbrough2003), OI encourages a distributed innovation process across institutional boundaries, particularly relevant for firms in developing countries aiming to boost sustainability performance (SP). Gassmann and Enkel (Reference Gassmann and Enkel2004, Reference Gassmann2006) structured OI into three basic processes, i.e., the inbound, the outbound, and the coupled process. The inbound process includes all activities to commercialise external ideas brought into the firm.
Generally, the inbound process boosts firms’ project success rates and enables manufacturing organisations, low-tech and small companies, to create innovative products and services outside their scope. OI is built on the idea that business interactions are critical to innovation and growth, especially with firms across industries increasingly opening up their innovation processes (Chesbrough & Crowther, Reference Chesbrough and Crowther2006; Dodgson et al., Reference Dodgson, Gann and Salter2006). Despite this, several factors mitigate an organisation’s decision to adopt OI. Internal and external conditions (contingency factors) impede innovation, such as scarcity of internal resources. Also, product and industry characteristics may affect an organisation’s decision to open up its boundaries (Keupp & Gassmann, Reference Keupp and Gassmann2009). This suggests that organisations differ in the extent to which they become receptive to inflows and outflows of knowledge and technology (Dahlander & Gann, Reference Dahlander and Gann2010).
A study on the management of OI in large firms by Chesbrough and Brunswicker (Reference Chesbrough and Brunswicker2013), submitted that OI is most widely adopted in high-tech manufacturing sectors and wholesale, trade and retail, while low-tech manufacturing sectors and financial services reported the lowest adoption rate. Therefore, because concrete application and impacts of sustainable innovation are debatable, future research must include the social dimensions of OI and sustainable innovation in life-cycle thinking (Rauter et al., Reference Rauter, Globocnik, Perl-Vorbach and Baumgartner2019).
Sustainable performance
SP refers to a company’s long-term achievement, attained by balancing its economic, environmental, and social objectives. The process includes providing advantages to stakeholders, striving to reduce negative effects on both the environment and society, and ensuring the firm’s practices support sustainable growth (Bigliardi & Filippelli, Reference Bigliardi and Filippelli2022). Performance reflects an enterprise’s competitiveness, ensuring a sustainable market presence (Stanciu et al., Reference Stanciu, Constandache and Condrea2014). In today’s era of environmental degradation and climate change, a high-performing organisation meets the expectations of all stakeholders by creating value for shareholders and customers and offering a conducive work environment that supports the maintenance of a clean environment for the community (Stanciu, et al., Reference Stanciu, Constandache and Condrea2014). From the environmental and social perspectives, Sakalasooriya (Reference Sakalasooriya2021) described sustainability as the capacity to maintain ecological systems in order to support and enhance the quality of social systems. Similarly, from an economic perspective, Lozano (Reference Lozano2018) described sustainability as the effective management and balancing of an organisation’s cost of production and long-term plans with their approach to the environment.
Therefore, organisations are responsible for ensuring SP by identifying the firms’ duties to various stakeholders and adapting manufacturing processes, methods and tools to improve performance (Stanciu, et al., Reference Stanciu, Constandache and Condrea2014). SP can therefore, be defined as the consistent attainment of value for stakeholders through the innovations that place emphasis on the environmental, economic, and social aspects of business (Bigliardi & Filippelli, Reference Bigliardi and Filippelli2022).
It has been noted that there is often limited understanding of the benefits of SP among manufacturers because of cultural barriers and a lack of stakeholder engagement. This can be evident in stakeholders’ lack of buy-in and efficient implementation mechanisms to encourage sustainability practices (Awasthi, Chauhan & Goyal, Reference Awasthi, Chauhan and Goyal2015; Murray, Kotabe & Wildt, Reference Murray, Kotabe and Wildt2015). This is in addition to the maximisation of short-term profits, which is not a guarantee of success without being accompanied by the development of a sustainable behaviour (Jaaron & Backhouse, Reference Jaaron and Backhouse2019; Stanciu, Constandache & Condrea, Reference Stanciu, Constandache and Condrea2014).
OI and SP nexus: evidence from developed countries
Researchers have focused on the connection between OI and SP, especially in economies where innovating and focusing on sustainability are important by law. There is evidence that OI is more useful than only designing innovations, and it helps manufacturing companies integrate new knowledge and teamwork with others to achieve environmental and social targets. Studies from different countries show that involvement in research and development (R&D), engaging stakeholders, and getting external knowledge help a firms carry out environmentally friendly innovations (Demirel et al., Reference Demirel, Kesidou and Wade2020). These studies leveraged on stakeholder co-creation and R&D Collaboration as OI mechanisms for environmental sustainability in the manufacturing industries in China and the United States. Their findings included improved SP via external partnerships and enhanced business model sustainability as sustainability outcomes of OI.
Further, Brem, Wolfram and Viardot (Reference Brem, Wolfram and Viardot2019) observed that German companies that cooperated with others improved their environmental practices and followed what is expected in the market. Tanaka, Yamamoto and Hirano (Reference Tanaka, Yamamoto and Hirano2017) revealed that Japanese firms that use OI frameworks to emphasise academic and supply chain cooperation fared better in introducing new energy-saving technologies and measures to cut waste. As a result of these studies, we see that (i) OI helps firms use external talents to address their lack of certain resources, (ii) teamwork between stakeholders ensures that sustainability targets are met, and (iii) OI strengthens a firm’s capacity to adjust and maintain credibility in its sustainability plans.
Bengtsson (Reference Bengtsson2020) in a study on the sustainability-related implications of OI projects acknowledged the high degree of complexity involved in sustainability-oriented innovation projects. Although findings revealed that an open approach for sustainability-oriented innovation projects leads to increased creativity, increased access to knowledge and reduced project duration. OI is increasingly recognised as a dynamic strategy that fosters organisational growth by integrating external and internal ideas, technologies, and competencies. Engagement in OI enables collaboration with stakeholders such as customers, partners, and communities to streamline innovation and mitigate R&D expenses through shared risks and faster time-to-market (Ayeni, Egbetokun & Adebowale, Reference Ayeni, Egbetokun and Adebowale2020). OI serves as a transformative tool in shaping firms’ approach towards sustainable development.
Therefore, by facilitating both inbound and outbound innovation, firms can enhance their economic, environmental, and social sustainability (Bawa, Attah, Agougil & El Harch, Reference Bawa, Attah, Agougil and El Harch2023). Incorporating OI allows manufacturing firms innovate not just for economic but also for social and environmental performance. This aligns with stakeholder expectations and evolving regulatory demands, especially in developing countries with increasing calls for environmental accountability (Dahlander & Gann, Reference Dahlander and Gann2010; Tsai & Liao, Reference Tsai and Liao2017).
Inbound OI focuses on sourcing external knowledge such as technological, market-based, or stakeholder-driven knowledge to fuel internal innovation. Studies such as Kurniawati, Sunaryo, Wiratmadja and Irianto (Reference Kurniawati, Sunaryo, Wiratmadja and Irianto2022) provide frameworks linking inbound OI with increased innovativeness and SP in small and medium enterprises. The Portuguese and Indonesian contexts explains how smaller firms utilise partnerships with suppliers and clients to gain competitive advantages; typically, small organisations favoured the adoption of the inbound OI as against outbound OI (Almeida, Reference Almeida2021). Notably, Nigeria’s tech-savvy sectors like FinTech and telecommunications exemplify inbound OI success. Companies collaborate with global and local players to co-develop mobile solutions addressing local challenges like financial inclusion and secure digital payments (Adeola & Evans, Reference Adeola and Evans2020).
In investigating the role of R&D, Hameed et al. (Reference Hameed, Basheer, Iqbal, Anwar and Ahmad2018) investigated Malaysian small and medium enterprises that have been reported to suffer low OI performance. They adopted quantitative research approach with a cross-sectional research design, and the study found that external knowledge, internal innovation, and R&D department were the major determinants of firm’s OI performance. They concluded that R&D department is a potent mediator in accelerating an OI system. However, Fey and Birkinshaw (Reference Fey and Birkinshaw2005) earlier opined that openness to new ideas is the single most important determinant of R&D performance. Laursen and Salter (Reference Laursen and Salter2004) also noted this in an analysis of corporate search strategies. They submitted that knowledge sources such as internal R&D, suppliers and customers are the most commonly adopted by UK manufacturing firms.
This knowledge integration improves responsiveness to local market needs and drives inclusive innovation. Akinwale (Reference Akinwale2018) highlights how technological scouting and collaboration in the Nigerian oil and gas industry significantly bolster small and medium enterprises’ financial outcomes. These findings suggest that organisational size and R&D funding are crucial determinants of inbound OI effectiveness. Inbound OI stimulates eco-innovation by integrating sustainability into core product and process designs (Farza, Ftiti, Hlioui, Louhichi & Omri, Reference Farza, Ftiti, Hlioui, Louhichi and Omri2021; Westman et al., Reference Westman, Luederitz, Kundurpi, Mercado, Weber and Burch2019). Moreover, Hajikhani and Suominen (Reference Hajikhani and Suominen2021) associate responsible environmental practices with increased patent activity, indicating that sustainability enhances innovation capacity.
On the other hand, outbound OI encompasses the externalisation of internal ideas and technologies through mechanisms such as licensing, spinoffs, and joint ventures (Chesbrough & Crowther, Reference Chesbrough and Crowther2006). It empowers firms to monetise intellectual assets and contributes to setting industry benchmarks (Yulianto & Supriono, Reference Yulianto and Supriono2023). Sun, Liu and Ding (Reference Sun, Liu and Ding2020) identify outbound OI as more conducive to exploration innovation. This is characterised by radical, future-oriented development unlike inbound OI. This innovation type is essential for maintaining long-term competitiveness and global relevance. Entertainment sectors in developing countries (e.g., Nollywood and Afrobeat music labels) have effectively adopted outbound OI by using digital platforms to reach global audiences. This creates new revenue streams and also builds international reputations, reinforcing cultural capital. Rauter et al. (Reference Rauter, Globocnik, Perl-Vorbach and Baumgartner2019) argue that outbound OI’s impact must also be assessed through sustainability lenses. This includes monitoring social contributions and ecological footprint alongside economic returns. Leitão et al. (Reference Leitão and Lorente2020) further affirm that outbound OI contributes significantly to eco-innovation, particularly when supported by progressive public policies.
OI therefore offers a strategic framework for firms, especially in developing countries, to enhance SP across environmental, social, and economic dimensions. However, empirical evidence on the correlation between OI and SP in developing countries remains inconsistent due to varied contextual factors and limited understanding of underlying mechanisms (Greco, Grimaldi & Cricelli, Reference Greco, Grimaldi and Cricelli2017; Sun et al., Reference Sun, Liu and Ding2020). As demands for responsible business practices intensify, OI remains instrumental in equipping firms to innovate sustainably and inclusively. However, continuous empirical validation across diverse contexts is essential to appreciate its applications and ensure alignment with long-term sustainable development goals (SDGs).
Methodology
This systematic literature review (SLR) was adopted in this study because it offers empirical avenues to identify the state of the art, observe notable research gaps, and propose key recommendations for future work in developing countries by providing a research agenda to follow and help to develop the body of knowledge. For research effectiveness, all aspects of existing literature relating to a study should be taken into consideration in engaging in an SLR (Katarzyna & Qaisar, Reference Katarzyna and Qaisar2023; Pacheco et al., Reference Pacheco, Turro and Urbano2025). The typical SLR process aims to review all aspects, particularly the main characteristics of published papers in order to critique, identify challenges or loopholes requiring further research attention. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) framework was adopted in this SLR. The PRISMA framework is most preferred because it provides a comprehensive checklist of items and a transparent approach to conducting and reporting SLRs. The PRISMA framework increases the quality and reliability of SLRs, as well as their credibility and reproducibility while also providing a comprehensive and transparent approach to conducting and reporting systematic reviiews (Onofre et al., Reference Sarkis-Onofre, Catalá-López and Aromataris2021; Page et al., Reference Page, McKenzie, Bossuyt, Boutron, Hoffmann, Mulrow and Moher2021).
The PRISMA framework was used in similar OI and SP studies (Li, Shen & Lu, Reference Li, Shen and Lu2021; Zhou, Li & Shao, Reference Zhou, Li and Shao2019) to understand the relationship between OI and SP practices in manufacturing organisations. Li et al. (Reference Li, Shen and Lu2021) noted that OI positively influences eco-innovation, which contributes to OI while Zhou et al. (Reference Zhou, Li and Shao2019) concluded that OI positively affects environmental performance by enhancing the development and adoption of green technologies. These two recent studies demonstrate the usefulness of the PRISMA framework in conducting rigorous and comprehensive literature reviews on the connections between OI and SP in manufacturing organisations in developed countries, supported its relevance to the aim of this study. Observable inherent limitations in adopting PRISMA, as highlighted by Rahmadian, Feitosa and Zwitter (Reference Rahmadian, Feitosa and Zwitter2022), primarily involve the issue of validity, optimisation of keywords, and data collection bias. These are addressed in the ‘Conclusion’ section. In this way, the study reviews, combines and sums up existing facts. It identifies practical methods for exploring OI and SP in literature in the context of developed countries, in order to develop a template for developing countries.
Eligibility criteria
This article adopts six eligibility criteria used to identify precise and relevant publications for the SLR process. These are presented and discussed below:
Field: This study was carried out in the manufacturing sector due to the manufacturing sector seen as the primary cause of climate change and environmental degradation (Ghadiri et al., Reference Ghadiri, Yousefian, Taheri and Rezaei2021; Mishra et al., Reference Mishra, Biswas and Bhattacherjee2019; Mitra, Reference Mitra2010).
Topic/keywords: A combination of major topics/keywords such as OI, SP, and Manufacturing was used to search for relevant articles. The search was not limited to articles that strictly included only the aforementioned keywords but also included other theoretical terms/keywords such as crowdsourcing, collaborative innovation, and cross-section collaboration closely related to OI; and Greenhouse gases (GHG), Eco friendly, and ecological, which are closely linked to SP. This ensured that detailed and vital information was obtained, irrelevant studies were eliminated, time was saved, and the results/outcome of this SLR were obtained. These terms were derived from the title and/or existing/related literature. The following generic keyword combination was used: Open innovation* AND ‘Sustainable Performance*’ AND ‘Manufacturing Organisations*.’ This very generic keyword combination allowed the study to retrieve as many articles as possible. During multiple stages of identifying related articles, alongside ‘Open innovation*’ and ‘Sustainability *,’ variants of this keyword’s combination mentioned below were also explored.
a) Collaborative innovation* AND ‘Sustainable Performance*’ AND ‘Manufacturing Organisations*’
b) Crowd sourcing* AND ‘Sustainable Performance*’ AND ‘Manufacturing Organisations*’
c) Open innovation* AND ‘GHG emissions*’ AND ‘Manufacturing Organisations*’
Study design: This SLR focuses largely on research that employs empirical studies. The paper used empirical studies because they have been identified as an important research tool because they provide systematic and objective evidence-based data. Empirical studies provide a rigorous and scientific approach to testing hypotheses, collecting data, and analysing the findings.
Language: Only articles published in English were considered in this study.
Publication year: Only articles published between 2003 and 2024 were considered for the study, as they are expected to reflect current conditions and realities and historical bases for the state of the art in OI practices and SP.
Publication type: Only peer-reviewed journal articles in business administration, management, development, entrepreneurship, and innovation studies were considered for the study. This is due to the domain of the study and the higher quality of peer-reviewed articles. Table A1 represents the above criteria in a tabular format and explains the eligibility criteria’ rationale (see Appendix 1).
Search strategies and sources of data
The six eligibility criteria listed above were applied to the literature search for this paper. Appropriate studies were identified by searching multiple databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect. These databases were adopted for several reasons. First, these databases provide access to various scholarly literature, including peer-reviewed journal articles, conference proceedings, and books. Second, these databases offer advanced search features, allowing researchers to filter results based on various criteria, including publication date, author, and keywords. Third, the databases provide citation metrics, enabling researchers to assess the impact of publications and track citations of their work. Fourth, the databases are reliable and trustworthy sources of information. According to Tenopir, King, Christian and Volentine (Reference Tenopir, King, Christian and Volentine2015), electronic sources such as Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar are mostly used in academic research. Mohktar et al. (Reference Mohktar, Genovese, Brint and Kumar2019) also referenced these databases in their SLR terming them the ‘leading journals’. Strictly, secondary source of data was used in this article from the four major databases listed above. These secondary sources of data have been derived from published full-text peer-reviewed articles and are therefore readily available, reputable, and most importantly verifiable.
Findings from Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect were checked results to remove all duplicates. Since articles from scholarly journals are listed in various indexes, we followed a two-step process to remove duplicates. Initially, all search results are transferred into Zotero (an alternative software similar to EndNote, Mendeley, or Rayyan), which marks the exact duplicates based on their DOI, article title, authors, and publication date. Second, each record was verified to ensure unique records were selected. By merging both methods, it was noted that there were 10,701 duplicate articles, and the remaining 12,800 articles were unique for further evaluation. It follows the PRISMA guidelines for making SLRs more transparent and stronger (Page et al., Reference Page, McKenzie, Bossuyt, Boutron, Hoffmann, Mulrow and Moher2021).
Further, a procedure was created to verify that the search string used on the database is always accurate and dependable. First, authors searched for the best keywords and Boolean operators to use on each database (Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar). Thereafter, the Cohen’s Kappa coefficient was used to determine how similar the researchers were in choosing and including keywords. A large amount of consistency was found, with a Kappa score of 0.81. This step ensured the interrater reliability of the chosen search terms and strengthened the rigour of the literature retrieval process. Table A2 represents the article searching protocol (see Appendix 1).
Data extraction
Data extraction was carried out by comparing the information to be received with the inclusion criteria set out earlier. Therefore, for all studies that meet inclusion criteria, they were systematically context-analysed and classified, given that the data of interest, i.e., keywords are embedded within the text, figures, and tables of the articles. This was done in line with the objective of this SLR.
Selection of studies
The first search protocol in electronically cited references databases yielded 21,501 results. Another 2,000 materials were found from other sources/databases after examining the initial search process, a total of 23,501 materials were found. 10,701 of these materials were deemed duplicates and were removed. The remaining 12,800 materials were screened for appropriateness by investigating their abstracts and topics, but 7,200 did not meet this appropriateness standard and were eliminated. The remaining 5,600 materials were then assessed against the eligibility criteria set out earlier. After careful scrutiny in line with the inclusion criteria and principles discussed earlier, only 108 materials met the requirements for inclusion in the analysis. This process is represented in Fig. A1 in Appendix 2.
Results
Following the method set out above, the analysis of the 108 articles selected for the SLR revealed several findings which are statistically presented in the appendixes using tables and figures. All the tables and figures were produced by the authors.
Historical analysis
The results note a steady increase in the number of studies conducted on the topic of OI/SP over the years, with the peak period of studies occurring between 2018 and 2022 (Ghadiri et al., Reference Ghadiri, Yousefian, Taheri and Rezaei2021; Mishra et al., Reference Mishra, Biswas and Bhattacherjee2019; Mitra, Reference Mitra2010). This indicates a growing interest and recognition of the importance of OI for achieving SP in the manufacturing sector, although almost all the studies were carried out in the global north (within the contexts of developed and developing countries there).
The results of the study showed that there has been evidence of study on the relationship between OI and SP in manufacturing organisations. The results show that most of the studies were conducted between 2010 and 2022. Figure A2 represents the number of articles published from 2003 till the present which has studied the relationship between OI and SP in manufacturing organisations. It shows that the number of studies has increased gradually over the years. The peak period for studying this relationship was between 2018 and 2022 (see Appendix 2).
Top journals covered in analysis
The distribution of articles across different journals reflects the interdisciplinary nature of the topic, with publications appearing in a wide range of journals. This suggests that scholars from various academic disciplines and research communities have been engaged in studying OI and SP in manufacturing organisations. It demonstrates the significance of the topic and its relevance beyond a specific disciplinary domain.
Table A3 provides an overview of the journals where the analysed articles were published. There are a total of 20 specific journals where at least, 1 study relating to OI and SP were published. The distribution of articles across different journals can provide insights into the academic landscape and scholarly interest in the topic. The articles have been published across a range of journals as shown in Appendix 1.
Methodical approaches and research focus
Methodical approaches
Following the processes set out above, the analysed studies in this research utilised various research methods. The most frequently employed research method was quantitative research, which was used in 70 out of the 108 articles representing 64.8% of the studies. This was followed by qualitative research which was used in 32 studies, representing 29.6% of the studies. Furthermore, mixed-methods research, combining both qualitative and quantitative approaches was employed in 6 studies, representing 5.6% of studies. The fact that all the main methodologies were used by various researchers indicate a strong emphasis on empirical investigation and analysis of data to understand the relationship between OI and SP. Table A4 and Fig. A3 (Appendixes 1 and 2, respectively) give a tabular and graphical representation of this analysis.
OI research focus
Regional focus
The analysis revealed that authors focused more on developed countries such as the United States with 25 articles representing 23% of studies. Japan followed with 15 articles representing 14% of studies, Germany had 14 studies, the United Kingdom had 12 studies, and France with 7 studies representing 13%, 11%, and 6.5%, respectively. The analysis further reveals that China was the major focus of the studies conducted in the context of developing countries in the global south with 13 articles representing 12% of the studies analysed. India followed with nine articles representing 8.3% of studies, Brazil had seven articles which is 6.5% of the studies, South Africa followed with four articles at 3.7% of studies while Russia had two articles representing only 1.9% of the studies. Evidence from studies reviewed on OI and SP suggested that research have been conducted extensively in manufacturing organisations in developed and developing countries in the global north (75 studies) with only 33 studies available in the global south. The statistics further showed that only one study was carried out in Africa. When China is excluded from studies undertaken in the context of developing countries, there was only a meagre 20.4% of studies focusing on developing countries. Therefore, this implies that there is a dearth of studies focusing on developing countries. The classification of developed and developing countries is based on the World Investment Report (2021) and United Nations 2023 classifications. Figure A4 further gives a detailed representation of the above analysis (see Appendix 2). From the illustration, the findings further reveal a significant difference in the number of studies conducted in the context of developed countries and developing countries. Developed countries have been the major focus of authors with a total of 73 articles representing 67.6% of the studies analysed while developing countries had 35 articles representing 32.4% of studies respectively. In this context, the regional focus of extant literature showed a clear bias of authors towards developed countries as almost 68% of the studies analysed were conducted in the context of developed countries.
Sectorial focus
The findings indicate that authors of OI- and SP-related studies focus on various sectors of manufacturing industry including automotive, electronics, food processing, chemicals, textile and apparel, and pharmaceuticals. Table A5 presents the different sectors covered by the reviewed studies. The table also identified other related variants of OI and SP that were explored (see Appendix 1).
Types of OI
The major type of OI identified from the findings is the inbound OI. Moreover, 60% of articles analysed focused on inbound innovation, 25% focused on collaborative innovation which is the combination of both inbound and outbound innovation. However, only 15% of studies focused on outbound innovation as shown in Table A6 in Appendix 1.
Other dimensions of OI and SP that were studied
Some other dimensions of OI and SP observed in some of the studies analysed includes firms performance, intellectual property management, supplier collaboration and cost efficiency as represented in Table A7 in Appendix 1.
Theoretical framework
Theoretical review of literature review showed that the resource-based view (RBV) and dynamic capabilities theories were the most used research theories applied in the study of OI and SP in manufacturing organisations. These theories were used in 40% and 25% of the 108 articles, respectively. The institutional theory and stakeholder theory were used in 20% and 10% of the articles, respectively, while the triple bottom line (TBL) theory was used in only 5% of the articles. See Table A8 in Appendix 1.
Despite the perceived congruence of thought on the nexus between OI and SP, there are some notable areas of divergence. The seeming empirical convergence from developed economies on the necessity of OI for SP, appears to have some divergence in applicable theories, especially with the SP drift of this study. While the RBV theory adequately relates to the OI, it is however inadequate in application to SP with respect to the environmental concerns raised in this study.
West and Gallagher (Reference West and Gallagher2006) and Yang, Luo and Pan (Reference Yang, Luo and Pan2024) noted that although the outside-in (inbound) process has the potential to be of significant positive impact to firms, there is no guarantee that the external sources of ideas may not dry up without notice, leaving overly dependent firms in a weak position. This is similar to the observation by Eppinger (2012) on the downsides of inside-out (outbound) process; essentially, firms’ planning to adopt the inside-out process would have to establish managerial procedures to protect and maintain their intellectual property in order to prevent unintended knowledge drain. This is further corroborated by Bigliardi and Filippelli (Reference Bigliardi and Filippelli2022), and Kimpimäki, Malacina and Lahdeaho (Reference Kimpimäki, Malacina and Lähdeaho2022). They averred that, although innovation and sustainability in their broadest sense, which includes people (social dimension), the planet (environmental dimension) and profits (economic dimension), are increasingly interwoven, there is a lack of a holistic and unified approach in research towards developing strategies and policies solving complex sustainability issues.
Theoretical reviews are particularly valuable where the literature is complex, multi-disciplinary, or disputed. In the context of the study, innovation is multidisciplinary in nature and OI in particular is complex. Also, the lack of research focus on developing economies establishes a divergence in thought. Therefore, adopting methods from systematic reviews in reviewing theories provides an avenue to understand the theoretical dimensions in OI and SP literature. It also assists in addressing peculiar challenges through iterations and inductive processes, and qualitative evidence synthesis (Campbell et al., Reference Campbell, Egan, Lorenc, Bond, Popham, Fenton and Benzeval2014).
The RBV theory has been proven relevant in developing organisational performance. The RBV posits that the firm is a unique bundle of resources and capabilities; therefore, the primary focus of management is to maximise value through optimal deployment of existing resources and capabilities of the firm, to diversify and maintain sustainability (Smith et al., Reference Stafford Smith, Cook, Sokona, Elmqvist, Fukushi, Broadgate and Jarzebski2018). The major constructs and assumptions underlying the theory are (a) an organisation’s development is shaped by the effort they apply in using ever-evolving resources, (b) sustainable competitive advantage is developed using productive resources, and (c) business leaders are required to develop strategies that extend competitive advantage (Lockett, Reference Lockett2005). Costello (Reference Costello2019) argued that a firm will benefit from competitive advantage when it can determine the level of openness required to bring a product or service to market as firms can no longer operate completely closed. However, the type of openness a firm adopts is a continuum that stretches from inbound, outbound to collaborative OI. Therefore, manufacturing organisations manage the optimal deployment of existing firm resources and capabilities in adopting OI in order to maintain sustainability.
Similarly, the theory of dynamic capabilities permits a firm to continually reposition itself in an industry. It aims to satisfy the ‘flow’ requirement of current competitive advantage by maintaining a wide gap between willingness to pay and cost in comparison with competitors. While a school of thought posits that the dynamic capabilities perspective draws its theoretical foundation from two classic strategies, i.e., the RBV of the firm (Smith et al., Reference Stafford Smith, Cook, Sokona, Elmqvist, Fukushi, Broadgate and Jarzebski2018) and market positioning (Brandenburger & Stuart, Reference Brandenburger and Stuart1996), others believe that the dynamic capabilities perspective builds on the RBV and the knowledge-based view of the firm (Singh, Mathiyazhagan, Scuotto & Pironti, Reference Singh, Mathiyazhagan, Scuotto and Pironti2024). This study aligns with the later school of thought, considering the knowledge implications of OI. Although, we acknowledge its inadequacy in addressing the SP constructs of this study. Therefore, considering the strategic importance of knowledge resources in the innovation process, the dynamic capabilities theory is considered critical to any OI discourse.
In contrast, the institutional theory explains organisational performance from a non-economic perspective. Institutional theory posits that there are external forces such as the state, social values and norms, policies and conventions that influence outcomes in the organisation as against the economic and contingency theories, which only explains the outcomes of organisations with measures of internal efficiency (DiMaggio & Powell, Reference DiMaggio, Powell, Baum and Dobbin2000). Today’s firms are therefore seen not only as innovation and production systems but also as a combination of cultural and social systems (Scott, Reference Scott2014). Yang and Fam (Reference Yang, Su and Fam2012) posited that institutions in the business environment can create an ecosystem that lends legitimacy to an organisation with norms, rules, and beliefs. The firm in turn mobilises social, economic, and political resources to adapt to the environment with a view to improving innovation organisational performance, a concept referred to as isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell, Reference DiMaggio, Powell, Baum and Dobbin2000). Observably, there are three notions of isomorphism in literature, namely coercive, mimetic, and normative while the building blocks of an institution are cognitive-cultural, normative, and regulatory. These are concurrently associated with events and resources that provide stability and meaningful social life (Scott and Davis, Reference Scott and Davis2007).
Distinctively, the TBL theory is a sustainability-related construct that was developed by Elkington (1997) with the central focus on profit, people, and the planet as the three metrics of sustainability (Zhang, Zhang & Zou, Reference Zhang, Zhang and Zou2010). Also referred to as the practical framework of sustainability (Rogers and Hudson, Reference Rogers and Hudson2011), the construct gained more popularity with the emergence of the term ‘sustainable development’ from the Brundtland Report in 1987, which defined the term as the development that meets the needs of the present generations without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs (Brundtland, Reference Brundtland1987). Similar to the stakeholder theory, formally introduced by Freeman (Reference Freeman1984), which argues the importance of considering the interests of all legitimate stakeholders, the TBL offers a more comprehensive approach to the SP discourse. The stakeholder theory has been criticised as being unable to equitably reconcile the interests of all interest groups (Haataja, Reference Haataja2020).
On this note, the RBV (Chen and Huang, Reference Chen, Liu and Huang2019; Smith et al., Reference Stafford Smith, Cook, Sokona, Elmqvist, Fukushi, Broadgate and Jarzebski2018) and dynamic capabilities theories (Smith et al., Reference Stafford Smith, Cook, Sokona, Elmqvist, Fukushi, Broadgate and Jarzebski2018) were the most used theories observable in literature. Although the RBV and dynamic capabilities theories provided the theoretical lens through which these researchers explored and explained various mechanisms and processes underlying the relationship between OI and SP, other theories (institutional and stakeholder theories) used to a lesser dimension, emphasised the importance of institutional factors and stakeholder perspectives in shaping OI and SP practices. While the institutional theory contributes to analysing institutions and organisational legitimacy in developing innovation theory (Song and Parry, Reference Song and Parry1993), the stakeholder theory considers the interests of all legitimate stakeholders in the process of corporate value creation (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Liu and Huang2019; Li et al., Reference Li, Shen and Lu2021). The corporate value creation focus of the stakeholder theory largely negates the environmental considerations of manufacturing impacts.
Therefore, given the destructive nature of manufacturing activities on the environment and known contribution of manufacturing activities to climate change risks, the limited use of the TBL theory in literature was surprising (Goel, Reference Goel2010; Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Zhang and Zou2010). This suggests that sustainability’s environmental, social, and economic dimensions are not yet fully integrated into the OI and SP discourse in manufacturing organisations or, at best, ignored in the context of developing economies. This suggests there is more work to be done to empirically investigate the contribution of the TBL theory in the OI and SP discourse. This is considering the fact that theories such as RBV, dynamic capabilities, institutional theory and stakeholder theory only partially explain OI or SP. They do not always fully integrate all aspects of sustainability in manufacturing. Consequently, this study finds that no theoretical model fully explains how innovation and sustainability interact in developing economies (see Fig. A5 in Appendix 2).
Discussion and future research agenda
RBV sets the tone in 40% of literature reviewed in this study. Kraaijenbrink, Spender and Groen (Reference Kraaijenbrink, Spender and Groen2009) averred that RBV’s core messages are threatened by three issues. This includes the indeterminate nature of resource, the indeterminate nature of value and the RBV’s narrow explanation of a firm’s competitive advantage. They argue that the common theme underlying these RBV criticisms is that the RBV has inappropriately adopted narrow neo-classical economic rationality, which has diminished its opportunities to make further progress. From the critiques, Kraaijenbrink et al. (Reference Kraaijenbrink, Spender and Groen2009) suggested that directions for future theorising should be towards a subjective and dynamic framework.
Similarly, a major criticism of the dynamic capabilities, applied in 25% of literature reviewed in this study, is that they are hard to measure empirically primarily because the routines and processes are often characteristic of the firm or part of resource bundles (Brandenburger & Stuart, Reference Brandenburger and Stuart1996). Therefore, similar to RBV, dynamic capabilities theory inadequately relates to OI and SP with respect to the environmental concerns raised in this study. In contrast, institutional theory offers a systematic analysis of innovation, using theoretical contributions to distinguish between institutional levels, formal and informal institutions, and institutions of the regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive forms (Geels, Reference Geels2010). This partially relates to OI and SP issues in this study as cognitive-cultural, normative, and regulatory forms of analysis may give rise to understanding firms’ subjective responses to environmental concerns about manufacturing as alluded to by 20% of literature reviewed.
In addition, the stakeholder theory has been criticised and contested as representing an unbridled socialism (Miles, Reference Miles2012), as it tends towards societal and environmental considerations. Stakeholder theorists view profitability as important; however, they do not consider the interest of shareholders to be more significant than that of other critical stakeholders (Strand & Freeman, Reference Strand and Freeman2015). The stakeholder theory therefore only partly supports the societal and environmental narratives of SP as espoused in this study.
This study therefore submits that the TBL theory provides a framework for measuring the performance of manufacturing firms in developing countries using three metrics, i.e., economic, social, and environmental. Therefore, TBL supports the environmental concerns in a way that also integrates the economic and social constructs (Goel, Reference Goel2010; Yang et al., Reference Yang, Luo and Pan2024), as conceptualised in the SP metrics of this study. Although sparsely used in only 5% of extant studies, this in our opinion reflects the regional focus of existing literature where only 20.4% of studies focusing on developing countries.
It is important for future research to consider influences like the cultural aspect of organisations, the use of data, knowledge management and impacts from external institutions. Firms’ adoption of innovation and sustainability largely depends on their organisational culture (Onkila & Sarna, Reference Tiina and Sarna2021). Although employee attitudes and the work environment are vital, this aspect is not thoroughly examined in studies on the sector in developing nations. On the other hand, agencies establishing rules regarding sustainability and creating policies often have a big influence on how easily firms carry out related projects. These types of studies can guide improvements in policies and organisational efforts.
Researchers have paid little attention to outbound OI which focuses on using internal knowledge in the open market (Naqshbandi et al., Reference Naqshbandi and Tabche2018). Exploring the effects of Industry 4.0 in different manufacturing sectors and around the globe may reveal how it can improve supply chain practices.
Notably, less attention paid to mixed methods and qualitative methodologies in reviewed literature further calls for more researchers to adopt these less-used methods to support existing studies and further unravel pertinent questions. Notably, the most frequently applied research method was quantitative research, which accounts for 64.8% of the studies reviewed; followed by qualitative research which accounts 29.6% of the studies and mixed-methods research representing 5.6% of studies. When both quantitative and qualitative approaches are combined, they often show unique situations, problems, and barriers to using OI and SP methods in developing countries (Matthyssens et al., Reference Matthyssens2019). This, we opine, will foster new understandings of OI and SP in manufacturing organisations, especially in developing economies. Particularly, using mixed-methods research highlights the recognition of the complementary benefits of qualitative and quantitative approaches in capturing a comprehensive understanding of a social phenomenon (Matthyssens et al., Reference Matthyssens2019).
Other dimensions of OI and SP identified in literature includes the exploration of the challenges and barriers to adopting OI and SP practices in developing countries and the examination of other dimensions/mediating factors of OI and SP such as cultural, big data, knowledge management, and organisational factors (Bigliardi et al., Reference Bigliardi, Ferraro and Galati2020; Hu & Hsu, Reference Hu and Hsu2020; Smith et al., Reference Smith, Haustein, Mongeon, Shu, Ridde and Larivière2017); intellectual property management (Bogers, Reference Bogers2011; Sarkis et al., Reference Sarkis, Zhu and Lai2011; Supplier Collaboration (Yang et al., Reference Yang, Blagodatsky, Lippe, Liu, Hammond, Xu and Cadisch2016; Zamboni, Reference Zamboni2011); and Cost Efficiency (Thompson et al., Reference Thompson, Lemmon and Walter2015; Zare, Reference Zare2022).
While the reviewed papers may not have explicitly addressed organisational culture in the context of OI and SP, it is important to recognise its significance as a foundational element for OI and SP in developing economies. Organisational culture sets the tone for how innovation and sustainability are embraced within an organisation, influencing employee attitudes, behaviours, and the overall organisational climate (Onkila & Sarna, Reference Tiina and Sarna2021; Singh et al., Reference Singh, Mathiyazhagan, Scuotto and Pironti2024). Future research should consider investigating the relationship between organisational culture and OI and SP to gain a comprehensive understanding of the interplay between these dimensions and their impact on organisational outcomes.
In addition to organisational culture, another dimension that has not been addressed in the reviewed papers is government policy. Government policies and regulations play a significant role in shaping the environment in which OI and SP occur. Government can use policies to provide incentives, support, or put barriers that influence the behaviour of organisations and their ability to adopt and/or implement OI practices and sustainable initiatives. Therefore, future research agenda should consider how organisational culture and government policies affect OI and SP.
Other observable area for future research to consider is to examine the role of the different types of OI in promoting SP in different manufacturing sectors and contexts. Naqshbandi et al. (Reference Naqshbandi and Tabche2018) noted that outbound OI, which involves the commercialisation and utilisation of internal knowledge and ideas by external parties, received relatively less attention in the literature. This implies limited utilisation of internal knowledge, reduced outflow of intellectual property, missed learning opportunities from external partners, and restricted collaboration and networking potential. The implication for these in developing economies is yet to be seen. Therefore, future research could compare the impact of outbound OI on SP outcomes in different industries (e.g., automotive, electronics, food, and beverage) or in different national or regional contexts with different institutional and regulatory environments. This will demonstrate the recognition of the benefits of collaboration with external partners in the innovation process.
Despite what appears to be a glum picture of OI and SP in developing countries, nevertheless, increasing awareness on the need for SP is progressively forcing manufacturing companies in developing countries to take a serious look at their sustainability efforts and how they can employ OI in improving their organisational performance (Idowu, Ayoola, Opele & Ikenweiwe, Reference Idowu, Ayoola, Opele and Ikenweiwe2011). The manufacturing industry in developing countries must focus on ensuring SP through establishing a balance between financial (economic), social, and environmental performance indexes (Elkington, Reference Elkington2010; Serrano-Cinca & Ramírez-Alesón, Reference Serrano-Cinca and Ramírez-Alesón2010).
Addressing these OI issues will be a pivotal contribution to attaining four SDGs in developing economies. Specifically, SDG 9, promotes industry, innovation, and infrastructure; SDG 12, encourages responsible consumption and production; SDG 13, focuses on climate action; and SDG 17, emphasises partnerships for the goals. By integrating OI practices into their strategies, manufacturing organisations can play a crucial role in achieving the SDGs and move towards a sustainable future for our planet. Given the environmental and climate concerns about manufacturing, the manufacturing industry in developing countries cannot be exempted from this paradigm shift.
Conclusion
This study aimed to conduct an SLR to review published studies relating to OI and SP practices in manufacturing organisations in developed countries to engender future research in developing countries. To this end, 108 articles selected using PRISMA and other selection criteria were reviewed, with key findings presented and discussed earlier. This study makes a significant contribution to the literature by revealing some of the gaps in the literature and helping to set out an agenda for future researchers in developing countries to address.
First, in terms of contextual gaps, the study found that there are still notable knowledge gaps in the literature regarding the relationship between OI and SP in manufacturing organisations. Existing research has focused more on developed countries than on developing countries. Therefore, this study suggests that more research is needed in the context of developing countries. Second, regarding theoretical gaps, theories such as TBL, which expanded organisational performance’s focus beyond financial measures to include environmental and social dimensions, received limited attention in the literature. A synthesis of related theories including RBV, dynamic capabilities theories, institutional theory, stakeholder theory, and the TBL revealed that out of all, it is only the TBL theory that provides a framework for measuring the firm’s performance using three relatable metrics within the context of OI and SP, i.e., economic, social, and environmental metrics.
Therefore, this study concludes that future research should use the TBL theory to explore the benefits of OI and SP practices of manufacturing organisations to local communities and the natural environment. Such research could also consider how OI could be used to mitigate climate change risks and solve other grand challenges proposed by the SDGs. Third, the findings also showed, with respect to empirical gaps, that there is no known recommendation of a conceptual model/framework on how manufacturing organisations can leverage OI in achieving SP practices in the developing countries.
Fourth, there is a need for a more comprehensive analysis of the barriers and challenges in implementing OI practices in the context of sustainable manufacturing in developing countries. This is in addition to the need for more researchers that can adopt mixed methods and qualitative methodologies to support existing studies and to further unravel pertinent issues and capture a more comprehensive understanding of OI and SP. Thus, the study concludes that future studies must build a viable model or framework around the TBL framework that both researchers and manufacturing organisations could adopt in their endeavours to manage the relationship between OI and SP in their day-to-day activities. This is why the next phase of this research series aims to provide a conceptual model providing a detailed research guide on how to leverage OI to achieve SP practices in manufacturing sectors of developing economies.
This study is however, not without some limitations. First, as it is with similar studies, the search protocol may not be optimal and relevant keywords may have been ignored. However, to mitigate this limitation, we established a standard to ensure the quality of the search protocol and relevance of the selected papers. Second, to mitigate limitations related to data collection and review, with respect to the details provided in the ‘Eligibility criteria’ subection, there were thorough brainstorming sessions among the authors along the steps of the SLR. We also concede that, given intrinsic subjective biases of the PRISMA framework, replications of this study may possibly lead to different results. However, despite these limitations, this study has produced some interesting findings and made key contributions to the existing literature relating to OI and SP. The study, thus, helped to set a future research agenda for researchers to follow and in the process achieved its major objective.
Acknowledgements
This paper is the first in a series of three proposed publications to be undertaken as part of PhD by concurrent publications at the School of Business and Law, Leicester Castle Business School, De Montfort University, Leicester.
Appendix 1: List of tables
Table A1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Table A2. Article searching protocol
Table A3. Journals representing the study of OI and SP
Table A4. Common research methodologies used in the studies
Table A5. Manufacturing sectors explored from the 108 articles analysed.
Table A6. Types of OI identified
Table A7. Other dimensions of OI and SP explored
Table A8. Research theories identified
Appendix 2: List of figures
Figure A1. Process of study selection.
Figure A2. Historical analysis of studies on OI and SP.
Figure A3. Research methodologies observed in the studies.
Figure A4. Number of studies focusing on developed countries and developing countries.
Figure A5. Theoretical framework.
Open access
