Digital Transformation on Macroeconomic Outcomes

Version	Summary	Created by	Modification	Content Size	Created at	Operation
1		Mihaela Tudose	--	3422	2024-01-16 13:00:39	\|
2	update references and layout	Rita Xu	Meta information modification	3422	2024-01-18 02:44:09	\|

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su15054583

In the context of the development of information technologies, the concerns about assessing the effects of digital transformation have increased. Although it is intuitively accepted that digital transformation has a favourable impact on macroeconomic variables (based on the interdependencies between micro- and macroeconomic performance), there is little scientific research providing evidence of this.

digital transformation Network Readiness Index GDP per capita

1. Introduction

Researchers’ concerns about digitisation and digital transformation have been growing recently. The proof of this is the number of research articles identified on the Web of Science platform (as of 20 December 2022) on topics such as digitalisation (2792 articles), digital transformation (24,385 articles), digital transition (13,899 articles), digital innovation (18,847 articles), etc. Figure 1 shows the dynamics of this research, with a recent exponential increase.

Figure 1. The dynamics of the annual number of publications. Source: Own processing based on data provided by the Web of Science.

Based on the review of a set of 39 relevant publications, Kraus et al. (2021) ^[1] highlighted two essential issues: technology is the driver of change induced by digital transformations; and digital transformations are occurring at all levels (companies, environment, society, and institutions). Reiterating that the use of new technologies is a requirement for ensuring the competitiveness of companies operating in a digital environment, Vial (2019) ^[2], in an extensive literature review, pointed out that digital transformation is both an endogenous phenomenon (in that it takes the form of a response by decision-makers to the opportunities offered by digital technologies) and an exogenous threat (requiring a response by companies to factors originating in the business environment).

Studies have shown that the most important determinants of digital transformation are associated with the external environment and organisational culture ^[3]. By the nature and magnitude of its impact, digital transformation based on the incorporation of digital technologies generates both opportunities (facilitating change) and threats for companies ^[4]^[5], ecosystems, industries, or economies ^[6].

Most research on the impact of transformations assesses the impact at the microeconomic level. Interactions between digital transformation and the value creation process, competitiveness, performance, sustainability, innovation, and business risks are considered. Zhang et al. (2023) ^[3] pointed out that digital transformation generates competitive advantages because it comes bundled with an innovation portfolio, which changes the value creation process. Thus, digital transformation generates new business models ^[5]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10], stimulates innovation ^[11] and contributes to the creation of new products/services ^[3], achieves reconfigurations in customer preferences and behaviours ^[3]^[12]^[13], and contributes to increasing the performance of the economic environment ^[14].

Regarding the ubiquity of digital transformations, specialists affirm that not all companies need to be part of digital transformation processes, only those that can make creative and empirical simulations of business models that demonstrate the ability to implement digital transformations ^[15]. The same authors showed that, for these companies, digital transformation must respond to a ‘planned digital shock’. In other words, the causes and effects of digital-transformation-induced change can be managed in a way that is good for business and good for the environment.

Through interactions at the microeconomic level, digitisation and digital transformation also create the conditions for increased macroeconomic performance. Of the more than 24,000 articles (in the above-mentioned database) that directly or indirectly address the causes and effects of digital transformation, only 0.2% integrate macroeconomic issues in the debate. As can be seen in Figure 1, after the 1990s, concerns about analysing the impact of digital transformations intensified. The researchers focused on ICT, a context in which evaluations were made regarding the effects of increasing access to information and increasing the speed of knowledge diffusion in different fields.

Taking the period 1970–1990 as a benchmark, Röller and Waverman (2001) showed that a third of the economic growth recorded in 21 countries was due to the development of telecommunications ^[16]. Vu (2011) carried out analysis for the period 1996–2005 and showed that ICT contributes to economic growth because it stimulates innovation and technology diffusion (at the level of industries and at the level of countries and regions) and improves the efficiency of resource allocations at the level of national economies ^[17]. The positive effect at the macroeconomic level derives from the positive effects recorded at the microeconomic level, which materialized in the reduction of production costs (because of easier and faster communication at the level of economic agents).

Comparing the two works written ten years apart, it is noticeable that there has been progress in the field of literature research. The impact of ICT is analysed by the country category (more developed and less developed) and the determinants are decomposed to highlight the structural changes in terms of economic growth. Simultaneously, a distinction is made between ICT penetration and the increase in its use. To provide more clarity on the contribution of ICT to economic growth, subsequent research has indicated that this contribution may differ depending on the type of technology examined.

For example, Toader et al. (2018) analysed the effects of accelerated ICT development and assessed the impact on GDP per capita for EU states for 18 years (2000–2017). They built impact measurement models based on four factors associated with ICT (fixed-broadband subscriptions, broadband Internet connection, level of internet usage, and mobile cellular subscriptions) and seven factors associated with macroeconomic variables. The authors showed that a 1% increase in the use of ICT infrastructure contributes to an increase in GDP per capita of between 0.0767% (fixed-broadband subscriptions) and 0.396% (mobile cellular subscriptions) ^[18]. Fernández-Portillo et al. (2019) analysed the impact of ICT globally but also from the perspective of five constructs (connectivity, human capital, Internet use, technological integration, and public services). Global analysis indicated that ICT was the most important contributor to GDP per capita. Conversely, the analysis at the level of the five constructs showed that the contribution to the growth of macroeconomic results is different ^[19].

Mayer et al. (2019) analysed the impact of broadband infrastructure investment on economic growth (as measured by GDP per capita). They showed that these networks speed up the transmission of information and knowledge; specifically, each 10% increase in speed produces about a 0.5% increase in GDP per capita ^[20]. Soava et al. (2022) retrospectively (2003–2020) and prospectively (2025) analysed the contribution of e-commerce to the formation and growth of the gross domestic product and indicated that the digital economy contributes to economic and social development, having the ability to multiply the growth effect of GDP ^[21].

Since the studies were conducted on different samples (more or less homogeneous), for different periods (of the order of a few years or decades), using different methodologies and different ICT components, the results regarding the positive impact of ICT on macroeconomic variables were heterogeneous. For this reason, some authors point out that the results cannot be generalized, especially since some studies either did not identify any relationship between the two variables (Fernández-Portillo et al., 2019) ^[19] or reported statistically insignificant results (Mayer et al., 2019) ^[20].

To ensure a convergence of results, some organizations have recently proposed the determination of aggregate indicators that allow the evaluation of digital transformations based on a unified methodology, applicable at the country or regional level. Thus, specific indicators were used in the profile research, such as the Networked Readiness Index (NRI), the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI), the ICT Development Index, or sets of indicators developed by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) and the World Bank.

Studies using NRIs have shown that digital technologies shorten operating times at the economic level ^[22] and positively impact competitiveness and welfare ^[23], economic growth ^[24]^[25], industrial development, and employment ^[26], facilitating social progress ^[27].

DESI, as an index measuring the digital competitiveness of EU Member States, is used in various studies to highlight the dynamics of digital performance across EU countries ^[28], to assess the extent to which the gap between rich and poor countries in the EU can be narrowed through rapid and intensive digital transformation ^[29], or to assess the digital convergence of markets in the EU ^[26].

Research that has used aggregate indicators to measure digital transformations (such as that previously presented) has provided results that cannot be generalized. This is because the analyses were conducted for different samples and periods and used different methodologies. At the same time, the increase in the use of ICT, in the conditions of a dynamic economic environment, forces periodic reassessments regarding the impact of digital transformations on macroeconomic variables. For this reason, this study has a double objective: to assess the extent to which the world’s economies have responded to the need for digital transformation and to assess the impact of digital transformations on macroeconomic outcomes. To ensure the originality and representativeness of the results, the empirical research was carried out on a sample of 46 states from different areas of the globe, selected according to gross national income per capita. The research strategy was based on the hypothesis of the positive impact of digital transformations on economic growth. The results of the analyses carried out both at the sample level and at the level of groups of countries confirmed the assumed hypothesis and highlighted that (for the selected sample) GDP per capita is the indicator that best captures the impact of digital transformations (measured by an aggregate indicator, as well as through sub-initials associated with the economic environment).

2. Digital Transformation—Concept, Causes and Effects

Most of the debates regarding the digital transformation are relatively recent. As a field that has not yet reached maturity in terms of conceptual foundations, early attempts to define the concept of digital transformation have lacked convergence. Thus, digital transformation has been associated with the use of new digital technologies capable of generating improvements (such as process efficiencies), facilitating adaptability, and supporting increased performance of businesses, industries, ecosystems, or even economies as a whole ^[8]^[30]. Other authors have defined the digital transformation in terms of the causes and effects it produces. For example, Hinings et al. (2018) ^[6] interpreted digital transformation through the lens of the combined effects of the implementation of digital innovations. Bondar et al. (2017) ^[31] interpreted digital transformation through the adaptive capacity of different economic or institutional actors to the new circumstances of the digital era.

To shed light on the scope and complexity of digital transformation, Vial (2019) ^[2] proposed four benchmarks: the target entity (which can be represented by companies, institutions, ecosystems, national economies, etc.), the scope (micro- or macroeconomic), the source of change (the technologies generating change) and the expected outcome (which can be positive or negative). Based on these benchmarks, Vial (2019) ^[2] has produced the most pertinent definition of digital transformation: ‘a process that aims to improve an entity by triggering significant changes to its properties through combinations of information, computing, communication, and connectivity technologies’.

At the microeconomic level, the digital transformation contributes to significant improvements in performance indicators (cost, quality, and service) ^[3] and facilitates innovation ^[11]. Additionally, under the impact of digital transformation, industrial competition becomes anabatic ^[32], consumer behaviour changes ^[12]^[13], corporate risk-taking capacity increases ^[33], resource and process management efficiency enhances ^[34], companies become more open to the information environment ^[35]^[36], the overall structure of the economy changes ^[37], and ecosystem conditions changes ^[38]. The effects of digital transformations take the form of new organisational structures, new business structures and models, new actors (and new forms of association such as associative businesses), new practices and beliefs (for both producers and consumers), new perceptions of value, etc. On the other side, new corporate strategies are formulated in the areas of innovation (process-rebuilding innovation and product-renewal innovation) ^[3], marketing ^[5]^[13], digital business ^[2] and sustainability ^[39].

More recent literature points to new directions of approach. For example, Okorie et al. (2023) ^[39] showed that digital transformation needs to be linked to business sustainability (to ensure decarbonisation of the industrial sector and facilitate the adoption of a circular economy). This correlation is possible as long as there are several scenarios for adopting digital technologies, differentiated according to stakeholder interests and options available to companies. Some authors ^[39] propose a resource-based approach (tangible and intangible) so that the potential for competitive advantage is correlated with corporate sustainability; companies can achieve lasting competitive advantages by carefully pooling and managing their resources and capabilities. Other authors ^[32] showed that digital transformation helps alleviate corporate financial constraints and improve corporate governance, thus removing barriers to corporate innovation.

These research directions indicate that researchers’ attention is no longer limited to the corporate environment, but also includes environmental and business sustainability issues. Thus, the scope of the debate extends beyond the concern of aligning business with information and communication technology (ICT) trends ^[40]. Digital transformation is no longer limited to present technological changes ^[41], driven by different contexts, but forces anticipation of change and planning activities that strengthen business agility. To be sustainable, transformations at the microeconomic level must also produce changes at the level of industries and fields of activity, aiming at the macroeconomic level and longer time horizons. Micro-level transformations generate added value (by improving productivity, reducing costs, facilitating innovation, and increasing performance), contributing not only to improved outcomes at the level of industries and economies, but also to societal development ^[1].

3. NRI—A Tool for Measuring the Amplitude of Digital Transformations

Current research ^[25] presents three classes of indicators used to assess the degree of digitisation of economies: the ICT Development Index, which monitored and compared ICT developments at the country and period level until 2017 (the index was subsequently discontinued); Market Capitalization, designed to measure the performance of firms in the digital economy—as it only reflects digital transformations only for listed companies, this indicator has limited applicability; and the Network Readiness Index (NRI). To these indicators, researchers can also add: (a) the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI), which monitors overall digital performance and measures the progress of EU countries in terms of digital competitiveness ^[42]; (b) the set of indicators developed by the OECD in order to measure the impact of digital technologies on companies, economies, and society ^[43]; and (c) the set of indicators developed by the World Bank to assess digital readiness ^[44].

Since the sample of countries on which empirical research was conducted in the present study includes countries from different continents, NRI was the best option. The Network Readiness Index (NRI) was developed by the World Economic Forum (WEF) to facilitate the assessment of the impact of ICT on the competitiveness of national economies. With a range from 1 to 100, the index highlights the extent to which countries are exploiting the opportunities offered by information and communication technology. As of 2019, the NRI is managed by the Portulas Institute, which has redesigned the methodology of determination precisely to reflect the ubiquitous nature of digital technologies ^[45].

The NRI is based on four pillars: technology (access, content, and future technologies), people (individuals, businesses, and governments), governance (trust, regulation, and inclusion) and impact (economy, quality of life, and contribution to sustainable development goals). Three of the four pillars (technology, people, and impact) have a sub-indicator that deals exclusively with the economic environment: future technologies, business, and economy. Each of these sub-indicators is broken down into six or seven explanatory variables. The indicator is calculated annually for 131 countries, grouped into six classes (Africa—31, Arab States—12, Asia and Pacific—21, Commonwealth of Independent States—6, Europe—41, America—20) ^[46].

4. Evidence on the Impact of Digital Transformation on Macroeconomic Performance

Some researchers ^[47] analysed digital transformation at the micro and macro level and showed that changes at the level of companies also enhance the development frameworks of all sectors of the economy. Other authors ^[21]^[30] showed that digital technologies are the driving force behind the current industrial revolution. They assessed the potential for digital transformation on a sample of 19 EU and OECD countries using the Digital Transformation Potential Index (DTPI) for the period 2008–2018. They showed that the potential for digital transformation is affected by economic cycles (it decreases in times of crisis and increases along with the economy’s growth). At the same time, they showed that the benefits of digital technologies are more visible in economically weaker countries. Similar results were reached by Matthess and Kunkel (2020) ^[48], who reported that digital technologies can bridge gaps between countries, helping developing country economies move towards prosperity. Humenna et al. (2021) ^[49] showed that, under the impact of macroeconomic crises and imbalances, a country’s macroeconomic stability depends to a large extent on the degree of digitisation of the economy.

Conducting research on a pilot sample (V4 countries), Georgescu et al. (2022) ^[25] assessed the interdependencies between the degree of digitisation of the economy and the dynamics of macroeconomic outcomes during the pandemic crisis (2019–2021) and showed that digital transformations have favourable economic and social impacts. Applying multiple linear regression, the authors used real GDP per capita as the dependent variable and NRI and technology sub-indices as independent variables. The statistically significant results indicated as follows: a one-unit increase in the NRI index increases real GDP per capita by 0.04 units. In the increase of real GDP per capita, technology has an important contribution.

By using the NRI and ICT Development Index as proxies for assessing digital transformation, Afonasova et al. (2019) ^[22] conducted a comparative analysis (multiple case study) on six economies (Russia, Finland, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, and Switzerland). Their study revealed significant differences in the dynamics of selected variables and provided evidence on the conditions underlying the transition to the digital economy. The authors reiterated that a crisis can open up opportunities for growth. If these opportunities are not seized, progress towards the digital economy is slowed down.

Under the pretext of recognizing the interdependence between NRI on the one hand and a nation’s competitiveness and well-being on the other, Sitnicki and Netreba (2020) ^[23] conducted empirical research on a group of eight Eastern European countries (Ukraine, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania). Using exploratory factor analysis (for the period 2013–2016), the authors assessed the interdependencies between 4 sub-indices (Environment, Readiness, Usage and Impact) and tested the representativeness of the NRI from a macroeconomic perspective. The authors showed that the identified interdependencies allow for estimating global economic and social trends (the authors estimated that, in just a few months of the pandemic period, information technology use could increase by as much as three times).

Agustina and Pramana (2019) ^[24] analysed the dynamics of NRI and concluded that the improved competitiveness of Indonesian firms was made possible by the adoption of ICT. They conducted regression analyses (fixed effects model) and showed that 99.83% of the variation in provincial economic growth rates in Indonesia is driven by the ICT development index and local government ICT spending. Interpretation of the regression equation coefficients indicated that a one-unit increase in the ICT Index results in a 0.089 percent improvement in the economic growth rate. Analysis at the provincial level indicated that the impact of the ICT may differ, as provinces have advanced more in the area of digital transformation. As the ICT development index and public spending on ICT increase, the prospects for economic growth also increase.

Before the pandemic period (which forced the digital transformation), Stanley et al. (2018) ^[50] sought to explain whether the pace of growth of national economies depends on the extent of use of digital technologies. To find the answer to this question, the authors conducted analyses for both developed and developing countries. Based on a systematic literature review meta-analysis, they show that researchers’ views converge, assuming that there is a positive relationship between ICT and economic growth (as measured by GDP growth or GDP per capita dynamics or productivity indicators). Specifically, the authors show that, in developed countries, all ICT-integrated media contribute to economic growth except the Internet. The exclusion of the Internet from the list of factors influencing economic growth was considered as a mistake (related either to sampling or to the meta-analysis tools used), and the authors recommend a more careful analysis of the channels through which the ICT effect on growth is transmitted (especially as the impact is quantified as relatively modest). The situation is different for developing countries, for which strong evidence has been identified on the positive impact of ICT (including the Internet) on economic growth.

Based on empirical research conducted on a sample of 145 countries, De la Hoz-Rosales et al. (2019) ^[27] sought to identify evidence of the interdependencies between ICT use and human development and social progress. Breaking down the analysis by groups of countries and entities (individuals, businesses, and governments) and using the NRI as an independent variable, they showed that the use of ICT to increase competitiveness and well-being is statistically significant. Specifically, for a one-unit increase in NRI, the social progress index increases by 0.93. The authors also showed that the use of ICT (at the individual and business level) has a positive impact on human development, regardless of the level of development of countries. In contrast, ICT use by governments was found to have a positive impact on human development only in developed countries. As for ICT use at the business level, the authors confirmed the positive impact on human development only at the global level (with the remark that the results were found to be statistically significant only for developing countries).

References

Kraus, S.; Jones, P.; Kailer, N.; Weinmann, A.; Chaparro-Banegas, N.; Roig-Tierno, N. Digital Transformation: An Overview of the Current State of the Art of Research. SAGE Open 2021, 2021, 1–15.
Vial, G. Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2019, 28, 118–144.
Zhang, Z.; Jin, J.; Li, S.; Zhang, Y. Digital transformation of incumbent firms from the perspective of portfolios of innovation. Technol. Soc. 2023, 72, 102149.
Sebastian, I.M.; Ross, J.W.; Beath, C.; Mocker, M.; Moloney, K.G.; Fonstad, N.O. How big old companies navigate digital transformation. MIS Q. Exec. 2017, 16, 197–213.
Skare, M.; de las Mercedes de Obesso, M.; Ribeiro-Navarrete, S. Digital transformation and European small and medium enterprises (SMEs): A comparative study using digital economy and society index data. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2023, 68, 102594.
Hinings, B.; Gegenhuber, T.; Greenwood, R. Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective. Inf. Organ. 2018, 28, 52–61.
Berman, S.J. Digital transformation: Opportunities to create new business models. Strategy Leadersh. 2012, 40, 16–24.
Liere-Netheler, K.; Packmohr, S.; Vogelsang, K. Drivers of Digital Transformation in Manufacturing; HICSS: Waikoloa Beach, HI, USA, 2018; pp. 3926–3935. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10125/50381 (accessed on 12 December 2022).
Aagaard, A.; Presser, M.; Andersen, T. Applying IoT as a leverage for business model innovation and digital transformation. In Proceedings of the 3rd Global IoT Summit (GIoTS), Aarhus, Denmark, 17–21 June 2019.
Chesbrough, H. To recover faster from COVID-19, open up: Managerial implications from an open innovation perspective. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2020, 88, 410–413.
Ciriello, R.F.; Richter, A.; Schwabe, G. Digital innovation. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2018, 60, 563–569.
Sorescu, A.; Schreier, M. Innovation in the digital economy: A broader view of its scope, antecedents, and consequences. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2021, 49, 627–631.
Verhoef, P.C.; Broekhuizen, T.; Bart, Y.; Bhattacharya, A.; Qi Dong, J.; Fabian, N.; Haenlein, M. Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 122, 889–901.
Roman, A.; Rusu, V.D. Digital technologies and the performance of small and medium enterprises. Stud. Bus. Econ. 2022, 17, 190.
Andriole, S.J. Five myths about digital transformation. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2017, 58, 20–22.
Röller, L.; Waverman, L. Telecommunications infrastructure and economic development: A simultaneous approach. Am. Econ. Rev. 2001, 91, 909–923.
Vu, K.M. ICT as a source of economic growth in the information Age: Empirical evidence from the 1996–2005 period. Telecommun. Policy 2011, 35, 357–372.
Toader, E.; Firtescu, B.N.; Roman, A.; Anton, S.G. Impact of Information and Communication Technology Infrastructure on Economic Growth: An Empirical Assessment for the EU Countries. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3750.
Fernández-Portillo, A.; Almodóvar-González, M.; Coca-Pérez, J.L.; Jiménez-Naranjo, H.V. Is Sustainable Economic Development Possible Thanks to the Deployment of ICT? Sustainability 2019, 11, 6307.
Mayer, W.; Madden, G.; Wu, C. Broadband and economic growth: A reassessment. Inf. Technol. Dev. 2019, 26, 128–145.
Soava, G.; Mehedintu, A.; Sterpu, M. Analysis and Forecast of the Use of E-Commerce in Enterprises of the European Union States. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8943.
Afonasova, M.A.; Panfilova, E.E.; Galichkina, M.A.; Slusarczyk, B. Digitalization in Economy and Innovation: The effect on social and economic processes. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2019, 19, 22–23.
Sitnicki, M.; Netreba, I. Interdependence assessing for Networked Readiness Index economic and social informative factors. Balt. J. Econ. Stud. 2020, 6, 47–53.
Agustina, N.; Pramasa, S. The Impact of Development and Government Expenditure for Information and Communication Technology on Indonesian Economic Growth. Asian J. Bus. Environ. 2019, 9, 5–13.
Georgescu, A.; Tudose, M.B.; Avasilcăi, S. DIHs and the impact of digital technology on macroeconomic outcomes. Rev. Manag. Econ. Eng. 2022, 21, 248–260.
Borovskaya, M.A.; Masych, M.A.; Fedosova, T.V. The potential for labor productivity growth in the context of digital transformation. Terra Econ. 2020, 18, 47–66.
De la Hoz-Rosales, B.; Camacho Ballesta, J.A.; Tamayo-Torres, I.; Buelvas-Ferreira, K. Effects of Information and Communication Technology Usage by Individuals, Businesses, and Government on Human Development: An International Analysis. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 129225–129243.
Stavytskyy, A.; Kharlamova, G.; Stoica, E.A. The Analysis of the Digital Economy and Society Index in the EU. TalTech J. Eur. Stud. 2019, 9, 245–261.
Olczyk, M.; Kuc-Czarnecka, M. Digital transformation and economic growth—DESI improvement and implementation. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2022, 28, 775–803.
Corejova, T.; Chinoracky, R. Assessing the Potential for Digital Transformation. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11040.
Bondar, S.; Hsu, J.C.; Pfouga, A.; Stjepandić, J. Agile digital transformation of system-of-systems architecture models using Zachman framework. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2017, 7, 33–43.
Niu, Y.; Wen, W.; Wang, S.; Li, S. Breaking barriers to innovation: The power of digital transformation. Financ. Res. Lett. 2023, 51, 103457.
Tian, G.; Li, B.; Cheng, Y. Does digital transformation matter for corporate risk-taking. Financ. Res. Lett. 2022, 49, 103107.
Pagani, M.; Pardo, C. The impact of digital technology on relationships in a business network. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2017, 67, 185–192.
Chen, W.; Zhang, L.; Jiang, P.; Meng, F.; Sun, Q. Can digital transformation improve the information environment of the capital market? Evidence from the analysts’ prediction behaviuor. Account. Financ. 2021, 62, 2543–2578.
Wu, K.; Fu, Y.; Kong, D. Does the digital transformation of enterprises affect stock price crash risk. Financ. Res. Lett. 2022, 48, 102888.
Legner, C.; Eymann, T.; Hess, T.; Matt, C.; Böhmann, T.; Drews, P.; Mädche, A.; Urbach, N.; Ahlemann, F. Digitalization: Opportunity and challenge for the business and information systems engineering community. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2017, 59, 301–308.
Subramaniam, M.; Iyer, B.; Venkatraman, V. Competing in Digital Ecosystems. Bus. Horiz. 2019, 62, 83–94.
Okorie, O.; Russell, J.; Cherrington, R.; Fisher, O.; Charnley, F. Digital transformation and the circular economy: Creating a competitive advantage from the transition towards Net Zero Manufacturing. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2023, 189, 106756.
Li, L.; Su, F.; Zhang, W.; Mao, J.Y. Digital transformation by SME entrepreneurs: A capability perspective. Inf. Syst. J. 2017, 28, 1129–1157.
Bouncken, R.B.; Kraus, S.; Roig-Tierno, N. Knowledge- and innovation-based business models for future growth: Digitalized business models and portfolio considerations. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2021, 15, 1–14.
European Commission. The Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI). 2022. Available online: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/desi (accessed on 23 December 2022).
OECD. Toolkit for Measuring the Digital Economy G20 Report. 2018. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/g20/summits/buenos-aires/G20-Toolkit-for-measuring-digital-economy.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2022).
USAID. Digital Ecosystem Country Assessments. Available online: https://www.usaid.gov/digital-strategy/implementation-tracks/track1-adopt-ecosystem/digital-ecosystem-country-assessments (accessed on 12 January 2023).
Dutta, S.; Lanvin, B. The Network Readiness Index 2019: Towards a Future-Ready Society; Portulans Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2019; Available online: https://www.insead.edu/sites/default/files/assets/dept/globalindices/docs/nri-2019.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2022).
Dutta, S.; Lanvin, B. The Network Readiness Index 2021: Shaping the Global Recovery; Portulans Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2021; Available online: https://networkreadinessindex.org/wp-content/uploads/reports/nri_2021.pdf (accessed on 12 November 2022).
Stoianenko, I.; Kondratiuk, O.; Mostova, A.; Pikus, R.; Kachan, H.; Ilchenko, V. Digitization of the Economy Under the Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Postmod. Open 2022, 13, 127–141.
Matthess, M.; Kunkel, S. Structural change and digitalization in developing countries: Conceptually linking the two transformations. Technol. Soc. 2020, 63, 101428.
Humenna, Y.G.; Tyutyunyk, I.V.; Tverezovska, O.I. The Effects of Digitalization on Macroeconomic Stability in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic: EU Practice. J. V. N. Karazin Kharkiv Natl. Univ. Ser. Int. Relat. Econ. Ctry. Stud. Tour. 2021, 13, 70–77.
Stanley, T.; Doucouliagos, C.; Steel, P. Does ICT Generate Economic Growth? A Meta-Regression Analysis. J. Econ. Surv. 2018, 32, 705–726.

© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Upload a video for this entry

Information

Subjects: Management

Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :

Mihaela Brindusa Tudose

Amalia Georgescu

Silvia Avasilcăi

View Times: 156

Update Date: 18 Jan 2024

Table of Contents

Video Upload Options

Confirm