�����������������

Citation: Rahnama, H.; Johansen, K.;

Larsson, L.; Rönnbäck, A.Ö.

Collaboration in Value Constellations

for Sustainable Production: The

Perspective of Small Technology

Solution Providers. Sustainability

2022, 14, 4794. https://doi.org/

10.3390/su14084794

Academic Editor: Claudia Colicchia

Received: 14 March 2022

Accepted: 13 April 2022

Published: 16 April 2022

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

with regard to jurisdictional claims in

published maps and institutional affil-

iations.

Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

This article is an open access article

distributed under the terms and

conditions of the Creative Commons

Attribution (CC BY) license (https://

creativecommons.org/licenses/by/

4.0/).

sustainability

Article

Collaboration in Value Constellations for SustainableProduction: The Perspective of Small TechnologySolution ProvidersHossein Rahnama 1,*, Kerstin Johansen 2 , Lisa Larsson 1 and Anna Öhrwall Rönnbäck 1

1 Department of Social Sciences, Technology and Arts, Lulea University of Technology, 971 87 Luleå, Sweden;lisa.larsson@ltu.se (L.L.); anna.ohrwall.ronnback@ltu.se (A.Ö.R.)

2 School of Engineering, Jönköping University, 551 11 Jönköping, Sweden; kerstin.johansen@ju.se* Correspondence: hossein.rahnama@ltu.se

Abstract: The rapid ongoing digital transformation creates new opportunities to generate value butalso challenges companies in the manufacturing industry to adapt to the recent changes. Moreover,committing to sustainability is essential to maintain competitive advantages, build a more resilientcompany, and manage increasing societal demands and regulations. Referred to as a “twin transition”,the digital transformation can positively impact firms’ commitments to environmental sustainability.This paper explores challenges that small technology solution providers face on their path towarddeveloping sustainable production solutions for their manufacturing customers. An empirical studywas conducted in an industrial cluster of small and medium-sized companies (SMEs) providinginnovative, tailor-made production technology solutions to manufacturing companies. As a result, acollaborative process model was suggested for such SMEs to overcome internal and external barriersto obtaining sustainability, thus better supporting the manufacturing companies, i.e., their customers,to strive towards more sustainable production.

Keywords: sustainability; digital transformation; technology solution providers; collaboration; SME

1. Introduction

In general, there has been increasing pressure and need for companies in the man-ufacturing industry to consider sustainability and resilience in their business processesso that they can be competitive and manage increasing societal demands and regulations.Therefore, it can be argued that sustainability is becoming a source of value creation thatcompanies need to invest in and prioritize [1]. Industrial small- and medium-sized en-terprises (SMEs) are the driving force of economies in many European countries, andSMEs at large are the backbone of the economy in most countries [1]. However, it hasbeen shown that SMEs contribute to negative environmental impact (64% within the Euro-pean countries [2]). At the same time, research related to large companies indicates thatSMEs may have a lower level of ecological awareness and resources, estimating that theirenvironmental impact is insignificant [3].

Moreover, SMEs, especially within the manufacturing sector, face several criticalchallenges in managing customer demands. These include shortened time to market,increased customization and product complexity, and a stronger focus on resources opti-mization, resource circularity, and waste management. [4] These challenges are combinedwith rapid technological advances and digitalization [5], referring to digital transforma-tion that implies a far-reaching strategic, organizational, and social adaptation to a worldwhere digital technology is recognized as ubiquitous [6,7]. The digital transformation addsone more dimension and affects the conventional business process [8]. Altogether, thischallenges SMEs in the manufacturing industry to manage rapid changes in the market,as well as rapid technological changes, increased circularity, and uncertain events in their

Sustainability 2022, 14, 4794. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084794 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 4794 2 of 20

businesses [9,10]. The “Industry 4.0” (I4.0) and “internet of things” (IoT) technologiesneed to be managed by the manufacturing companies from a technology and a businessperspective, as well as including human and environmental aspects, as highlighted bythe “Industry 5.0” concept [11,12]. These technologies have also come more into focus,requiring even faster implementation and management in times of turbulence and unpre-dictable events such as the COVID-19 pandemic [13,14] or other international crises as seenlately threatening industrial economies. Companies with higher digital maturity generallyhave higher flexibility and are thus more ready to respond to a crisis [6,14]. Moreover, thenotion of “twin transition”, referring to an intertwined, simultaneous green and digitaltransition to reach a zero carbon and zero waste economy [15], as used by the EU, pointsin a direction that suggests that digital technologies could have positive impacts on smallcompanies’ sustainability efforts and contribute to improved resilience [1,10,14]. However,the interconnection between digital transition and sustainability is discussed in a relativelysmall body of literature [1].

Digital technologies support sustainable changes in different parts of manufacturingcompanies [16]. These changes can improve companies’ sustainability in terms of greenindustry, zero-waste production, and production efficiency [17]. The challenges of adoptingdigital technologies, including I4.0, for SMEs in the manufacturing industry can be dueto financial and operational limitations [4]. The lack of motivation from customers andcollaborative partners, such as suppliers, and the fear of failure when implementing digitaltechnologies including I4.0 for sustainable operations are observed as main challengesfor SMEs in general, including the industrial sector [4]. Moreover, the adoption of digitaltechnologies is complicated, with a long-term process to adapt, implement, operate, andoptimize [18]. In this context, it is argued (c.f. [19]) that value constellations [20] for theimplementation of digital technologies representing a network of technology solutionproviders (TSPs) and their customers, suppliers, and other partners in the manufacturingsupply chain can result in long-term collaboration and co-create value for all actors. Thisconclusion is supported by Ramezani and Camarinha-Matos [21], who argue that creatinginter-organizational collaboration ties might provide a platform for sharing competencies,improving organizations’ agility, sharing risks, and surviving unpredictable events. Thereis a need to manage different challenges related to digital technologies, sustainability,and production processes for SMEs in the manufacturing industry [4]. Furthermore, thepotential changes in business processes due to digitalization [8] and the increased demandfor sustainable automated production systems that can manage customized products [22]indicate a need for collaboration between stakeholders. Although prior literature hasidentified the need for collaboration and managing sustainability challenges, there is stilla lack of knowledge of how companies in the manufacturing industry can collaborate inpractice to develop sustainable production solutions, especially in this fast-paced situationof the ongoing digital transformation, where it has been observed that the manufacturingindustry is among the laggards in terms of digital maturity [6].

In this context, technology solution providers (TSPs) providing tailor-made solutionsbased on the customer’s needs can play a crucial role in developing technology thatimproves sustainable solutions for industry [23] to achieve the digital and green twintransition [15]. This paper explores the challenges that such small TSPs face in developing asustainable solution for production and, more specifically, how small TSPs can collaboratein value constellations in the digital transformation era to enable sustainability. Section 2of this article provides a brief overview of prior literature on digital transformation andsustainability. Section 3 presents the details of the research method and the empirical study.Section 4 demonstrates the analysis of the data gathered through the literature and theempirical study. Section 5 provides conclusions and suggestions for further research.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 4794 3 of 20

2. Theoretical Framework2.1. Twin Transition: Digital Transition and Sustainability

Sustainability is a crucial evolution path for companies in the modern economy [3].Recently, there has been increasing pressure on companies to cope with the changingand uncertain conditions in the market [24]. Companies face several sources of marketturbulence, e.g., globalization, new rules for environment protection, requesting qualitystandards, and rapid technological advancement [24]. Therefore, companies need to investin and prioritize sustainability to create value [1]. Sustainability has been characterizedas well-adjusted incorporation of human activities’ social, environmental, and economicperformance to benefit current and future generations through a circular economy [25].Environmental sustainability corresponds to simultaneously seeking human well-being,protecting needed resources, and ensuring that waste from human activities does notexpand [26]. Yacob et al. [27] described sustainable green practices as “embrace the use ofeco-friendly design, raw materials, packaging, distribution and even re-use/retreatmentafter the useful life of a product. It describes practices throughout the manufacturingprocess that are not harmful to the environment” (p. 3). Social sustainability is the ability ofa company to ensure that every individual is treated equitably, and economic sustainabilityensures continuously generating profit, welfare, and wealth while respecting the environ-ment [28]. Sustainability can also be considered in developing business models that areenvironmentally and socially sustainable [22,29]. A sustainable business model can helpcompanies beyond the essential reduction of waste, energy, and material consumption butalso create financial and social values, mitigate risk, and improve resilience [30].

SMEs, in general, may have internal barriers to environmental sustainability com-mitments, such as having a lower level of ecological awareness and resources than largercompanies and marking their environmental impact as insignificant [3]. Additionally, SMEsrarely refer to sustainability for improving their relationships with their customers or otherstakeholders [3]. Neri et al. [31] summarized barriers to adopting sustainability for SMEsin the manufacturing industry into external and internal barriers. The external barriersinclude regulatory issues (legal requirements, bureaucracy, lack of incentives, and policydistortion), support (lack of external technical support, lack of consultancy), and marketissues (customer not ready/lack of demand, uncertainty of future trend, distortion of price).Internal barriers are characterized as organization (lack of time, lack of staff, resistance tochange/inertia, attitude/other priorities, communication, workplace and task, organiza-tional system), management behavior (commitment/awareness and expertise), workersbehavior (not trained/skilled, awareness, not involved, and incorrect behavior), informa-tion (lack of information and trustworthiness of information), innovation, and economics(limited access to capital, hidden costs, risk, investment cost, and pay-back time) [31]. Theyfound that the external barrier regulatory issues and the internal barriers organization andeconomics are the main barriers in a sample of 26 SMEs in the manufacturing industry inGermany and Italy.

In recent years, significant technological developments have triggered an evolutionin the digitalization of society and business [32]. This evolution resulted in an effectivedigital transformation affecting traditional roles and business models [33]. Vial [7] defineddigital transformation as “a process that aims to improve an entity by triggering significantchanges to its properties through combinations of information, computing, communication,and connectivity technologies” (p. 121). Digital transformation is not just about usingindividual technologies to improve operations, but is instead about aiming to transformthe business using digital technologies [6]. The ongoing digital transformation can openup new opportunities to develop new digital products and services, digital businessprocesses, or digital business models for organizations [8]. Digital transformation canenhance commitment to sustainability by transforming the conventional business withimproved transparency, flexibility, agility, and customer relationships, reducing cost andenergy consumption and improving overall efficiency and productivity [3,34,35]. However,such a twin transition [15,36] towards using digital technologies and, at the same time,

Sustainability 2022, 14, 4794 4 of 20

committing the whole organization to sustainability can create new challenges for SMEs [3].Kumar et al. [4] identified 15 challenges affecting the adoption of digital technologies andI4.0 in SMEs for sustainable value creation. The challenges of adopting I4.0 technologiesfor sustainability are summarized as (1) awareness about I4.0 contributions to sustainableproduction, (2) lack of management support, (3) high initial cost of technology adoption,(4) lack of funds for investment, (5) low awareness about government policies for I4.0 andsustainability, (6) low dedicated resources for research & development, (7) required longterm planning on the adoption of I4.0 technologies for ethical and sustainable operations,(8) motivations from customers, (9) IT-based infrastructure, (10) trained workforce forsustainable production I4.0 technologies, (11) required collaboration among supply chainpartners, (12) fear of job loss or decrease of the workforce, (13) fear of I4.0 technologicalfailure, (14) lack of alternative solutions in case of technological breakdown, and (15)fear of uncertainty in demand because of market disruptions [4]. The rather technology-focused Industry 4.0 is currently being taken further to the ambitious concept of Industry5.0 [11,12], focusing more on societal and ecological aspects, increasing the pressure on themanufacturing industry to invest in sustainable and resilient development with an evenbroader perspective, taking even more aspects into account.

Kumar et al. [4] mentioned the lack of coordination and collaboration among supplychain partners as a challenge. However, although collaboration can be challenging, itcan help SMEs overcome some challenges of adopting digital technologies. According toKane et al. [6], collaboration is a part of the digital transformation culture in digitally maturecompanies. We further discuss the importance of collaboration in the following section.

2.2. Collaboration for Sustainability

Collaboration can correspond to a durable and profound relationship between sepa-rated groups or organizations to achieve a mutual purpose [37]. Patel et al. [38] definedcollaboration as follows: “Collaboration involves two or more people engaged in an in-teraction with each other, within a single episode or series of episodes, working towardsa common goal” (p.1). In another definition by Hartono & Holsapple [39], collaborationamong business partners is “an interactive, constructive, and knowledge-based process, in-volving multiple autonomous and voluntary participants employing complementary skillsand assets, with a collective objective of achieving an outcome beyond what the participants’capacity and willingness would allow them to individually accomplish” (p. 20).

Establishing collaborative relationships with other companies can help SMEs strengthentheir market position or exploit new opportunities [40]. “Collaborative” refers to a set ofprocesses planned to create harmony among parties who may disagree about the issue [37].Collaboration enables companies to access the resources and capacities of their collab-orative partners that they may lack in-house [41]. Furthermore, companies can benefitfrom inter-organizational collaboration to reinforce skills, mitigate resource challenges,share knowledge, foster innovation, and explore new business channels or exploit existingchannels [42]. Two primary outcomes for inter-organizational collaboration discussed inthe literature are mainly innovation and performance [43], where innovation outcomesdiffer in product, process, service, marketing, and organizational innovation. Performanceoutcomes include survival, competitive advantages, sales growth, and profitability [43].

Sustainability is not discussed directly in the summarized outcome of the collaborationby Zahoor and Al-Tabbaa [43]. In fact, in previous literature, collaboration for sustain-ability and the circular economy has been a somewhat neglected field [44]. Nevertheless,environmental and social sustainability can be viewed from innovation and performanceoutcomes perspectives. Green product and process innovation are two main topics inliterature considering sustainability as an innovation outcome. Green product innovationaims to mitigate environmental impacts in a product’s life cycle and satisfy customer needsby creating new products or improving existing products [45]. Furthermore, green prod-uct innovation includes using nontoxic and biodegradable materials in product design,improving the durability and recyclability of products, and modifying product design to

Sustainability 2022, 14, 4794 5 of 20

reduce energy consumption during usage [45]. Green process innovation aims to reduceenergy and resource consumption and use pollution-control equipment, recycled material,and environmentally friendly technologies [45]. Collaborative circular-oriented innovationis an emerging area of research in sustainable-oriented innovation that requires a highlevel of collaboration among collaborative partners [44,46]. The need for collaboration canincrease when a company’s strategy toward sustainability transfers from a product focusand operational optimization to organizational transformation and system building forpositive social changes [46].

Brown et al. [44] defined the collaborative process as “the purposeful decisions andactions within and between organizations and the collaborative network of organizationsengaged in this process” (p. 2). According to Brown et al. [44], it has the following phases:

• Identify the need and articulate the intent to collaborate• Identify and select partners• Align partners on a shared purpose• Develop structural and procedural governance• Define a collaborative value capture mode

In comparison, Reilly [37] defined similar phases of identification path, formation,implementation, engagement or maintenance, resolution, and evolution for a collaborativepath. We defined the phases of a collaborative process based on the discussed phases inReilly’s [37] and Brown et al. [44] research as follows:

• Identify the need for collaboration• Identify and select partners• Set up a collaborative strategy development and collaborative actions• Define collaboration resolution and collaboration evolution

The above-mentioned collaborative process descriptions do not explicitly addresssustainability. However, sustainability aspects can be regarded from a broad perspectiveand on all levels of the collaborative process. Sustainability can be seen as a critical valuethat can be achieved by collaboration in a value constellation. Moreover, a collaborativeprocess among different actors of the value constellation can be perceived from a sustain-ability and resilience perspective [24]. Notably, the partner selection can be a delicateissue, and specifically which criteria to use. This has been widely discussed in the litera-ture, mainly with regards to collaboration type, e.g., joint venture or strategic alliance (c.f.e.g., [47–50]). Strategic supplier selection for sustainability and resilience has come intofocus with new light due to the pandemic affecting global supply chains, as studied by e.g.,Badulescu et al. [51]. Different supplier selection criteria might apply as political conflictsor other unpredicted events appear, that change the world market situation, highlightingthe need for prioritization of sustainability and resilience.

2.3. A Value Constellation to Implement Digital Technologies

In manufacturing industries, the competition has shifted over the past decades fromreducing costs to creating high-added-value, i.e., high customization, new business modelsand human capital, service dimension, and creating sustainable value [52]. Manufacturingindustries can have intrinsic and extrinsic motivations to use digital technologies in theirproduction process to create values [53,54]. Digital technologies, often under the labelI4.0, include, e.g., additive manufacturing, robotics and automation, big data, augmentedreality, simulation, digital twins, IoT, cybersecurity, and cloud computing [54]. From a valuechain perspective, using digital technologies impacts the whole manufacturing supplychain, including the process of organizing design, production, sale, and delivery to thecustomer [32]. The adoption of digital technologies can create the following values for thesupply chain of manufacturing industries [55]:

• Improving financial performance,• Increasing resource efficiency,• Identification and traceability of raw materials,

Sustainability 2022, 14, 4794 6 of 20

• Individualized or simulation-based technology products,• Improving overall equipment performance,• Increasing production flexibility, and• Creating new business models for interaction between customer and producer.

Many actors play a role in implementing digital technologies in the manufacturing in-dustries’ supply chain, including TSPs delivering customer-oriented products and servicesbased on digital technologies. TSPs are companies developing solutions to facilitate the im-plementation of digital technologies in various industries. The TSP and their collaboratingcompanies can form a value constellation to co-create values by using digital technologieswith the manufacturing supply chain [55]. The value constellation [20] represents a networkof companies focusing on collaborating and receiving support from other companies orrelated individuals to co-create values and improve the competitive advantages of eachother. Co-created value results from interactions among entities in a complex businesssystem—a constellation—connecting knowledge and redesigning relationships [20]. Theproposed value involves technical, social, economic, and emotional resources that cannot bedeployed individually [56]. The illustration of the possible value constellation and createdvalues presented in [55] are shown in Figure 1.

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 20

Improving financial performance,

Increasing resource efficiency,

Identification and traceability of raw materials,

Individualized or simulation-based technology products,

Improving overall equipment performance,

Increasing production flexibility, and

Creating new business models for interaction between customer and producer.

Many actors play a role in implementing digital technologies in the manufacturing

industries’ supply chain, including TSPs delivering customer-oriented products and ser-

vices based on digital technologies. TSPs are companies developing solutions to facilitate

the implementation of digital technologies in various industries. The TSP and their col-

laborating companies can form a value constellation to co-create values by using digital

technologies with the manufacturing supply chain [55]. The value constellation [20] rep-

resents a network of companies focusing on collaborating and receiving support from

other companies or related individuals to co-create values and improve the competitive

advantages of each other. Co-created value results from interactions among entities in a

complex business system—a constellation—connecting knowledge and redesigning rela-

tionships [20]. The proposed value involves technical, social, economic, and emotional

resources that cannot be deployed individually [56]. The illustration of the possible value

constellation and created values presented in [55] are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Value constellation for implementation of digital technologies adopted from [55].

2.4. Sustainable Production through Digital Transformation

Suppliers in

manufacturing

supply chain

Manufacturing

companies

Customers in

manufacturing

supply chain

Manufacturing

supply chain

System

sellers

System

integrators

Technology

Solution

providers

• Creating new business models.

• Improved interaction between

manufacturing industries and technology

solution providers.

• Virtual models and prototypes of

automation technology solutions.

• Conceptualized and modularized

solutions.

• Improving financial performance

• Increasing resource efficiency

• Identification and traceability of raw

materials,

• Individualised or simulation based

optimised products,

• Improving overall equipment

performance

• Increasing production flexibility

• Creating new business models for

interaction between customer and

manufacturer

Figure 1. Value constellation for implementation of digital technologies adopted from [55].

2.4. Sustainable Production through Digital Transformation

Sustainable production for a manufacturing industry corresponds to adopting strate-gies, actions, and activities that meet the current needs and necessities of the company whileprotecting, sustaining, and enhancing resources that will be needed in the future [57]. Thesustainable production output aims to use non-polluting, energy-efficient, economicallyviable, safe, and healthful processes and production systems for employees, communities,

Sustainability 2022, 14, 4794 7 of 20

and consumers [57,58]. Sustainability goals can range from energy efficiencies and resilienceto considering new forms of value related to products such as recycling and remanufactur-ing and product development in a resource-constrained world using a significantly loweramount of material and energy [59].

Sustainable practices should extend to all phases of a product’s life cycle and toall stakeholders in the production value chain to achieve sustainability goals [28]. Toachieve these goals, the manufacturing companies may need to change production andconsumption profiles, economic structure, production technologies, institutions, and or-ganizational arrangements [60]. Incremental improvements to existing technologies maynot achieve these changes and often cannot happen without all stakeholders’ conscious,united, and focused efforts to strategically and systematically tackle the issue [60]. A valueconstellation perspective on sustainability practices can consider the required collaborationamong stakeholders to co-create some extent of sustainability goals and perform requiredchanges together.

3. Research Methodology and the Empirical Study

Methodologically, this research is exploratory and empirically based on case studies.Empirical data for this article was gathered and archived in a structured way by case studymethodology [61,62]. The case companies are 15 small companies operating in an industrialcluster where member companies provide automation solutions. The information about thenumber of employees, turnover (million euros), core competencies, products and customers,and collaboration with other SMEs at the cluster were analyzed. A summary of the focalcompany information is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Information on the case study companies collected through interviews (i), workshops (w),and the Retriever Business ™ database for financial data, fiscal year 2019 (1 Euro appr 10 SEK).

CompanyA–M

Number ofEmployees

Turnover(Million €)

Type of DataCollection Products and Customers

A 10 2 iw Design and manufacture special machines or robot cells andvision of inspection systems.

B 14 1.6 iwManufacture and assemble tools and production cells.

Developed special machines and offeredautomation solutions.

C 126 20.7 iw Design and supply robotic solutions. Provide maintenance,automation, and machine service.

D 13 6.4 iSupply automatic data capture technologies and factory

automation for manufacturing, retail, transportation,and healthcare.

E 65 34.6 iSupply tools, protection and equipment for the construction

and industrial sector. Delivering machinery andautomation solutions Providing service and maintenance.

F 11 2.1 iw Design, supply, and provide services for processautomation and robotics.

G 8 2.8 iw Design and provide services for end-to-end robot solutions.

H 49 27.4 i Design, develop, and manufacturingautomation equipment.

I 5 1.6 iw Design and supply tailor-made automation solutions.

J 3 1.3 iw Design and produce smart feeding, welding and insertionpress systems.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 4794 8 of 20

Table 1. Cont.

CompanyA–M

Number ofEmployees

Turnover(Million €)

Type of DataCollection Products and Customers

K 23 4.0 iw Design, supply, and provide automation equipmentservices and build new machinery process facilities.

L 19 3.6 iw Design and manufacture press tools, solutions for industrialautomation and special machines.

M 56 9.7 iw Design and supply automation equipment.

N 42 9.7 iw Design and production of parts for automotive, defense,MedTech, and marine industries.

O 50 10.1 i Producing plastic products for B2B.

The studied TSP companies (A-M), in the Southern part of Sweden, have customersin different manufacturing industries, such as different materials, e.g., polymer, wood,or different sectors, e.g., automotive or medical technology, and are often partnered withone (exclusive) or several robot suppliers. The manufacturing companies (N, O), in thesame geographical region, are also members of the cluster and use advanced automationsolutions in their production.

3.1. Data Collection

The interviews for primary data collection were prepared beforehand by studying twodifferent secondary data resources: (1) information about the company’s financial data (e.g.,turnover, profit, KPIs) collected from the Retriever Business™ database and (2) the websiteof the company, often containing movie clips of the studied TSP’s installed solutions andits offering to its customers. The website for several studied case companies could serveas a virtual study visit to become familiarized with the company before an interview.The interviews were conducted between fall 2020 and spring 2021. The interviews wereheld online via the Zoom application with experts at companies knowledgeable aboutthe company’s processes and management; in most cases, this was the managing directorand, in a few cases, the person responsible for technology sales with customer contactand market responsibilities. The interview sessions started with an introduction of theparticipants explaining the aim of the interview. Each interview lasted approximately 30 to40 min and was recorded with the participant’s permission. Three guiding questions wereasked about their key collaborative partners, explaining their core competencies and twokey challenges they face in developing automation solutions. Interviews were conductedin Swedish, and the main author transcribed the data collected first into Swedish andthen translated the data into English. Two of the co-authors conducted the interviews andreviewed the translation.

Additional data were collected during two workshops with participants from 29 dif-ferent companies: the TSPs and manufacturing companies representing their customercategory. These workshops had the purpose of collecting data regarding the use of digitaltechnologies and innovative practices in the focal companies (the TSPs) and their manufac-turing customers. Each workshop was around three hours long, and data was gatheredthrough polls, discussion, and open questions.

3.2. Data Analysis: Thematic Analysis

The data collected through the individual interviews were analyzed through thematicanalysis. The thematic analysis technique is a common qualitative data analysis approachused to analyze interview studies [63]. The thematic analysis offers a structured processof identifying themes emerging from data through six phases ([63]). These phases areexplained in the following.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 4794 9 of 20

• Phase 1, becoming familiar with the data: The authors read and discussed the tran-scribed interviews several times to become familiar with the data set.

• Phase 2, generating initial codes: The initial codes were developed after reading thecollected data in an excel file. The excel file was used to summarize the collecteddata in a structured way. Initial codes were created based on the main categories ofcollaborative partners (strategic suppliers, customers, strategic partners, and serviceproviders), core competencies, and challenges.

• Phase 3, searching for themes: In the next step, initial themes were identified bycombining relevant codes.

• Phase 4, reviewing themes: The initial themes were reviewed to find the possibilitiesof merging themes into one or dividing one theme into subthemes.

• Phase 5, defining and naming themes, and phase 6, producing the report: The iden-tified themes were defined in a structured way. The analysis results are presentedin empirical findings, linking the quotes from interviews to defined codes and rele-vant themes.

• Phase 6, producing a report that relates back to the research questions.

In the following section, the empirical findings are presented as a result of an analysisapplying the six phases.

3.3. Empirical Findings

Based on the transcription of the collected data from the semi-structured interviewswith respondents from the 15 companies representing both automation solution providersand manufacturing SMEs selling advanced manufacturing as a service, the data set wasorganized and analyzed thematically. The three main thematic areas that were identifiedduring the analysis of the collected data were (1) core competencies, (2) challenges, and (3)business collaboration models.

First, the thematic analysis related to core competencies is presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Thematic analysis of the core competencies.

Quotes Codes Themes

“We have high competence in electrical design, assembly andPLC programming.” Design

Inhouse

Technicalcapabilities

“We are responsible for the actual programming and mechanical design.”“We can help customers design these products and then assemble them.”

“We work with automation solutions in the form of smart productionlines and in combination with industrial robots.” Hardware

development“We build the designed machine from the smallest screw tofinished product.”

“We have two legs in the business, partly that we act as toolmakersblackmail and development tools in various forms and the other leg is

just automation and Special machine.”“We are the manufacturer of special manufacturing machines.”

“We have an automation control system, automation programming andengineering knowledge.”

Softwaredevelopment

“We outsource almost all manufacturing of components.”

Hardwaredevelopment Outsourced to

collaborativepartners

“The competence is mechanics, so movements and if we continue tocollaborate with our toolmakers, we have very good precision. The idea

is also to build machine automation solutions with the same basicphilosophy. We have an incredibly broad knowledge of different

technologies and many different things precisely.”

“We work with big companies to provide high technical software.” Softwaredevelopment“We are responsible for the actual programming and mechanical design.”

Sustainability 2022, 14, 4794 10 of 20

Table 2. Cont.

Quotes Codes Themes

“We are actually a complete provider of mechatronics solutions.”System integrating

Projectmanagement

“We have expert project managers such as mechanics, designers orprogrammers, electricity and automation to provide the whole solution.”

“Our organization is customer-oriented and flexible in deliveringintelligent machines that are simple to handle.”

Customer-oriented organization

“We are competing in a market where there are many who manufactureequipment for making pallets, but they are not so user-friendly, not as

automated as we work with robots.”“We can do a lot of rebuilds on the machines and in that way maybe buy

a standard product, but then adapt it to the customers and thecustomers’ needs.”

“We have a stable position in the market. We are the leading player intechnical solutions and customers in Scandinavia in large part of the

automotive industry.”Strong market position

“We have a good collaboration with toolmakers, customers andcompanies who write a program with us.”

Collaborative partners Collaboration“We want to deepen our collaboration with universities to research the

future of production systems more.”

We categorized TSPs’ core competencies based on four main themes: technical capa-bilities, flexible solution development process, collaboration, and sale performance. Thetechnical capabilities were the main discussed core competency from the TSPs perspective.TSPs have a variety of in-house technical capabilities in designing products, hardware, andsoftware development. They can also outsource the hardware and software developmentto their collaborative partners. TSPs can play the role of a system integrator to provide awhole solution to their customers.

In Table 3, the thematic analysis related to challenges for TSPs is summarized basedon the 15 semi-structured company interviews. According to the interviews, finding acompetent workforce to develop automation solutions is a primary challenge for TSPs.Moreover, managing large projects with large customers or having various projects inparallel is challenging for TSPs due to many adjustments being required to develop atailor-made automation solution.

Table 3. Thematic analysis of the challenges.

Quotes Codes Themes

“The difficulty is to automate so many adjustments and many projects that donot get off because there are too many components. We have to re-configure the

machine in a year and a half or two years.”

High level ofadjustments

Tailor-made solutiondevelopment

“We struggle the most on the profitability of the tailor-madesolution development.”

Profitability“Another challenge is also the price pressure. We have staff costs in Sweden thatare too expensive.”

“In the project, if one of our suppliers drops out, the project will begreatly delayed.”

High reliance onsuppliers

Sustainability 2022, 14, 4794 11 of 20

Table 3. Cont.

Quotes Codes Themes

“Well skilled workforces are difficult to find due to lack of knowing theSwedish language.”

Workforce skill

Resource management

“Finding a competent person is a challenge, and we are trying to collaboratewith schools to overcome that.”

“Finding automation engineers are a huge challenge.”“The biggest challenge is to both retain and be able to add staff with the

right skills.”“To attract young people and attract the right young people.”

“Working with a big project and large company is difficult due toless profitability.”

Projectmanagement

In Table 4, the thematic analysis related to the type of collaboration is presented.Collaboration motivations are mainly regarded as sharing knowledge and resources amongTSPs and their collaborative partners. Moreover, offering a complete solution is an essentialmotivation for TSPs to create value for their customers.

Table 4. Thematic analysis of the business collaboration models.

Quotes Codes Themes

“We create value by adapting the machine and then addingour partners, tools, and further service and maintenance to

ensure we have a complete solution.”Offering a complete solution

Motivations for collaboration

“The basic idea is that we can keep our three automationcompanies and have variously knowledgeable and

specialized skills in three pointed segments.”

Synergetic values of combiningknowledge and specialized

skills

“We work quite a lot with partners who may haveknowledge in our field.” Sharing knowledge

“We are three companies that we cooperate with together.When we need real key competence or someone who is very

good at something, then we can borrow betweenthe companies.”

Sharing resources

In Table 5, the perspective of TSPs on sustainability and the important aspects forthem are summarized. We found diverse themes, including sustainable partner selection,economy, and sustainable business model, regarding environmental sustainability to reducepollution, waste management and recycling, and energy consumption.

Table 5. Thematic analysis of TSPs’ perspective on sustainability.

Quotes Codes Themes

“I think that if you can choose between a supplier who can offer asustainable solution and it does not cost much extra, it is preferable.”

Sustainable partnerselection

Sustainability“We internally talk about economic and social sustainability, but they are not

easy to implement. We cannot easily purchase them”.Economy“In terms of sustainability, customers are most interested in the financial

perspective. As little waste as possible is part of this, and then an efficientproduction facility is a key to an actual and standardized routine.”

Sustainability 2022, 14, 4794 12 of 20

Table 5. Cont.

Quotes Codes Themes

“Sustainability usually comes down to consumption. Consumption of moreelectricity, water, hydraulics, and cooling.”

Energy consumption“We build energy-efficient, automation solutions. For example, we try toavoid compressed air, which is quite expensive energy. It is an expensive

energy source that uses a lot of energy to produce compressed air.”“We plan to install solar cells on the entire roof of our company.”

“We are looking at a new carpool that the whole company is going through.” Pollution

“For green sustainability, we re-use 98 percent of the left-over materials andrecycle the waste.” Recycle

“Despite a customer that works with the sustainability issue, it is incrediblylow on the agenda. In principle, we never have any demands from

customers on that topic.” Customer demand“The ambition for sustainability is probably there, especially with the large

customers who are on the stock exchange.”

We highlight some environmental aspects on our website, but we believethat we need to have a sustainable business model.”

Sustainable businessmodel

4. Analysis4.1. TSPs’ Challenges and Internal Barriers toward Digital Transformation and Sustainability

As Kumar et al. [4] mentioned, some of the challenges surrounding adopting I4.0technologies for sustainability might be related to a lack of collaboration and coordinationin the supply chain. Moreover, the SMEs in the manufacturing industry may not havededicated resources for research and development. Based on the empirical findings, weargue that although collaboration can be challenging, collaboration with TSPs can helpthe SMEs in the manufacturing industry to overcome some challenges of adopting digitaltechnologies. However, even TSPs face challenges regarding adopting digital technologies(see Table 6). Still, their core business, which is to develop automated solutions for manu-facturing companies, contributes to the customers’ needs and transition towards a moredigitalized manufacturing system. In the empirical findings, it was shown that TSPs havebroad and deep skills in hardware and software technologies as well as high experience inproject management, with the ability to integrate customer needs with the supply chainand the development of automated production system solutions. The findings indicate thatTSPs can be a key partner in a value constellation when providing critical competencies forthe manufacturing company. Moreover, based on the interviews, finding competent peopleto employ, managing large projects, or having multiple projects in parallel is challenging forTSPs. Therefore, TSPs can benefit from identifying and collaborating with different partnersto share resources and knowledge to mitigate human resource management problems.

Table 6. Challenges of developing and implementing digital technologies from empirical findings.

TSPs’ Challenges

Challenges of developing and implementingdigital technologies for TSPs

High level of adjustments to provide a tailor-made production solution

The complicated long-term process to adapt, implement, operate, and optimizedigital technologies

Finding a competent workforce for tailor-made solution development

Managing large projects of updating current technology or installing new ones

As Neri et al. [31] classified, industrial SMEs may hardly consider sustainability forimproving their relationships with their customers or other stakeholders. The internalbarriers of TSPs, based on their [31] classification, can be summarized in three aspects of

Sustainability 2022, 14, 4794 13 of 20

the organization, management and workforce behavior, and innovation and economics.Based on the empirical findings, TSPs have an ambition toward sustainability, but we didnot observe an organizational system to support the desire for contributing to sustainableproduction in SMEs in the manufacturing industry. One organizational reason can belimited staff and lower priorities for managers due to lack of demand from customers. Wefound few actions toward a more sustainable workplace at the TSPs, such as installing solarcells on the company’s roof and recycling waste. We mostly interviewed the managers andobserved sustainability awareness among them in their management behavior. Regardingthe innovation and economic barriers, TSPs have high staff costs, and they are also underpressure for the final product price, usually the developed automation solution. Therefore,the economics of commitment to sustainability is essential for them. For example, one of therespondents mentioned that a supplier who can offer a sustainable solution that does notadd much extra cost could be prefered for supplier selection. In addition, we observed thatthe market could play an important part in TSPs’ commitment to sustainability for externalbarriers. Currently, the ambition for sustainability can be observed in large customerson the stock exchange, but it is not an explicit demand from their customers yet. Theircustomers are mostly interested in the financial perspective in terms of sustainability. Thesummary of internal and external barriers related to practice sustainability by a TSP ispresented in Table 7.

Table 7. Summary of external and internal barriers to sustainability among TSPs.

Sustainability Barriers for TSPs

External Market Lack of motivation and demand from customers andcollaborative partners.

Internal

Innovation and economic

Cost of high-skilled staff,High pressure for the product price,

Lack of profitability and financial motivation for asustainable solution.

Organizational Lack of a supporting organization for sustainability due to limitedstaff and lower priorities.

Management and workforce behavior Low priorities for managers due to lack of demand from customers.

The value constellation perspective considers the required collaboration among anetwork of companies to co-create values. Sustainability can be considered as an essentialco-created value from interactions among a constellation of TSPs and technology consumers,i.e., companies in the manufacturing industry. A value constellation for sustainability canhelp TSPs and manufacturing industries improve beyond the essential reduction of waste,energy, and material consumption, creating financial and social values, mitigating risk, andimproving resilience.

In summary, we found in the empirical study that TSPs had not expressed that sustain-ability has a high priority in their project management process during the interviews. Theyface challenges in terms of a lack of staff, economic aspects of sustainable business, and lowdemands for sustainability from their customers. However, even with low demand fromcustomers, TSPs try to provide energy-efficient solutions for their customers. Therefore,there is a potential to increase their commitment to sustainability by motivating a higherdemand from customers in the value constellation. As shown in Figure 2, the demand forsustainable production solutions, shown with a dotted line, is lacking in manufacturingindustries. Therefore, TSPs implicitly provide sustainable solutions that will not cost extrafor their customers.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 4794 14 of 20

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 20

In summary, we found in the empirical study that TSPs had not expressed that sus-

tainability has a high priority in their project management process during the interviews.

They face challenges in terms of a lack of staff, economic aspects of sustainable business,

and low demands for sustainability from their customers. However, even with low de-

mand from customers, TSPs try to provide energy-efficient solutions for their customers.

Therefore, there is a potential to increase their commitment to sustainability by motivating

a higher demand from customers in the value constellation. As shown in Figure 2, the

demand for sustainable production solutions, shown with a dotted line, is lacking in man-

ufacturing industries. Therefore, TSPs implicitly provide sustainable solutions that will

not cost extra for their customers.

Figure 2. Illustration of demand flow from manufacturing companies and sustainable production

solution development by TSPs. Dotted arrows indicate the lacking demand from manufacturing

companies and consequently lack of providing an explicit sustainable solution from TSPs an an ex-

tra cost.

The value constellation perspective considers the required collaboration among a

network of companies to co-create values. Sustainability can be considered as an essential

co-created value from interactions among a constellation of TSPs and technology consum-

ers, i.e., companies in the manufacturing industry . A value constellation for sustainability

can help TSPs and manufacturing industries improve beyond the essential reduction of

waste, energy, and material consumption, creating financial and social values, mitigating

risk, and improving resilience.

4.2. A Conceptual Collaborative Process for Sustainable Tailor-Made Solution Development

Collaboration in the proposed value constellation can solve some challenges that TSPs and

manufacturing companies are facing in resource limitation, financial motivation, and lack

of demand. However, how the TSPs and manufacturing companies can successfully col-

laborate to achieve sustainability needs to be discussed. Therefore, we developed a con-

ceptual collaborative process model for sustainable tailor-made solution development

based on the empirical findings and reviewed literature, shown in Figure 3.

Figure 2. Illustration of demand flow from manufacturing companies and sustainable productionsolution development by TSPs. Dotted arrows indicate the lacking demand from manufacturingcompanies and consequently lack of providing an explicit sustainable solution from TSPs an anextra cost.

4.2. A Conceptual Collaborative Process for Sustainable Tailor-Made Solution Development

Collaboration in the proposed value constellation can solve some challenges that TSPsand manufacturing companies are facing in resource limitation, financial motivation, andlack of demand. However, how the TSPs and manufacturing companies can successfullycollaborate to achieve sustainability needs to be discussed. Therefore, we developed aconceptual collaborative process model for sustainable tailor-made solution developmentbased on the empirical findings and reviewed literature, shown in Figure 3.

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 20

Figure 3. Suggested collaborative process model for developing sustainable production solutions,

further developed from Rahmana et al. [19] (p.4) with inspiration from Brown et al. [44] (p. 12).

In the first step, the need for collaboration for sustainability should be identified by

TSPs. The proposed model highlights the need for social, environmental, and economic

sustainability along with collaboration performance and innovation outcomes. As

Brown et al. [44] discussed, the motivation and cultural elements are as important as tech-

nical capabilities in collaboration for sustainability.

In the next step, the collaborative partners can be selected in accordance with the

collaboration strategy. Collaboration strategy is defined based on the attributes discussed

for the collaborative approach and collaboration arrangement in [19]. The collaboration

approach can be explorative (exploring new collaborative relations) or exploitative (im-

proving the current collaboration) [19]. The partner selection step focuses on finding new

collaborative partners based on the collaboration strategy in an explorative strategy.

Hence, in an exploitative strategy, the emphasis is on strengthening the relationship with

the current partners.

Moreover, in the literature, partner selection criteria have been mostly discussed re-

garding collaboration type, e.g., joint venture or strategic alliance [47–50]. Therefore, in

the proposed model, we considered the partner selection step connected with the collab-

orative type, i.e., strategic alliances, joint ventures, licensing, outsourcing, and a collective

research organization. In addition, we further extended the partner selection step in the

collaborative process presented in [44] to consider all three pillars of economic, environ-

mental, and social sustainability compared to conventional partner selection that mainly

focuses on economic aspects discussed in detail in [51].

After developing the sustainable collaboration strategy, collaborative actions can be

practiced to create values, as discussed in [19]. The created values can include a wide

range of associational and transferred resources, interaction, and synergetic values. Based

on the empirical findings, synergetic values of combining knowledge and specialized

skills from different segments, sharing knowledge, and sharing resources are essential in

collaborative actions.

Sustainable collaboration strategy development

Sustainable identifying and

selecting partnerIdentify the need of

collaboration for

sustainability

Outcomes

• Innovation (Product,Process, Market),

• Performance improvement

(Profitability, Survival, competitive advantages,

Sales growth)• Sustainability

Selection criteria

• Economic criteria

• Environmental criteria

• Social criteria

• Risk

Collaborative partners

Channel

collaboration

• Customers

• Suppliers

• Competitors

• Companies in

the same

network

Consulting

advice

collaboration

• Association

• Consultants

• Licensors

• Universities

Collaboration strategy

Collaboration arrangement

Collaborative

type

• Strategic

alliances

• Joint venture

• Licensing

• Outsourcing

• Collective

research

organization

Duration

• Short

term

• Long term

Strength of

ties

• Week

• Strong

Collaboration approach

• Exploitative

• Explorative

Collaborative actionsCollaboration resolution

Conflict resolution

• Conflict management and

relationship improvement

Collaboration evolution

Evolving collaboration strategy Created values

• Associational• Transferred Resource

• Interaction• Synergistic Values

• Evolution of collaboration

strategy based on achieving

joint goals

Figure 3. Suggested collaborative process model for developing sustainable production solutions,further developed from Rahmana et al. [19] (p.4) with inspiration from Brown et al. [44] (p. 12).

Sustainability 2022, 14, 4794 15 of 20

In the first step, the need for collaboration for sustainability should be identifiedby TSPs. The proposed model highlights the need for social, environmental, and eco-nomic sustainability along with collaboration performance and innovation outcomes. AsBrown et al. [44] discussed, the motivation and cultural elements are as important as tech-nical capabilities in collaboration for sustainability.

In the next step, the collaborative partners can be selected in accordance with thecollaboration strategy. Collaboration strategy is defined based on the attributes discussedfor the collaborative approach and collaboration arrangement in [19]. The collaborationapproach can be explorative (exploring new collaborative relations) or exploitative (im-proving the current collaboration) [19]. The partner selection step focuses on finding newcollaborative partners based on the collaboration strategy in an explorative strategy. Hence,in an exploitative strategy, the emphasis is on strengthening the relationship with thecurrent partners.

Moreover, in the literature, partner selection criteria have been mostly discussedregarding collaboration type, e.g., joint venture or strategic alliance [47–50]. Therefore,in the proposed model, we considered the partner selection step connected with thecollaborative type, i.e., strategic alliances, joint ventures, licensing, outsourcing, and acollective research organization. In addition, we further extended the partner selectionstep in the collaborative process presented in [44] to consider all three pillars of economic,environmental, and social sustainability compared to conventional partner selection thatmainly focuses on economic aspects discussed in detail in [51].

After developing the sustainable collaboration strategy, collaborative actions can bepracticed to create values, as discussed in [19]. The created values can include a widerange of associational and transferred resources, interaction, and synergetic values. Basedon the empirical findings, synergetic values of combining knowledge and specializedskills from different segments, sharing knowledge, and sharing resources are essential incollaborative actions.

The proposed model also extended the collaborative process presented in Brown et al. [44]by considering two critical steps of collaboration resolution and evolution steps inspired byReilly [37]. The collaboration resolution step aims to solve possible conflicts and improvecollaborative relationships between partners. We argue that collaboration resolution is criti-cal in assuring the success of the collaborative process for sustainability. In the collaborationevolution step, the collaboration strategy can evolve based on joint goals achievements toimprove the process continuously.

4.3. Collaborative Process Model as a Means to Facilitate TSPs’ Challenges

By the suggested collaborative process model (Figure 3), sustainable production solu-tions can be developed in value constellations, combining skills and resources from differentTSPs and their suppliers concerning the themes in Tables 2–5. We highlight the importanceof collaboration in managing the discussed challenges for TSPs in Tables 2–5 (Technicalcapabilities, Challenges, Business collaboration and Sustainability) either inhouse, withintheir organization, or through a strategic value constellation collaboration:

1. Technical capabilities

° Inhouse: TSPs have high skills in designing hardware, automation program-ming, mechanical design, problem identification about what to automate,and skills to support the manufacturing customer in how the product can beredesigned for a more efficient assembly.

° Value constellation: Through strategic collaboration, technical capabilities canbe in-sourced, i.e., from suppliers skilled in tool design and software. Moreover,if several TSPs collaborate on a joint project, an external project manager canact as a collaborative communication resource to the manufacturing customer.Furthermore, by strategic collaboration in a value constellation, understandingcustomer needs, integration of new technologies, and interaction with learning

Sustainability 2022, 14, 4794 16 of 20

organizations such as universities, the TSPs are on the competitive edge fordeveloping sustainable production solutions.

2. Challenges for TSPs

° Inhouse: TSPs manage to develop tailor-made solutions that satisfy the manu-facturing customers’ needs, but it can be challenging to reach proper profitabil-ity, especially when the production solutions are so dependent on supplyingcompanies’ deliverables.

° Value constellation: Resource management is a challenge since the business de-veloping sustainable production solutions demands highly skilled employees.Here, a strategic collaboration through a value constellation can be the key tosuccessful competitiveness for TSPs. However, this demands a collaborationbuilt on trust, a long-term collaboration with the educational organizations onall levels, and a work environment that attracts the right skills.

3. Business collaboration

° Inhouse: As a TSP, it is possible to add value to the manufacturing customersby adapting or upgrading existing machines to future needs and being flex-ible in managing customer needs. Furthermore, a TSP can offer service andmaintenance to its customers.

° Value constellation: Through a strategic collaboration, a TSP can motivatecollaboration to reach synergic values through a combination of knowledge andspecific skills, sharing knowledge between stakeholders and sharing resourcescollaboratively.

4. Sustainability

° Inhouse: The awareness about sustainability and the ability to offer sustainableproduction solutions are in place, but the challenge is related to the willingnessto pay for sustainable production solutions from the manufacturing customersexplicitly. Still, the manufacturing customers are mostly interested in thefinancial perspective. Meanwhile, the TSPs themselves implement differentsustainable solutions within their organizations.

° Value constellation: By implementing a strategic collaboration between differ-ent stakeholders, e.g., industrial companies, the public sector, standardizationinstitutes etc., TSPs can ramp up the capabilities in offering sustainable pro-duction solutions according to the transition in society, and here the ongoingdigital transition can be crucial for the manufacturing customers to manage.Through strategic collaboration in a value constellation, it can be possibleto facilitate a faster transition towards a willingness to pay for sustainableproduction solutions in the future.

However, as summarized in Table 7, there are still barriers to managing sustainabilityfor TSPs, especially related to customer demands, needs, and willingness to pay for sus-tainable solutions. Linking this to the ongoing “twin transition” [15], which focuses ona simultaneous digital and green transition combination, the TSPs can support the twintransition by combining their inhouse resources with a strategic collaboration in a valueconstellation. However, there is still a need for customer acceptance and willingness tomake the investments.

5. Conclusions and Future Research

This paper explored challenges that technology solution providers (TSPs) face whiledeveloping sustainable production solutions for manufacturing customers during theongoing digital transformation. Collaboration in value constellations has been explored asa potential way to manage the identified challenges that the TSPs face.

The findings of this study shed light on value constellations to implement sustain-able production solutions between TSPs as suppliers and manufacturing companies ascustomers. In the setting of a digital transformation, both technology solution providers,

Sustainability 2022, 14, 4794 17 of 20

i.e., TSPs, and technology solution consumers, i.e., manufacturing companies (buyingindustrial services from the TSPs), together can contribute to the development of sustain-able production solutions. However, our results show that sustainability requirementsfrom the customers are often vague or not explicitly paid for. Nonetheless, the TSPs havebeen shown to possess the capabilities to contribute to sustainable solutions supportedby digitalization utilization, such as developing automated solutions interacting with themanufacturing companies’ information infrastructure.

This paper suggests a collaborative process model (Figure 3), highlighting that collab-oration can facilitate TSPs in their efforts and needs to share resources and build long-termrelationships with different stakeholders. The model aims to support TSPs in strategicallyidentifying partnerships for collaborative projects. By utilizing the model, challenges thatTSPs face related to the ongoing digital transformation in society might be managed as theyparticipate in the development of sustainable production solutions. Furthermore, identify-ing collaborative partners in a value constellation can help TSPs provide efficient projectmanagement in large multi-organizational projects, including implementation, operation,and optimization of a production solution at the customer site by utilizing the ongoingdigital transformation. This trend of more complex, integrated and digitalized productionsolutions demands a competent workforce managing the emerging technologies, whichcould be identified for collaboration strategically through a value constellation.

The results from our studies, showing that manufacturing customers still prioritizefinancial parameters over sustainability aspects, while investing in production solutions,correspond with Brown et al. [44], who indicated that collaboration for sustainability andcircular economy had been a neglected field. Therefore, we further elaborated the col-laborative process presented in [44] by considering two critical collaboration steps in thesuggested collaboration model (see Figure 3): resolution, with the ambition to improve rela-tionships between stakeholders, and evolution, with the aim of developing a collaborativestrategy for reaching joint goals. Furthermore, the suggested collaborative process modelincluded how sustainability perspectives can be addressed during the collaboration.

In this study, we empirically explored the challenges of the technological transition ofindustries towards a greater focus on sustainability from the perspective of TSPs. The per-spective of technology consumers, i.e., manufacturing industries, can also be investigatedempirically in future research. This study proposes a conceptual model of a collaborativeprocess as an attempt to offer a practical solution toward sustainability in value constella-tions. Further research is needed to highlight the advantages and risks of collaboration inproviding a tailor-made technological solution for sustainable production. The proposedcollaborative process is not presented as definitive; instead, it presents a foundation forfurther empirical research to implement the process in future studies. Future research cantest the effectiveness of the process or its relevance to other types of SMEs.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.R., K.J., L.L. and A.Ö.R.; methodology, H.R., K.J., L.L.and A.Ö.R.; writing—original draft preparation, H.R.; writing—review and editing, H.R., K.J., L.L.and A.Ö.R.; visualization, H.R. and K.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version ofthe manuscript.

Funding: Authors acknowledge the cluster establishment funding by the European Regional De-velopment Fund and cluster partners. Furthermore, the authors acknowledge the SPARK researchenvironment at Jönköping University, funded by the Knowledge Foundation in Sweden, and theSwedish national program Produktion2030, funded by Vinnova, Sweden’s Innovation Agency andthe Swedish Energy Agency, for partly financing this research.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the cluster and the participating companiesfor their engagement in workshops, interviews, and company visits. The authors would also like toacknowledge the anonymous reviewers that helped us improve the paper substantially.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 4794 18 of 20

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References1. El Hilali, W.; El Manouar, A.; Idrissi, M.A.J. Reaching sustainability during a digital transformation: A PLS approach. Int. J. Innov.

Sci. 2020, 12, 52–79. [CrossRef]2. European Commission. SMEs and the Environment in the European Union—Technical Annex. 2014. Available online: https:

//op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/aa507ab8-1a2a-4bf1-86de-5a60d14a3977 (accessed on 13 March 2022).3. Denicolai, S.; Zucchella, A.; Magnani, G. Internationalization, digitalization, and sustainability: Are SMEs ready? A survey on

synergies and substituting effects among growth paths. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 166, 120650. [CrossRef]4. Kumar, R.; Singh, R.K.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Application of industry 4.0 technologies in SMEs for ethical and sustainable operations:

Analysis of challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 275, 124063. [CrossRef]5. 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. [CrossRef]

6. Kane, G.C.; Palmer, D.; Philips Nguyen, A.; Kiron, D.; Buckley, N. Strategy, Not Technology, Drives Digital Transformation.Available online: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/fr/Documents/strategy/dup_strategy-not-technology-drives-digital-transformation.pdf (accessed on 13 March 2022).

7. Vial, G. Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2019, 28, 118–144. [CrossRef]8. Wiesböck, F.; Hess, T. Understanding the Capabilities for Digital Innovations from a Digital Technology Perspective; LMU Munich,

Institute for Digital Management and New Media: Munich, Germany, 2018.9. Schönfuß, B.; McFarlane, D.; Hawkridge, G.; Salter, L.; Athanassopoulou, N.; de Silva, L. A catalogue of digital solution areas for

prioritising the needs of manufacturing SMEs. Comput. Ind. 2021, 133, 103532. [CrossRef]10. Patricio, J.; Axelsson, L.; Blomé, S.; Rosado, L. Enabling industrial symbiosis collaborations between SMEs from a regional

perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 202, 1120–1130. [CrossRef]11. Breque, M.; De Nul, L.; Petridis, A. Industry 5.0: Towards a sustainable, human-centric and resilient European industry. Publ. Off.

Eur. Union 2021, 1–44. [CrossRef]12. European Commission. Industry 5.0 n.d. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/research-area/

industrial-research-and-innovation/industry-50 (accessed on 13 March 2022).13. Zutshi, A.; Mendy, J.; Sharma, G.D.; Thomas, A.; Sarker, T. From Challenges to Creativity: Enhancing SMEs’ Resilience in the

Context of COVID-19. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6542. [CrossRef]14. Jones, M.D.; Hutcheson, S.; Camba, J.D. Past, present, and future barriers to digital transformation in manufacturing: A review. J.

Manuf. Syst. 2021, 60, 936–948. [CrossRef]15. European Commission. Green and Digital ‘Twin’ Transition also Spurs Inclusive ‘Eco-Recovery’ Mindset in Waste Management

n.d. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoap/about-eco-innovation/policies-matters/green-and-digital-twin-transition-also-spurs-inclusive-eco_en (accessed on 13 March 2022).

16. Esses, D.; Csete, M.S.; Németh, B. Sustainability and Digital Transformation in the Visegrad Group of Central European Countries.Sustainability 2021, 13, 5833. [CrossRef]

17. Feroz, A.K.; Zo, H.; Chiravuri, A. Digital Transformation and Environmental Sustainability: A Review and Research Agenda.Sustainability 2021, 13, 1530. [CrossRef]

18. Qi, Q.; Tao, F.; Hu, T.; Anwer, N.; Liu, A.; Wei, Y.; Wang, L.; Nee, A. Enabling technologies and tools for digital twin. J. Manuf.Syst. 2019, 58, 3–21. [CrossRef]

19. Rahnama, H.; Johansen, K.; Öhrwall Rönnbäck, A. Automation Technology Solution Providers’ Inter-organisational Collaborationfor Production Innovation. In Proceedings of the 2021 26th IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and FactoryAutomation (ETFA ), Vasteras, Sweden, 7–10 September 2021. [CrossRef]

20. Normann, R.; Ramírez, R. From value chain to value constellation: Designing interactive strategy. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1993, 71, 65–77.[PubMed]

21. Ramezani, J.; Camarinha-Matos, L.M. A collaborative approach to resilient and antifragile business ecosystems. Procedia Comput.Sci. 2019, 162, 604–613. [CrossRef]

22. Johansen, K.; Rao, S.; Ashourpour, M. The Role of Automation in Complexities of High-Mix in Low-Volume Production—ALiterature Review. Procedia CIRP 2021, 104, 1452–1457. [CrossRef]

23. Johansen, K.; Öhrwall Rönnbäck, A. Small Automation Technology Solution Providers: Facilitators for Sustainable Manufacturing.Procedia CIRP 2021, 104, 677–682. [CrossRef]

24. Camarinha-Matos, L.M. Collaborative Networks: A Mechanism for Enterprise Agility and Resilience. In Proceedings of the I-ESAConference, Albi, France, 26–28 March 2014; 2014; Volume 7, pp. 3–11. [CrossRef]

25. Geissdoerfer, M.; Savaget, P.; Bocken, N.M.P.; Hultink, E.J. The circular economy—A new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod.2017, 143, 757–768. [CrossRef]

26. Goodland, R. The concept of environmental sustainability. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1995, 26, 1–24. [CrossRef]27. Yacob, P.; Wong, L.S.; Khor, S.C. An empirical investigation of green initiatives and environmental sustainability for manufacturing

SMEs. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2019, 30, 2–25. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2022, 14, 4794 19 of 20

28. Vacchi, M.; Siligardi, C.; Demaria, F.; Cedillo-González, E.I.; González-Sánchez, R.; Settembre-Blundo, D. Technological Sustain-ability or Sustainable Technology? A Multidimensional Vision of Sustainability in Manufacturing. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9942.[CrossRef]

29. Dyllick, T.; Hockerts, K. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2002, 11, 130–141. [CrossRef]30. Li, X.; Cao, J.; Liu, Z.; Luo, X. Sustainable Business Model Based on Digital Twin Platform Network: The Inspiration from Haier’s

Case Study in China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 936. [CrossRef]31. Neri, A.; Cagno, E.; Trianni, A. Barriers and drivers for the adoption of industrial sustainability measures in European SMEs:

Empirical evidence from chemical and metalworking sectors. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 28, 1433–1464. [CrossRef]32. Savastano, M.; Amendola, C.; Bellini, F.; D’Ascenzo, F. Contextual Impacts on Industrial Processes Brought by the Digital

Transformation of Manufacturing: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 891. [CrossRef]33. Dornberger, R.; Inglese, T.; Korkut, S.; Zhong, V.J. Digitalization: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Stud. Syst. Decis. Control 2018,

141, 1–11. [CrossRef]34. Digitaleurope. Digital Action Climate Action: 8 Ideas to Accelerate the Twin Transition. 2021. Available online: https:

//www.digitaleurope.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/DIGITALEUROPE_Digital-action-Climate-action.pdf (accessedon 13 March 2022).

35. Calatayud, A.; Mangan, J.; Christopher, M. The self-thinking supply chain. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2019, 24, 22–38. [CrossRef]36. Gerlitz, L.; Meyer, C. Small and Medium-Sized Ports in the TEN-T Network and Nexus of Europe’s Twin Transition: The Way

towards Sustainable and Digital Port Service Ecosystems. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4386. [CrossRef]37. Reilly, T. Collaboration in Action: An uncertain process. Adm. Soc. Work 2001, 25, 53–74. [CrossRef]38. Patel, H.; Pettitt, M.; Wilson, J.R. Factors of collaborative working: A framework for a collaboration model. Appl. Ergon. 2011, 43,

1–26. [CrossRef] [PubMed]39. Hartono, E.; Holsapple, C. Theoretical foundations for collaborative commerce research and practice. Inf. Syst. e-Bus. Manag.

2004, 2, 1–30. [CrossRef]40. Lalic, B.; Tasic, N.; Marjanovic, U.; Delic, M.; Cvetkovic, N. Inter-organizational collaboration for innovation in manufacturing

firms. Int. J. Val. Aurea 2017, 3, 55–66. [CrossRef]41. Rodríguez, A.; Nieto, M.J.; Santamaria, L. International collaboration and innovation in professional and technological knowledge-

intensive services. Ind. Innov. 2018, 25, 408–431. [CrossRef]42. González-Benito, Ó.; Muñoz-Gallego, P.A.; García-Zamora, E. Role of collaboration in innovation success: Differences for large

and SMALL businesses. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2016, 17, 645–662. [CrossRef]43. Zahoor, N.; Al-Tabbaa, O. Inter-organizational collaboration and SMEs’ innovation: A systematic review and future research

directions. Scand. J. Manag. 2020, 36, 101109. [CrossRef]44. Brown, P.; Von Daniels, C.; Bocken, N.M.P.; Balkenende, A.R. A process model for collaboration in circular oriented innovation. J.

Clean. Prod. 2020, 286, 125499. [CrossRef]45. Xie, X.M.; Huo, J.G.; Zou, H.L. Green process innovation, green product innovation, and corporate financial performance: A

content analysis method. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 101, 697–706. [CrossRef]46. Brown, P.; Bocken, N.; Balkenende, R. Why Do Companies Pursue Collaborative Circular Oriented Innovation? Sustainability

2019, 11, 635. [CrossRef]47. Salavrakos, I.-D.; Stewart, C. Partner Selection Criteria as Determinants of Firm Performance in Joint Ventures: Evidence from

Greek Joint Ventures in Eastern Europe. East. Eur. Econ. 2006, 44, 60–78. [CrossRef]48. Kimiagari, S.; Keivanpour, S.; Jolai, F.; Moazami, M. Application of fuzzy group analytic hierarchy process in partner selection of

international joint venture projects. Sci. Iran. 2016, 23, 2959–2976. [CrossRef]49. Shah, R.H.; Swaminathan, V. Factors influencing partner selection in strategic alliances: The moderating role of alliance context.

Strat. Manag. J. 2008, 29, 471–494. [CrossRef]50. Wu, W.Y.; Shih, H.-A.; Chan, H.-C. The analytic network process for partner selection criteria in strategic alliances. Expert Syst.

Appl. 2009, 36, 4646–4653. [CrossRef]51. Badulescu, Y.; Hameri, A.-P.; Cheikhrouhou, N. Sustainable partner selection for collaborative networked organisations with risk

consideration in the context of COVID-19. J. Glob. Oper. Strat. Sourc. 2021. [CrossRef]52. Jovane, F.; Westkämper, E.; Williams, D. The ManuFuture Road: Towards Competitive and Sustainable High-Adding-Value Manufacturing;

Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2009. [CrossRef]53. Kritzinger, W.; Steinwender, A.; Lumetzberger, S.; Sihn, W. Impacts of Additive Manufacturing in Value Creation System. Procedia

CIRP 2018, 72, 1518–1523. [CrossRef]54. Dalmarco, G.; Ramalho, F.R.; Barros, A.C.; Soares, A. Providing industry 4.0 technologies: The case of a production technology

cluster. J. High Technol. Manag. Res. 2019, 30, 100355. [CrossRef]55. Rahnama, H.; Johansen, K.; Larsson, L.; Öhrwall Rönnbäck, A. Exploring digital innovation in the production process: A

suggested framework for automation technology solution providers. Procedia CIRP 2021, 104, 803–808. [CrossRef]56. Chen, C.-L. Value-Constellation Innovation by Firms Participating in Government-funded Technology Development. J. Glob. Inf.

Technol. Manag. 2020, 23, 248–272. [CrossRef]57. Koho, M.; Tapaninaho, M.; Heilala, J.; Torvinen, S. Towards a concept for realizing sustainability in the manufacturing industry. J.

Ind. Prod. Eng. 2015, 32, 12–22. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2022, 14, 4794 20 of 20

58. Veleva, V.; Ellenbecker, M. Indicators of sustainable production: Framework and methodology. J. Clean. Prod. 2001, 9, 519–549.[CrossRef]

59. Machado, C.G.; Winroth, M.P.; Ribeiro Da Silva, E.H.D. Sustainable manufacturing in Industry 4.0: An emerging research agenda.Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 58, 1462–1484. [CrossRef]

60. Weaver, P.; Jansen, L.; Van Grootveld, G.; Van Spiegel, E.; Vergragt, P. Sustainable Technology Development; Routledge: London,UK, 2017.

61. Yin, R.K. Applications of case study research. Appl. Soc. Res. Methods Ser. 2013, 34, 173. [CrossRef]62. Eisenhardt, K.M. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 532–550. [CrossRef]63. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. [CrossRef]