With a little help from our friends: The Role of Alliance Management Capability and Business Model Innovation for Achieving Sustainable Development Goals
在朋友的説明下： 聯盟管理能力和商業模式創新對實現可持續發展目標的作用

Abstract
抽象

As countries around the globe increasingly commit to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), firms are anticipated to support their respective nations’ agenda by actively contributing to the achievement of these SDGs. From a relational view, this study hypothesises a positive relationship between firms’ alliance management capability and SDG performance through business model innovation. A time-lagged survey was delivered to senior managers at the headquarters of large firms in Taiwan, and 1925 complete responses (1,114 responses from senior managers from 311 manufacturing firms and 793 responses from senior managers from 245 service firms) were collected. Relying on these responses, we found that firms’ alliance management capability can positively enhance SDG performance, (2) this direct effect is also mediated through business model innovation, and (3) these direct and mediating effects are both positively moderated by strategic flexibility, wherein such effects are more pronounced when firms’ have higher strategic flexibility. Taken collectively, the study’s findings help clarify and empirically establish the important role of the ability to effectively utilise external knowledge from inter-organisational collaborations to innovate their business and contribute to SDGs.
隨著世界各國越來越多地致力於實現聯合國可持續發展目標 （SDG），公司希望通過積極為實現這些可持續發展目標做出貢獻來支援各自國家的議程。 從關係角度出發，本研究假設公司的聯盟管理能力與通過商業模式創新實現的可持續發展目標績效之間存在正相關關係。 向臺灣大公司總部的高級管理人員進行了一項時滯調查，並收集了 1925 份完整的回復（1,114 份來自 31 1 家製造公司 的高級管理人員的回復和 793 份來自 245 家服務公司的高級管理人員的回復）。 依靠這些回應，我們發現公司的聯盟管理能力可以積極提高可持續發展目標的績效，（2） 這種直接影響也通過商業模式創新 進行仲介，以及 （3）直接和仲介效應是兩者都受到戰略靈活性的積極調節，其中 當公司具有更高的戰略靈活性時，這種影響更為明顯。 總的來說，該研究的結果有助於闡明和實證確立有效利用組織間合作的外部知識來創新業務併為可持續發展目標做出貢獻的能力的重要作用。

Keywords: Sustainable development goals; Sustainability performance; Alliance management capability; Business model innovation; Strategic flexibility.
關鍵詞：可持續發展目標;可持續性績效;聯盟管理能力;商業模式創新;戰略靈活性。

Introduction
介紹

Sustainable development is a crucial concept, defined by the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) as the ability to meet present needs without compromising future generations' capabilities. It encompasses a tripartite goal of economic prosperity, environmental protection, and social well-being (Azmat et al., 2023). The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the 2030 agenda introduced by the United Nations General Assembly in 2015, operationalises this concept through 17 global goals and 169 sub-targets designed to guide global policy toward a sustainable future (UN, 2015). These goals span environmental sustainability, social integrity, and economic growth (Foroudi et al., 2022; Gillani et al., 2022; van Gestel et al., 2023). SDGs have increasingly gained relevance for corporate entities (Azmat et al., 2023; Foroudi et al., 2022; George et al., 2016; Gupta et al., 2021). Particularly, SDG 8 and SDG 12, which emphasise social and eco-innovation, directly influence businesses (UN, 2015). SDG 8 aims to promote sustainable economic growth while ensuring access to quality employment opportunities (Rai et al., 2019). SDG 12 focuses on improving resource efficiency to build environmentally friendly workplaces (Filho et al., 2022). Together, these goals seek to establish conditions that encourage sustainable growth, efficient resource use, shared prosperity, and equitable work environments (Chams and García-Blandón, 2019). From a corporate perspective, firms are expected to contribute to economic growth while operating sustainably and ethically, driven by growing stakeholder demands for sustainability practices and transparency in environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting (Claudy et al., 2016; Pereira et al., 2023; Diwan and Amarayil Sreeraman, 2023; Lim et al., 2023).
可持續發展是一個關鍵概念，世界環境與發展委員會（1987年）將其定義為在不損害子孫後代能力的情況下滿足當前需求的能力。它包括經濟繁榮、環境保護和社會福祉的三方目標 （Azmat et al.， 2023）。可持續發展目標 （SDG） 是聯合國大會於 2015 年提出的 2030 年議程， 通過 17 個全球目標和 169 個子目標來實施這一概念，旨在指導全球政策走向可持續未來（UN，2015）。這些目標涵蓋環境可持續性、社會完整性和經濟增長（Foroudi等人，2022 年;Gillani et al.， 2022;van Gestel et al.， 2023）。可持續發展目標與公司實體的相關性越來越高（Azmat et al.， 2023; Foroudi等人，2022 年; George et al.， 2016;Gupta等人，2021 年）。特別是強調 社會和生態創新的 SDG 8 和 SDG 12 直接影響企業（UN，2015）。可持續發展目標 8 旨在促進可持續經濟增長，同時確保獲得優質就業機會（Rai et al.，2019）。SDG 12 側重於提高資源效率以建立環境友好型工作場所（Filho et al.， 2022）。 這些目標共同尋求創造鼓勵可持續增長、有效利用資源、共用繁榮和公平工作環境的條件（Chams 和 García-Blandón，2019 年）。從企業的角度來看，在利益相關者對可持續發展實踐和環境、社會和治理 （ESG） 報告透明度的需求不斷增長的推動下，公司有望為經濟增長做出貢獻，同時以可持續和合乎道德的方式運營（Claudy等人，2016 年;Pereira 等人，2023 年;Diwan 和 AmarayilSreeraman，2023 年;Lim et al.， 2023）。

Despite widespread commitment to the SDGs as evidenced by the growing body of research on corporate contributions to these goals (e.g., Al Lawati and Hussainey, 2022; Bradley et al., 2021; de Ruyter et al., 2022; Emma and Jennifer, 2021; Gillani et al., 2022), practical progress remains limited. About 72% of firms publicly declare their dedication to the SDGs, yet only 1% show substantial progress in achieving these targets (PWC, 2019), with many experiencing slow advancement (Yahya et al., 2021). In fact, many firms prioritise short-term financial benefits, which conflicts with long-term sustainability goals. This short-term focus often leads to the diversion of resources from sustainable development investments, with firms favouring immediate gains over long-term sustainability rewards (Financial Times, 2024; Kim et al., 2019; Schneider and Clauß, 2020). In addition, firms can have difficulties maintaining a healthy and educated workforce while cultivating the skills and knowledge needed for creating effective employees and responsible citizens who can collectively contribute to societal well-being. Given these challenges, building strategic alliances is critical for risk-sharing among partners, pooling resources, sharing knowledge, and fostering innovation essential for sustainability goals, notably highlighted by the traction gained from the collaborative approach advocated by de Bakker et al. (2019), Jiang et al. (2021), Martinez et al. (2019), Vlaisavljevic et al. (2016) and Vurro et al. (2023).
儘管對可持續發展目標的廣泛承諾從越來越多的關於企業對這些目標的貢獻的研究中可以看出（例如，Al Lawati和Hussainey，2022 年;Bradley 等人，2021 年;de Ruyter 等人，2022 年;Emma 和 Jennifer，2021 年;Gillani et al.， 2022），但實際進展仍然有限。大約 72% 的公司公開宣布他們致力於實現可持續發展目標，但只有 1% 的公司在實現這些目標方面取得了實質性進展（PWC，2019 年），其中許多公司進展緩慢（Yahya 等人，2021 年）。 事實上，任何公司都優先考慮短期財務利益，這與長期可持續發展目標相衝突。這種短期關注往往會導致資源從可持續發展投資中轉移，公司更傾向於眼前的收益而不是長期的可持續性回報（金融時報，2024 年;Kim et al.， 2019;Schneider 和 Clauß，2020 年）。此外，公司可能難以維持一支健康和受過良好教育的員工隊伍，同時培養培養能夠共同為社會福祉做出貢獻的高效員工和負責任的公民所需的技能和知識。 鑒於這些挑戰，建立戰略聯盟對於合作夥伴之間的風險分擔、彙集資源、共用知識和促進對可持續發展目標至關重要的創新至關重要，de Bakker 等人宣導的協作方法所獲得的牽引力尤為突出。（2019 年）， 江 et al.（2021 年），Martinez 等人。（2019），Vlaisavljevic等人。（2016 年） 和 Vurro等人。(2023).

While partnerships are crucial for addressing grand challenges like sustainable development, evidence suggests that success varies significantly among firms, with some outperforming others and a few even experiencing failures when engaging in strategic alliances (Ireland et al., 2002; Martinez et al., 2019; Schilke and Goerzen, 2010). As a complex system, strategic alliances can sometimes generate tensions from the partnership, imposing additional burdens on firms (Vurro et al., 2024). This also initiated a recent debate in the British Journal of Management on the effectiveness of SDG engagement through strategic alliances (Foroudi et al., 2023; Al-Tabbaa et al., 2023). One of the reasons could lie in the degree of alliance management capabilities possessed by firms (Al-Tabbaa et al., 2023; Anand and Khanna, 2000; Foroudi et al., 2023; Schilk and Goerzen, 2010). Alliance management capabilities are defined as the ability and routines of firms to capture, share, store, and deploy knowledge, experience, and learning related to alliance management (Bouncken et al., 2022; Kale and Singh, 2007). Alliance management capabilities differ from the alliance strategy in which alliance management capabilities focus more on receiving optimal advantages from strategic alliances by coordinating the resources (e.g., learning, accumulating, and leveraging alliance management know-how) (Bouncken et al., 2022; Kale and Singh, 2007). Sustainable development through collaboration and partnerships often involves mobilising resources to meet environmental and social objectives (de Bakker et al., 2019; Vurro et al., 2023). Alliance management capabilities, therefore, can help firms establish routines conducive to collaboration and partnership, ensuring the effectiveness of pursuing SDGs. Although the widespread recognition of the benefits driven by alliance management capabilities in many conceptual studies (as noted by Bouncken et al., 2022; Schilke and Goerzen, 2010; Vurro et al., 2023), there has been a lack of empirical research into the effects of alliance management capabilities, particularly regarding their impact on firms' pursuit of SDGs. By exploring how alliance management capabilities influence business model innovation and SDG performance, this study provides a more nuanced understanding that can help firms strategies more effectively. Hence, the present study is going to explore the following question: How do alliance management capabilities affect performance related to SDG 8 and SDG 12?
雖然夥伴關係對於應對可持續發展等重大挑戰至關重要，但有證據表明，企業之間的成功差異很大，有些企業的表現優於其他企業，有些企業甚至在參與戰略聯盟時經歷失敗（Ireland et al.， 2002; Martinez等人，2019 年; Schilke和Goerzen，2010 年）。作為一個複雜的系統，戰略聯盟有時會因合作夥伴關係而產生緊張局勢，給公司帶來額外的負擔（Vurroet al.， 2024）。 This 最近還在《英國管理雜誌》上發起了一場關於通過戰略聯盟參與可持續發展目標的有效性的辯論（Foroudi等人，2023 年;Al-Tabbaa等人，2023 年）。原因之一可能在於公司擁有的聯盟管理能力的程度（Al-Tabba a等人，2023 年;Anand 和 Khanna，2000 年; Foroudi等人，2023 年; Schilk和Goerzen，2010 年）。聯盟管理能力被定義為公司捕獲、共用、存儲和部署與聯盟管理相關的知識、經驗和學習的能力和例程（Bouncken等人，2022 年; Kale 和 Singh，2007 年）。 管理能力與聯盟戰略不同，在聯盟戰略中，管理能力更側重於通過協調資源（例如，學習、積累和利用聯盟管理知識）從戰略聯盟中獲得最佳優勢（Bouncken等人，2022 年; Kale 和 Singh，2007 年）。通過協作和夥伴關係實現的可識別發展通常涉及調動資源來實現環境和社會目標（de Bakker et al.， 2019; Vurro等人，2023 年）。因此，A lliance 管理能力可以説明公司建立有利於協作和夥伴關係的例程，確保追求 SDG 的有效性。 儘管在許多概念研究中廣泛認識到聯盟管理能力所帶來的好處（如 Bouncken等人，2022 年; Schilke和 Goerzen，2010 年; Vurroet al.， 2023），但一直缺乏關於聯盟管理能力影響的實證研究，特別是關於它們對公司追求可持續發展目標的影響。 通過探索聯盟管理能力如何影響商業模式創新和可持續發展目標績效，本研究提供了更細緻的理解，可以説明公司更有效地制定戰略。 因此，本研究將探討以下問題：聯盟管理能力如何影響與 SDG 8 和 SDG 12 相關的績效？

At the same time, business model innovation and strategic flexibility are crucial and should not be overlooked when examining the relationship between alliance management capabilities and SDGs (Barrales-Molina et al., 2013; Foroudi et al., 2023; Herhausen et al., 2021; Lange et al., 2015; Patzelt et al., 2008). Spieth and Schuchert (2018) discuss challenges within alliances—such as dynamic, relational, and architectural issues—that need integration into business model design, later developing a process model where firms collaboratively establish new business models (Spieth et al., 2021). Furthermore, Bouncken and Fredrich (2016) note that the structure of a firm’s alliance portfolio can significantly enhance the value derived from these relationships. Similarly, Velu (2015) finds that third-party alliances particularly boost business model innovation, especially in younger firms. Indeed, engaging strategic partners in new value-creating activity systems offers several benefits, including enhanced innovation and access to diverse resources (Al-Tabba et al., 2023; Bouncken et al., 2023; Schneider and Clauß, 2020). This reveals the importance of cultivating alliance management capabilities within firms, enabling alliances to control innovation costs more effectively, access a broader range of resources (e.g., knowledge and technologies), and distribute the risks associated with innovative activities of uncertain economic value (Spieth et al., 2020). Hence, alliance management capabilities are crucial for firms aiming to maintain business model innovations that respond to dynamic environmental demands (Arndt, 2019; Arndt, 2022). These capabilities can motivate firms to redesign products and services to better meet customer needs and, at the same time, engage with SDGs more effectively (Von Delft et al., 2019).
與此同時，商業模式創新和戰略靈活性至關重要，在研究聯盟管理能力與可持續發展目標之間的關係時不應被忽視（Barrales-Molina et al.， 2013; Foroudi等人。，2023 年; Herhausen等人，2021 年;Lange et al.， 2015; Patzelt等人，2008 年）。 Spieth 和 Schuchert （2018） 討論了聯盟中的挑戰，例如動態、關係和架構問題，這些挑戰需要整合到商業模式設計中，然後開發了一個流程模型，讓公司協作建立新的商業模式（Spieth et al.， 2021）。此外，Bouncken 和 Fredrich （2016） 指出，公司的聯盟組合結構可以顯著提高從這些關係中獲得的價值。同樣，Velu （2015） 發現第三方聯盟特別促進了商業模式創新，尤其是在年輕公司中。 事實上，讓戰略合作夥伴參與新的價值創造活動系統有幾個好處，包括加強創新和獲取各種資源（Al-Tabba 等人，2023 年; Bouncken等人，2023年;Schneider 和 Clauß，2020 年）。 這揭示了在公司內部培養聯盟管理能力的重要性，使聯盟更有效地控制創新成本，獲得更廣泛的資源（例如，知識和技術），並分配與具有不確定經濟價值的創新活動相關的風險（Spieth 等人，2020 年）。因此，對於旨在保持響應動態環境需求的商業模式創新的公司來說，管理能力至關重要 （Arndt，2019 年;Arndt，2022 年）。 這些能力可以激勵公司重新設計產品和服務，以更好地滿足客戶需求，同時更有效地參與可持續發展目標（Von Delft et al.， 2019）。

In addition, strategic flexibility is an organisation's capacity to handle economic and political risks by swiftly responding to market challenges and opportunities, either proactively or reactively (Grewal and Tansuhaj, 2001; Herhausen et al., 2021). Strategic flexibility is expected to amplify the impact of alliance management capabilities on business model innovation by enabling organisations to quickly adapt to changing market conditions and capitalise on emerging opportunities. Strategically flexible firms, capable of promptly responding to economic and political risks (Grewal and Tansuhaj, 2001; Herhausen et al., 2021), can more effectively leverage their partnerships. This includes better-initiating activities like pooling resources, knowledge, and expertise across alliances. Such adaptability fosters an environment conducive to innovation, enabling firms to respond swiftly to market dynamics and proactively exploit opportunities identified through their collaborative networks. In this way, strategic flexibility allows firms to refine and reshape their business models continuously (Arndt et al., 2022), incorporating new ideas, technologies, and practices sourced from their alliances to remain competitive and sustainable. Thus, firms that exhibit high levels of strategic flexibility are better equipped to optimise their alliance management capabilities, leading to more impactful business model innovations and, in turn, maintaining better SDGs.
此外，戰略靈活性是指組織通過主動或被動地迅速應對市場挑戰和機遇來處理經濟和政治風險的能力（Grewal 和 Tansuhaj，2001 年; Herhausen等人，2021 年）。 戰略靈活性有望放大聯盟管理能力對商業模式創新的影響，使組織能夠快速適應不斷變化的市場條件並利用新興機會。 戰略靈活的公司，能夠迅速應對經濟和政治風險（Grewal 和 Tansuhaj，2001 年; Herhausenet al.， 2021）可以更有效地利用他們的合作夥伴關係。這包括更好地發起活動，例如跨聯盟彙集資源、知識和專業技能。這種適應性營造了有利於創新的環境，使公司能夠快速響應市場動態並積極利用通過其協作網路發現的機會。 通過這種方式，戰略靈活性使公司能夠不斷完善和重塑其商業模式（Arndt et al.， 2022），結合來自其聯盟的新想法、技術和實踐，以保持競爭力和可持續性。 因此，表現出高度戰略靈活性的公司更有能力優化其聯盟管理能力，從而帶來更具影響力的商業模式創新，進而保持更好的可持續發展目標。

Drawing on the relational view, which emphasises the competitive advantages gained through strategic alliances by leveraging inter-organisational resources, knowledge-sharing, complementary capabilities, and effective governance (Dyer and Singh, 1998; Dyer et al., 2018), we hypothesise that alliance management capabilities are positively related to SDG performance, with business model innovation and strategic flexibility serving as a mediator and a moderator in the relationship, respectively. Using a structured survey and a multi-phase data collection process, we tested the conceptual model via SEM on a sample of large firms in Taiwan, including responses from 1,125 senior managers representing 314 manufacturing firms and 800 senior managers representing 247 service firms. Our findings reveal that (1) alliance management capabilities have a positive effect on SDG (SDG 8 and 12) performance, (2) business model innovation serves as a significant mediator between alliance management capabilities and SDG (SDG 8 and 12) performance, (3) strategic flexibility positively moderates the relationships between alliance management capabilities and business model innovation, as well as between business model innovation and SDG performance, and (4) firms' strategic flexibility moderates the positive impact of alliance management capabilities on SDG performance via business model innovation.
借鑒關係觀點，強調通過利用組織間資源、知識共用、互補能力和有效治理，通過戰略聯盟獲得的競爭優勢（Dyer 和 Singh，1998 年;Dyer et al.， 2018）中，我們假設聯盟管理能力與 SDG 績效呈正相關，商業模式創新和戰略靈活性分別是關係中的中介和調節因素 。使用結構化調查和多階段數據收集過程，我們通過 SEM 對臺灣大型公司的樣本測試了概念模型，包括來自 314 家製造公司的 1,125 名高級經理和代表 247 家服務公司的 800 名高級經理的回復。我們的研究結果表明，（1） 聯盟管理能力對 SDG（SDG 8 和 12）績效有積極影響，（2） 商業模式創新是聯盟管理能力與 SDG（SDG 8 和 12）績效之間的重要仲介，（3） 戰略靈活性積極調節聯盟管理能力與商業模式創新之間的關係，以及商業模式創新與 SDG 之間的關係績效，以及 （4） 公司的戰略靈活性通過商業模式創新調節聯盟管理能力對可持續發展目標績效的積極影響。

Our study makes four significant contributions. First, the current study extends the relational view theory by demonstrating the importance of alliance management capacity and how it can work with alliances to effectively catalyse resource (acquired from alliances) efficiency and thus achieve sustainable development goals. Our study aligns with Martinez et al. (2019) regarding the impact of internal capabilities on sustainability transitions. Meanwhile, we reveal that business model innovation is a critical mediator between alliance management capabilities and SDG performance, while strategic flexibility acts as a moderator, enhancing these alliances' impact on business model innovation and, ultimately, on SDG performance. This responds to the call by Jiang et al. (2021) for more nuanced studies on the interplay between organisational strategies and sustainable outcomes but also advances our understanding of how firms can leverage inter-organisational resources for sustainable growth. Our finding underscores the dynamic interplay between strategic flexibility and business model innovation in aiding organisations to meet their sustainability goals (Arndt et al., 2022), particularly SDGs 8 and 12. The study deepens insights into how relational rents are generated through strategic partnerships, providing valuable strategies for firms aiming to optimise alliances for sustainable growth. Second, our research highlights the critical role of business model innovation in facilitating sustainability transitions, demonstrating how strategic adjustments integrate alliance benefits into sustainability strategies, supporting SDGs 8 and 12 (Pedersen et al., 2018; Schneider and Clauß, 2020; Spieth et al., 2019). Our findings illustrate that business model innovation acts as a dynamic framework evolving in response to externalities, which is crucial for maintaining employment quality and resource efficiency within firms (Arndt et al., 2022; Bouncken and Fredrich, 2016a; Spieth et al., 2021; Velu, 2015).
我們的研究做出了四個重要貢獻。 首先，本研究通過證明聯盟管理能力的重要性以及它如何與聯盟合作以有效催化資源（從聯盟中獲得）效率，從而實現可持續發展目標，擴展了關係觀理論。 我們的研究與 Martinez 等人（2019 年）關於內部能力對可持續性轉型的影響一致。同時，我們揭示了商業模式創新是聯盟管理能力和可持續發展目標績效之間的關鍵仲介，而戰略靈活性則起著調節劑的作用，增強了這些聯盟對商業模式創新的影響，並最終增強了對可持續發展目標績效的影響。 這回應了 江 等人（2021年）的呼籲，即對組織戰略與可持續結果之間的相互作用進行更細緻的研究，但也促進了我們對企業如何利用組織間資源實現可持續增長的理解。我們的研究結果強調了戰略靈活性和商業模式創新在幫助組織實現其可持續發展目標方面的動態相互作用（Arndt 等人，2022 年），特別是可持續發展目標 8 和 12。 他的研究加深了對如何通過戰略合作夥伴關係產生關係租金的見解，為旨在優化聯盟以實現可持續增長的公司提供了有價值的策略。 其次，我們的研究強調了商業模式創新在促進可持續發展轉型方面的關鍵作用，展示了戰略調整如何將聯盟利益整合到可持續發展戰略中，支援可持續發展目標 8 和 12（Pedersen 等人，2018 年;Schneider 和Clauß，2020 年;Spieth et al.， 2019）。我們的研究結果表明，商業模式創新是一個回應外部性而演變的動態框架，這對於維持公司內部的就業品質和資源效率至關重要（Arndt et al.， 2022; Bouncken和 Fredrich，2016a;Spieth et al.， 2021; Velu，2015 年）。

Moreover, we establish the importance of internal capabilities in effectively managing external partnerships for business model innovation (Clauss et al., 2021; Hock-Doepgen et al., 2020; Mezger, 2014; Teece, 2018). This emphasises the need for robust internal management practices alongside external collaborations to achieve sustainable outcomes. Lastly, we highlight strategic flexibility's moderating role between alliance management capability, business model innovation, and SDG performance, enhancing relational rents and SDG outcomes (Dyer and Singh, 1998; Dyer, Singh, and Hesterly, 2018). Strategic flexibility serves both as an enhancer of capabilities and a resilience mechanism, essential for navigating complex paths toward sustainable development goals. This adds a novel dimension to the role of strategic flexibility in SDG performance, advocating for integrated approaches in capability development and alliance management.
此外，我們確定了內部能力在有效管理商業模式創新的外部合作夥伴關係方面的重要性（Clausset al.， 2021;Hock-Doepgenet al.， 2020; Mezger，2014 年;Teece，2018 年）。這強調了穩健的內部管理實踐以及外部合作以實現可持續成果的必要性。最後，我們強調了戰略靈活性在聯盟管理能力、商業模式創新和SDG績效之間的調節作用，增強了關係租金和 SDG 結果（Dyer 和 Singh，1998 年;Dyer、Singh 和Hesterly，2018 年）。戰略靈活性既是能力的增強劑，也是韌性機制，對於駕馭實現可持續發展目標的複雜路徑至關重要。這為戰略靈活性在 SDG 績效中的作用增加了一個新的維度，宣導在能力發展和聯盟管理方面採用綜合方法。

2. Theoretical foundations and hypotheses development
2. 理論基礎和假設發展

2.1. Relational view theory, alliance management capabilities and SDG performance
2.1. 關係觀理論、聯盟管理能力和 SDG 績效

Building on a resource-based view (RBV) (Barney, 1991), the relational view posits that competitive advantage could arise from resources accessed through its network of relationships (Dyer & Singh, 1998). Alliances offer significant strategic benefits by pooling distinct capabilities and facilitating access to complementary external resources, new knowledge, and ideas (Buckley et al., 2009; Park et al., 2004). These collaborations enable firms to create unique investments and foster shared learning processes, which are pivotal in producing relational rents—competitive advantages that are specific to the alliance and at the same time, are difficult for competitors to replicate (Dyer and Singh, 1998). This integration not only enhances efficiency but also broadens strategic scope, allowing firms to achieve objectives unattainable on their own. The relational view posits that alliance management capabilities play a crucial role in sustaining the effectiveness of these partnerships (Schilke and Goerzen, 2010). Alliance management capabilities include sharing, capturing, and deploying resources acquired through alliances to maximise partnership benefits (Vurro et al., 2024). Moreover, they enable firms to jointly create competitive advantages in their exchange relationships (Vurro et al., 2023).
基於資源的觀點（RBV）（Barney， 1991），關係觀點認為，通過其關係網路獲取的資源可能會產生競爭優勢（Dyer & Singh，1998）。 聯盟通過彙集獨特的能力並促進獲得互補的外部資源、新知識和想法，從而提供重要的戰略利益（Buckley 等人，2009 年; Park et al.， 2004）。這些合作使公司能夠創造獨特的投資並促進共用學習過程，這對於產生關係租金至關重要——這種競爭優勢是聯盟特有的，同時也是競爭對手難以複製的（Dyer 和 Singh，1998 年）。這種集成不僅提高了效率，還拓寬了戰略範圍，使公司能夠實現自己無法實現的目標。關係觀點認為，聯盟管理能力在維持這些夥伴關係的有效性方面起著至關重要的作用（Schilke和Goerzen，2010年）。 聯盟管理能力包括共用、捕獲和部署通過聯盟獲得的資源，以最大限度地提高夥伴關係利益（Vurro等人，2024年）。此外，它們使公司能夠在其交換關係中共同創造競爭優勢（Vurroet al.， 2023）。

Alliance management capabilities are pivotal for firms to pursue SDGs, particularly maintaining economic growth, and quality employment (SDG 8), and resource efficiency (SDG 12), respectively. These capabilities encompass inter-organisational coordination, proactiveness, transformation, and learning, and each helps achieve SDGs (Dyer and Singh, 1998; Lane and Lubatkin, 1998). Inter-organisational coordination involves identifying task requirements, understanding partner interdependence, and specifying execution procedures (Schreiner et al., 2009). The coordination maintains job quality and employment rates by ensuring uniform implementation of workforce initiatives across all partners. For instance, in a strategic alliance between two tech firms, effective coordination ensures that both parties uniformly implement agreed-upon workforce initiatives like upskilling workshops and innovation drives. This alignment supports equitable and fulfilling work environments that benefit the sustainable economic performance of a firm (Erten et al., 2022). Additionally, coordinated efforts help maintain resource efficiency and reduce waste in partnerships. By collaborating closely, firms can integrate innovative technologies and align operational strategies to minimise environmental impact, developing sustainable supply chains that optimise resource use (Bolton et al., 2021). The success of sustainability initiatives often depends on well-coordinated execution. When inter-organisational coordination is strong, the effective implementation of integrated products and shared knowledge across alliance partners can lead to significant sustainability advances if uniformly adopted (Kamalaldin et al., 2020). On the other hand, with low coordination, efforts may be disjointed and fail to achieve the intended goals (Bolton et al., 2021). Furthermore, in settings lacking authoritative governance mechanisms, coordinating across organisational boundaries is crucial. Effective coordination helps prevent misunderstandings, reduces conflicts, and curbs opportunistic behaviours, maintaining trust and cooperation within alliances (Clauss and Bouncken, 2019; Hoetker and Mellewigt, 2009; Schilke and Goerzen, 2010).
聯盟管理能力對於公司追求可持續發展目標至關重要，尤其是保持經濟增長、優質就業 （SDG 8） 和資源效率 （SDG 12）。這些能力包括組織間的協調、主動性、變革和學習， 每一種都有助於實現可持續發展目標（Dyer 和 Singh，1998 年;Lane 和Lubatkin，1998 年）。組織間協調包括確定任務要求、理解合作夥伴的相互依賴性和指定執行程式（Schreiner et al.， 2009）。 協調通過確保所有合作夥伴統一實施勞動力計劃來維護工作質量和就業率。 例如，在兩家科技公司之間的戰略聯盟中，有效的協調可確保雙方統一實施商定的勞動力計劃，例如技能提升研討會和創新驅動。 這種一致性支援公平和充實的工作環境，有利於公司的可持續經濟績效（Erten等人，2022 年）。此外，協調一致的努力有助於保持資源效率並減少 合作夥伴關係中的浪費。 通過密切合作，公司可以整合創新技術並調整運營戰略，以最大限度地減少對環境的影響，開發優化資源利用的可持續供應鏈（ Bolton 等人，2021 年）。可持續發展計劃的成功通常取決於協調一致的執行。當組織間協調很強時，如果統一採用，有效實施集成產品和跨聯盟合作夥伴共用知識可以帶來重大的可持續性進步（Kamalaldin等人，2020 年）。另一方面，如果協調性低，工作可能會脫節，無法實現預期目標（Bolton et al.， 2021）。此外，在缺乏權威治理機制的環境中，跨組織邊界的協調至關重要。有效的協調有助於防止誤解、減少衝突、遏制機會主義行為，維護聯盟內部的信任與合作（Clauss和Bouncken，2019年; Hoetker和Mellewigt，2009 年; Schilke和 Goerzen，2010 年）。

Alliance proactiveness is “a company’s efforts to identify potentially valuable partnering opportunities” (Sarkar et al., 2001: 702). This is grounded in routines that link opportunity recognition (e.g., for sustainable development projects) with the proactive initiation of alliances to address those opportunities (Schilke and Goerzen, 2010). This proactivity is a driver for SDG achievement. This is because environmental proactivity differentiates firms that actively implement practices and initiatives aimed at improving sustainability, thus making a bold impact and those that only react to external requirements and pressures, such as governmental regulations regarding pollution or reporting (González-Benito and González-Benito, 2006). Proactivity in alliances allows firms to implement practices and initiatives that significantly promote sustainable economic growth and work environment and target responsible consumption and production.
聯盟主動性是“公司為尋找潛在有價值的合作機會所做的努力”（Sarkar et al.， 2001： 702）。這是基於將機會識別（例如，用於可持續發展專案）與積極發起聯盟以解決這些機會聯繫起來的例行程式（Schilke和Goerzen，2010）。這種積極性是實現可持續發展目標的驅動力。這是因為環境主動性將積極實施旨在提高可持續性的實踐和舉措的公司區分開來，從而產生大膽的影響，而那些只對外部要求和壓力做出反應的公司，例如關於污染或報告的政府法規（González-Benito 和 González-Benito，2006 年）。積極主動地加入聯盟使公司能夠實施顯著促進可持續經濟增長和工作環境的實踐和舉措，並以負責任的消費和生產為目標。

Alliance transformation equips firms to adapt governance mechanisms—like revising contracts or altering coordination methods—to effectively respond to emerging challenges (Reuer and Zollo, 2000). This capability is particularly crucial in sustainable development initiatives that aim to transform organisational practices or supply chains, which are susceptible to various shifts and disruptions over time. Successfully adapting alliance structures and processes is essential to mitigate the impacts of changes in the economic, environmental, or regulatory landscape, preventing sustainability projects from derailing (Clauss and Tangpong, 2018; Heide and Miner, 1992). Such flexibility is vital for ensuring that sustainability initiatives are not only initiated but also seen through to completion without delays or premature termination, directly supporting and promoting economic growth, productive employment, and production patterns. By maintaining this adaptive capacity, firms can continuously align their collaborative efforts with evolving sustainability targets, ensuring their initiatives remain effective and relevant in promoting broader environmental and social progress.
聯盟轉型使公司能夠調整治理機制，例如修改合同或更改協調方法，以有效應對新出現的挑戰（Reuer和 Zollo，2000 年）。這種能力在旨在改變組織實踐或供應鏈的可持續發展計劃中尤為重要，因為隨著時間的推移，這些實踐或供應鏈容易受到各種變化和中斷的影響。成功調整聯盟結構和流程對於減輕經濟、環境或監管環境變化的影響，防止可持續發展項目脫軌至關重要（Clauss和 Tangpong，2018 年;Heide 和 Miner，1992 年）。這種靈活性對於確保可持續發展計劃不僅啟動而且完成而不延誤或過早終止至關重要，直接支援和促進經濟增長、生產性就業和生產模式。通過保持這種適應能力，公司可以不斷將其協作努力與不斷變化的可持續發展目標保持一致，確保其舉措在促進更廣泛的環境和社會進步方面保持有效和相關性。

Lastly, inter-organisational learning is key to maximising the value of collaborations (Dyer and Singh, 1998). As the achievement of SDGs was closely linked to processes, products and services (Herrero et al., 2021; van Der Waal et al., 2021), those firms will be better able to learn from their alliances. Learning facilitates the focal firm to improve its knowledge about market developments, technologies, and procedures (van Kleef and Roome, 2007). If inter-organisational learning is high, more complex, and tacit knowledge can be transferred. This also incorporates co-learning through which both partners utilise complementary competencies to create novel outcomes (Clauss and Kesting, 2017) and innovation (Rothaermel and Deeds, 2006). Due to the benefits brought by alliance management capabilities, we posit:
最後，組織間學習是最大化合作價值的關鍵（Dyer 和Singh，1998年）。由於可持續發展目標的實現與流程、產品和服務密切相關（Herrero et al.， 2021;van Der Waal et al.， 2021），這些公司將能夠更好地從他們的聯盟中學習。學習有助於重點公司提高其對市場發展、技術和程序的瞭解（van Kleef和 Roome，2007 年）。如果組織間學習很高，則可以轉移更複雜和隱性知識。這也包括共同學習，通過共同學習，雙方利用互補的能力來創造新的成果（Clauss和 Kesting，2017 年）和創新（Rothaermel 和 Deeds，2006 年）。由於聯盟管理能力帶來的好處，我們認為：

H1. Firms’ alliance management capability has a positive effect on their SDG performance.
H1. 公司的聯盟管理能力對其 SDG 績效有積極影響。

The mediating role of business model innovation
商業模式創新的仲介作用

Business models outline a firm's approach to creating and delivering value, from engaging customers to generating profits (Zott and Amit, 2010; Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart, 2010; Teece, 2010). Business model innovation is noticed as “designed, novel, and non-trivial changes to the key elements of a firm’s business model and/or the architecture linking these elements” (Foss and Saebi, 2017: 201). Business model innovation can either be a firm reaction to changing market conditions or a proactive strategic choice to develop the firm ahead of the competition (Clauss et al., 2021). Firms innovate their business models in response to various triggers, such as technological disruptions (Cozzolino et al., 2018), changing market conditions (Karimi and Walter, 2016), severe external crises (Clauss et al., 2022), or commitments to corporate sustainability, which require transformative changes to established business practices.
商業模式概述了公司創造和交付價值的方法，從吸引客戶到產生利潤（Zott和 Amit，2010 年;Casadesus-Masanell 和 Ricart，2010 年;Teece，2010 年）。商業模式創新被認為是 「對公司商業模式的關鍵要素和/或連接這些要素的架構進行設計、新穎和非平凡的改變」（Foss 和 Saebi，2017：201）。商業模式創新可以是對不斷變化的市場條件的堅定反應，也可以是在競爭之前發展公司的積極戰略選擇（Clauss et al.， 2021）。公司根據各種觸發因素創新其商業模式，例如技術顛覆（Cozzolino 等人，2018 年）、不斷變化的市場條件（Karimi 和 Walter，2016 年）、嚴重的外部危機（Clauss等人，2022 年）或對企業可持續發展的承諾，這需要對既定的商業實踐進行變革。

Alliance management capabilities play a crucial role in fostering business model innovation, particularly in contexts focused on sustainability. These capabilities enable firms to harness external resources and knowledge effectively, which are essential for innovating business models that contribute to SDGs. For instance, research indicates that firms with high alliance management capabilities are more successful in integrating and leveraging inter-organisational relationships for new product development and co-innovation, both critical components of business model innovation (Rothaermel and Deeds, 2006; Kauppila, 2015; Zahoor et al., 2023). Empirical studies suggest that proactive management of alliances facilitates the exploration and exploitation of external knowledge, enabling firms to co-develop innovative solutions and radically transform their business models towards sustainability (Inigo et al., 2020; Kauppila, 2015). This is effective when firms engage with partners whose capabilities complement or significantly differ from their own. Such strategic collaborations can provide access to novel ideas and practices that can be integrated into the firm’s business model, promoting agility and adaptiveness in rapidly changing markets (Bocken et al., 2014; Inigo et al., 2017). The ability to manage alliances proactively allows firms to align their innovation efforts with the SDGs effectively. By doing so, they not only meet their sustainability targets but also drive competitive advantage through differentiated business models that capitalize on sustainability-oriented innovation (Hock-Doepgen et al., 2020; Snihur and Wiklund, 2019). Therefore, enhancing alliance management capabilities is not merely about managing relationships but also about strategically utilizing these relationships to rethink and restructure the business models essential for achieving sustainable outcomes.
聯盟管理能力在促進商業模式創新方面發揮著至關重要的作用，尤其是在注重可持續發展的環境中。這些功能使公司能夠有效地利用外部資源和知識，這對於創新有助於實現可持續發展目標的商業模式至關重要。例如，研究表明，具有較高聯盟管理能力的公司更成功地整合和利用組織間關係進行新產品開發和共同創新，這兩者都是商業模式創新的關鍵組成部分（Rothaermel 和 Deeds，2006 年;Kauppila，2015 年;Zahoor等人，2023年）。實證研究表明，聯盟的主動管理有助於探索和利用外部知識，使公司能夠共同開發創新解決方案，並從根本上轉變其商業模式，以實現可持續性（Inigo 等人，2020 年;Kauppila，2015 年）。當公司與能力互補或與自身能力明顯不同的合作夥伴合作時，這種做法非常有效。這種戰略合作可以提供獲得新想法和實踐的機會，這些想法和實踐可以整合到公司的商業模式中，在快速變化的市場中促進敏捷性和適應性（Bocken等人，2014年;Inigo et al.， 2017）。主動管理聯盟的能力使公司能夠有效地將其創新工作與 SDG 保持一致。通過這樣做，他們不僅實現了可持續發展目標，而且還通過利用以可持續發展為導向的創新的差異化商業模式來推動競爭優勢（Hock-Doepgen 等人。, 2020;Snihur和Wiklund，2019 年）。因此，增強聯盟管理能力不僅僅是管理關係，還包括戰略性地利用這些關係來重新思考和重組對實現可持續成果至關重要的商業模式。

Business model innovations will have twofold effects on the SDG performance of focal firms. First, in line with previous research (Abdelkafi and Täuscher, 2016; Ludeke-Freund and Dembek, 2017; Pieroni et al., 2019), these transformed business models facilitate that firms can truly change their logic towards sustainability and establish a sustainability logic that drives strategies and resource allocations, in turn providing a much better breeding ground for quality employment and resource efficiency. Second, business model innovation has the potential to further strengthen how knowledge and resources from alliance partners can be transformed into production enhancement. As such, we postulate:
B實用模型創新將對重點公司的SDG績效產生雙重影響。首先，與之前的研究一致（Abdelkafi 和 Täuscher，2016 年;Ludeke-Freund 和 Dembek，2017 年;Pieroni et al.， 2019）的研究中發表的文章中，這些轉變的商業模式有助於企業真正改變其對可持續發展的邏輯，並建立驅動戰略和資源分配的可持續發展邏輯，從而為優質就業和資源效率提供更好的溫床。其次，商業模式創新有可能進一步加強將聯盟合作夥伴的知識和資源 轉化為生產增強的方式。 因此，我們假設：

H2. Firms’ business model innovation mediates the positive effect of their alliance management capability on SDG performance.
H2. 公司的商業模式創新仲介了其聯盟管理能力對SDG績效的積極影響。

The moderating role of strategic flexibility
戰略靈活性的調節作用

Strategic flexibility, viewed through the lens of the relational view, captures a firm's ability to adapt, change, and reconfigure itself in response to shifts within its network of alliances and external relationships (Brozovic, 2018; Sanchez, 1995; Teece, 2012). Defined as "the organisational ability to manage economic and political risks by promptly responding in a proactive or reactive manner to market threats and opportunities" (Grewal and Tansuhaj, 2001: 72), strategic flexibility is cultivated through structural and cultural conditions that empower firms to make bold, timely changes when strategically necessary (Bock et al., 2012). Doz and Kosonen (2010) argue that effective strategic management demands sensitivity to external shifts, a top management team's collective commitment to decisive action, and the ability to rapidly reallocate resources to meet new challenges. From the relational view, strategic flexibility strengthens a firm's ability to leverage its alliances effectively. Competitive advantages arise from strategic networks facilitating complementary resources, knowledge-sharing routines, effective governance, and relation-specific assets (Dyer and Singh, 1998). With strategic flexibility, firms can translate external insights from alliances into actionable strategies for business model innovation while achieving sustainable economic growth, quality employment, and resource efficiency. High alliance management capabilities can more effectively translate into business model innovation if the firm proactively undertakes holistic transformation rather than merely reacting to external pressures or regulations. Although alliance management capabilities may not directly shape strategic flexibility, they are optimized when a firm possesses inherent agility. With stagnant progress on SDG 8 and SDG 12 (Lim, 2022) and disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the importance of strategic flexibility in relational contexts becomes increasingly clear. This flexibility enables firms to adapt and realign their business models quickly, aligning them with these SDGs. Companies that harness strategic flexibility can use business model innovation as a catalyst for improved SDG performance by effectively tapping into alliances and external networks. Thus, strategic flexibility plays a crucial moderating role in ensuring that alliance management capabilities lead to successful business model innovation. Given the above, we propose:
從關係視角的角度來看，戰略靈活性捕捉了公司適應、改變和重新配置自身以應對其聯盟網路和外部關係內部變化的能力（Brozovic，2018 年;Sanchez，1995 年;Teece，2012 年）。戰略靈活性被定義為「通過積極主動或被動地迅速應對市場威脅和機遇來管理經濟和政治風險的組織能力」（Grewal 和 Tansuhaj，2001：72），戰略靈活性是通過結構和文化條件培養的，這些條件使公司能夠在戰略必要時做出大膽、及時的改變（Bock et al.， 2012）。 Doz 和 Kosonen （2010） 認為，有效的戰略管理需要對外部變化的敏感性、高層管理團隊對果斷行動的集體承諾以及快速重新分配資源以應對新挑戰的能力。從關係的角度來看，戰略靈活性增強了公司有效利用其聯盟的能力。競爭優勢來自促進互補資源、知識共用例程、有效治理和特定關係資產的戰略網路（Dyer 和 Singh，1998）。憑藉戰略靈活性，公司可以將來自聯盟的外部見解轉化為可行的商業模式創新戰略，同時實現可持續的經濟增長、高品質的就業和資源效率。如果公司積極進行整體轉型，而不僅僅是對外部壓力或法規做出反應，那麼高度的聯盟管理能力可以更有效地轉化為商業模式創新。 儘管聯盟管理能力可能不會直接影響戰略靈活性，但當公司擁有內在的敏捷性時，它們就會得到優化。隨著 SDG 8 和 SDG 12 的進展停滯不前（Lim，2022 年）以及 COVID-19 大流行造成的中斷，戰略靈活性在關係環境中的重要性變得越來越明顯。這種靈活性使公司能夠快速適應和重新調整其業務模式，使其與這些可持續發展目標保持一致。利用戰略靈活性的公司可以通過有效利用聯盟和外部網路，將業務模式創新作為提高可持續發展目標績效的催化劑。因此，戰略靈活性在確保聯盟管理能力導致成功的商業模式創新方面發揮著至關重要的調節作用。鑒於上述情況，我們建議：

H3. Firms’ strategic flexibility moderates the positive effect of alliance management capability on business model innovation.
H3.企業的戰略靈活性調節了聯盟管理能力對商業模式創新的積極影響。

H4. Firms’ strategic flexibility moderates the positive effect of business model innovation on SDG performance.
H4.企業的戰略靈活性調節了商業模式創新對SDG績效的積極影響。

H5. Firms’ strategic flexibility moderates the indirect effect of alliance management capability via business model innovation on SDG performance.
H5.企業的戰略靈活性調節了通過商業模式創新實現的聯盟管理能力對SDG績效的間接影響。

Our conceptual model is visualized in Figure 1.
我們的概念模型如圖 1 所示。

[Insert Figure 1 here]
[在此處插入圖 1]

4. Method
4.方法

4.1. Sample
4.1. 樣本

Method
方法

Sample
樣本

The conceptual model of this study was tested on a sample of large firms, with 500 firms from the manufacturing sector (89%) and 500 firms from the service sector (11%) in Taiwan. The firms were randomly selected from the Ministry of Economic Affairs of Taiwan and were in operation for at least five years (Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2022). The similarities between manufacturing and service industries are: (1) they are enthusiastic to engage in SDG 8 and SDG 12, which emphasise social and eco-innovation, directly influence businesses (UN, 2015). SDG 8 aims to promote sustainable economic growth while ensuring access to quality employment opportunities (Rai et al., 2019). SDG 12 focuses on improving resource efficiency to build environmentally friendly workplaces (Filho et al., 2022). (2) both manusfacturing and service sectors are eager to collaborat with their overseas alliances to reduce production carbon and environmental issues as well as health and safety issues including total employement as such (Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2023).
本研究的概念模型在大公司樣本上進行了測試，其中 500 家公司來自製造業 （89%） 和 500 家來自服務業的公司 （11%）。這些公司是從台灣經濟部隨機選擇的，運營至少五年（Ministry of Economic Affairs，2022）。製造業和服務業之間的相似之處是：（1） 他們熱衷於參與強調社會和生態創新的 SDG 8 和 SDG 12，直接影響企業（UN，2015）。可持續發展目標 8 旨在促進可持續經濟增長，同時確保獲得優質就業機會（Rai et al.，2019）。SDG 12 側重於提高資源效率以建立環境友好型工作場所（Filho et al.， 2022）。（2） 製造業和服務業都渴望與海外聯盟合作，以減少生產碳和環境問題，以及健康和安全問題，包括總就業人數（經濟事務部，2023）。

The selection of large firms in Taiwan was due to the fact that such large firms have resources to set up more than two alliances overseas and had the publicly SDG performance as required by the purpose of this study. A challenging part in this study was to explore the relationship among the alliances and determines whether and how alliances engage in senior managers’ management capability to achieve SDG performance by improving business model innovation under the impact of strategic flexibility. The selection of these industries was made based on their relevance to the variables in the study and also considering Taiwan’s dynamic, export-driven economy dominated by large firms. This sample was chosen to be representative of an East Asian economy where entrepreneurship and SDG practices are emphasized by government legislation, and large firms have more resources to engage in such practices (Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2022). Moreover, these large firms account for a significant proportion ( 57.8 percent) of total overseas investment (Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2022). The senior managers of these firms were targeted for data collection as they were expected to have the necessary knowledge and expertise related to firm alliance management capability, business model innovation, and performance. For example, the selection of senior managers were based on their professional knowledge in the issues such as employee health and safety, increasing total employment, increasing qualified employment, maintaining existing employment, and compliance with health and safety regulations, reducing environmental impact, lower energy consumed per unit, lower materials employed per unit, higher production or service provision flexibility, and higher production or service provision capacity, and the impact of business model innovation. The proposed relationships were tested through a two-phase data collection process.
選擇臺灣的大公司是因為這些大公司有資源在海外建立兩個以上的聯盟，並且按照本研究的目的要求公開了 SDG 的表現。 本研究的一個具有挑戰性的部分是探索聯盟之間的關係，並確定聯盟是否以及如何參與高級管理人員的管理能力，通過在戰略靈活性的影響下通過改善商業模式創新來實現可持續發展目標。這些行業的選擇是基於它們與研究中變數的相關性，並考慮了臺灣由大公司主導的充滿活力的出口驅動型經濟。該樣本被選為東亞經濟體的代表，該國政府立法強調創業精神和可持續發展目標的實踐，大公司有更多的資源來從事此類實踐（經濟事務部，2022 年）。此外，這些大公司佔海外投資總額的很大一部分 （57.8%）（經濟部，2022 年）。 這些公司的高級管理人員成為數據收集的目標，因為他們被期望具備與公司聯盟管理能力、商業模式創新和績效相關的必要知識和專業技能。 例如，高級管理人員的選擇是基於他們在員工健康和安全、增加總就業、增加合格就業、維持現有就業以及遵守健康和安全法規等問題上的專業知識。降低環境影響、降低單位能耗、降低單位使用的材料、提高生產或服務提供靈活性、提高生產或服務提供能力，以及商業模式創新的影響。 提議的關係通過兩階段數據收集過程進行了測試。

To address potential bias in the survey process, we adopted a multi-respondent approach to collect data from the headquarters (HQ) of the selected firms in Taiwan. This approach provides opportunities for corroboration and therefore, alleviates potential common method bias that arises from the single respondent design discussed in prior research that resorts to self-reported data from senior managers (Chang et al., 2024; Simsek, Lubatkin, Veiga, and Dino, 2009; Simsek, Veiga, and Lubatkin, 2007). Our multi-respondent design offers greater internal validity than the single respondent design adopted in prior research (e.g., Al-Tabbaa et al., 2023; Al-Tabbaa and Zahoor, 2023, 2024; Leischnig et al., 2014).
為了解決調查過程中的潛在偏見，我們採用了多受訪者方法，從選定的臺灣公司的總部 （HQ） 收集數據。這種方法提供了證實的機會，因此減輕了先前研究中討論的單一受訪者設計所產生的潛在通用方法偏差，該設計訴諸高級管理人員的自我報告數據（Chang 等人，2024 年;Simsek、Lubatkin、Veiga 和 Dino，2009 年;Simsek、Veiga 和 Lubatkin，2007 年）。我們的多受訪者設計提供了比先前研究中採用的單受訪者設計更高的內部效度（例如，Al-Tabbaa等人，2023 年;Al-Tabbaa 和 Zahoor，2023 年、2024 年;Leischnig et al.， 2014）。

In addition, the survey instrument was developed in English and then translated into Chinese by a native speaker, followed by back-translation to ensure accuracy (Usunier, 1998). The surveys were sent through postal delivery with pre-coded identification numbers and a cover letter explaining the research purpose and materials of research ethics. As an incentive, each firm was provided with a reciprocal report. Confidentiality of responses was assured, and no individual responses were accessible to anyone within the firm. To further encourage response rates, this study received support from the university’s alumni association. Following established procedures to enhance response rates (Podsakoff et al., 2003), the key informants received a full questionnaire survey pack, along with a first and second reminder comprising of a full questionnaire pack and telephone contact.
此外，調查工具是用英文開發的，然後由母語人士翻譯成中文，然後進行回譯以確保準確性（Usunier， 1998）。調查通過郵寄方式發送，並附有預先編碼的身份證號碼和一封解釋研究目的和研究倫理材料的求職信。作為激勵措施，每家公司都收到了一份互惠報告。確保回復的機密性，公司內部的任何人都無法訪問個人回復。為了進一步提高回復率，這項研究得到了該大學校友會的支援。遵循提高回復率的既定程式（Podsakoff et al.， 2003），關鍵資訊提供者收到了一份完整的問卷調查包，以及由完整的問卷包和電話聯繫組成的第一次和第二次提醒。

Common method bias
Common 方法偏差

To mitigate ex-ante common method bias (CMB), several procedures were implemented following the recommendations of Podsakoff et al. (2003). First, the measurement items were randomly organized within the survey to avoid order effects. Second, all items were neutrally worded to reduce the chances that respondents would guess the underlying theory while filling out the survey. Third, the length of the questionnaire was minimized to prevent respondent fatigue. Fourth, clear instructions for completing the survey instrument were provided to enhance response accuracy. Fifth, we collected data at three different time points (each time interval is 2 months). Finally, to reduce the influence of social desirability ( bias, confidentiality and anonymity were ensured for all respondents.
為了減輕事前通用方法偏差 （CMB），按照 Podsakoff 等人 （2003） 的建議實施了幾個程式。首先，在調查中隨機組織測量專案以避免順序效應。其次，所有專案都採用中立的措辭，以減少受訪者在填寫調查時猜測基本理論的機會。第三，問卷的長度被最小化，以防止受訪者疲勞。第四，為完成調查工具提供了明確的說明，以提高回答的準確性。第五，我們在三個不同的時間點收集數據 （每個時間間隔為2個月）。最後，為了減少社會期望的影響，確保所有受訪者的偏見、保密性和匿名性。

The survey questionnaire was administered to multiple senior managers from each firm’s headquarter across 1,000 headquarters in Taiwan. After excluding 126 incomplete responses, a total of 1,114 responses were obtained from 311 manufacturing firms and 793 responses from 245 service firms. The number of respondents ranged from 2 to 4. Among the respondent firms, 26.4% had been operational for over 15 years, and 72.3% employed a minimum of 500 employees. The average age of the firms was 9.58 years, and the average number of employees was 663.67. To assess non-response bias, we compared early (first 10%) and late (last 10%) respondents and found no significant differences in terms of firm age (t = 0.82 p = 0.41) or firm size (t = 1.04, p = 0.30) (Armstrong and Overton, 1977).
調查問卷對來自臺灣 1,000 家總部的每家公司總部的多名高級管理人員進行了調查。在排除 126 份不完整的回復后，總共收到了來自 311 家製造公司的 1,114 份回復和來自 245 家服務公司的 793 份回復。受訪者人數從 2 到 4 人不等。在受訪公司中，26.4% 已運營超過15年，72.3%僱用至少500名員工。公司的平均年齡為9.58歲，平均員工人數為663.67人。為了評估無反應偏倚，我們比較了早期（前 10%）和晚期（最後 10%）受訪者，發現公司年齡 （t = 0.82 p = 0.41） 或公司規模 （t = 1.04，p = 0.30） 沒有顯著差異 （Armstrong 和 Overton，1977）。

Measures
措施

The measurement items in this study were derived from prior research, and their wording and anchoring can be found in the Appendix. All items used a five-point Likert scale with endpoints of 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (strongly agree). To ensure the validity of the measurement items, a board comprised of five scholars and five managers was convened to pre-test the questionnaire, resulting in high face validity (0.90) and content validity (0.92).
本研究中的測量項目來自先前的研究，它們的措辭和錨定可以在附錄中找到。所有專案都使用五點李克特量表，終點為1（非常不同意）和5（非常同意）。為了確保測量專案的有效性，召集了一個由5名學者和5名管理人員組成的委員會對問卷進行預測試，結果產生了高表面效度 （0.90） 和內容效度 （0.92）。

The items used to assess alliance management capability were adapted and modified from Schilke and Goerzen (2010). A total of 18 items were used to measure firm alliance management capability (Appendix, α = 0.98, F (555, 1351) = 2.26, p < 0.001).
用於評估聯盟管理能力的專案改編和修改自 Schilke 和 Goerzen （2010）。共有18個專案用於衡量公司聯盟管理能力 （附錄，α = 0.98，F（555， 1351） = 2.26，p < 0.001）。

The items used to evaluate strategic flexibility were adapted from Grewal and Tansuhaj (2001). This measure captures the nature of the firm possessing liquid resources or options to enhance the speed and extent of its manoeuvring capabilities. A total of 5 items were used to measure strategic flexibility (Appendix, α = 0.74, F (555, 1351) = 1.97, p < 0.001).
用於評估戰略靈活性的專案改編自 Grewal 和 Tansuhaj （2001）。該指標捕捉了公司擁有流動資源或選擇以提高其操縱能力的速度和程度的公司的性質。共有 5 個項目用於衡量戰略靈活性（附錄，α = 0.74，F（555， 1351） = 1.97，p < 0.001）。

The items used to measure business model innovation were adapted from Von Delft et al. (2019). This measure captures the firm’s overall ability to create and capture value by including four interlocking elements: customer value proposition, key resources, key processes, and profit formula. A total of five items were used to measure business model innovation (Appendix, α = 0.77, F (555, 1351) = 1.61, p < 0.001).
用於衡量商業模式創新的項目改編自 Von Delft et al. （2019）。該指標通過包括四個環環相扣的要素來捕捉公司創造和獲取價值的整體能力：客戶價值主張、關鍵資源、關鍵流程和利潤公式。共有五個專案用於衡量商業模式創新（附錄，α = 0.77，F（555， 1351） = 1.61，p < 0.001）。

The SDG performance data for this study were retrieved from the Taiwan Economic Journal’s (TEJ) publicly available database. TEJ is a leading credit analysis research agency in Taiwan, similar to Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s, and Fitch Group in the United States. It is a comprehensive financial services provider in Taiwan and is extensively used in scholarly research to examine the performance of Taiwan-listed companies. Studies have also shown that TEJ is a reliable source of financial information for Taiwan-listed firms (Chu, 2004; Hsu et al., 2013; Hwang et al., 2012).
本研究的 SDG 績效數據取自台灣經濟雜誌 （TEJ） 的公開資料庫。TEJ是台灣領先的信用分析研究機構，類似於美國的標準普爾、穆迪和惠譽集團。它是台灣的綜合性金融服務提供者，廣泛用於學術研究，以考察臺灣上市公司的表現。研究還表明，TEJ 是臺灣上市公司的可靠財務資訊來源（Chu，2004 年;Hsu et al.， 2013;Hwang et al.， 2012）。

In line with PITEC (e.g., Sáez-Martínez et al., 2016) or CIS (e.g., Ghisetti et al., 2015) to measure SDG 8 targets (Decent Work and Economic Growth) in our proxy of social innovation and items connected to SDG 12 targets (Sustainable Production and Consumption) in our variable of SDG performance. To measure the firms’ social-innovation performance and eco-innovation performance, the study used five items each, representing the SDG 8 and SDG 12 targets, respectively. The social-innovation performance items were related to improving employee health and safety, increasing total employment, increasing qualified employment, maintaining existing employment, and compliance with health and safety regulations, as well as environmental ones. On the other hand, the eco-innovation performance items were related to reducing environmental impact, lower energy consumed per unit, lower materials employed per unit, higher production or service provision flexibility, and higher production or service provision capacity. The reliability of social-innovation performance and eco-innovation performance was measured using Cronbach’s alpha, which resulted in α = 0.71 and α = 0.88, respectively. A second-order two-factor model was employed to determine the adequacy of these measures, which showed a good fit with the data.
根據 PITEC（例如，Sáez-Martínez 等人，2016 年）或 CIS（例如，Ghisetti 等人，2015 年），在我們的社會創新代理中衡量可持續發展目標 8 具體目標（體面工作和經濟增長），並在我們的可持續發展目標績效變數中衡量與 SDG 12 具體目標（可持續生產和消費）相關的專案。為了衡量公司的社會創新績效和生態創新績效，該研究分別使用了五個項目，分別代表 分別是 SDG 8 和 SDG 12 的具體目標。社會創新績效專案與改善員工健康和安全、增加總就業、增加合格就業、維持現有就業以及遵守健康和安全法規以及環境法規有關。另一方面，生態創新績效專案與減少環境影響、降低單位能耗、減少單位使用的材料、提高生產或服務提供靈活性以及提高生產或服務提供能力有關。使用 Cronbach 的 alpha 測量社會創新績效和生態創新績效的可靠性，結果分別為 α = 0.71 和 α = 0.88。採用二階雙因素模型來確定這些措施的充分性，該模型與數據擬合良好。

To control potential confounding variables, we included several control variables in our analyses. Specifically, we controlled for firm age (i.e., length of time since company establishment), firm size (i.e., number of employees), and innovation strategy. Previous studies (e.g., Jansen et al., 2006) indicated the importance of distinguishing between exploration innovation (α = 0.87, F (555, 1351) = 3.23, p < 0.001) and exploitation innovation (α = 0.79, F(555, 1351) = 4.03, p < 0.001) as two innovation strategies. We also controlled for absorptive capacity (α = 0.91, F(555, 1351) = 2.21, p < 0.001) to exclude the impact of the ability to acquire, assimilate, transform, and exploit potential knowledge on firm alliance management capability (Jansen et al., 2005). Also, we controlled for environmental dynamism (α = 0.72, F (555, 1351) = 3.17, p < 0.001) to exclude the influence of a firm’s external environment on firm alliance management capability (e.g., Karagozoglu and Brown, 1988). Finally, we controlled industry (manufacturing and service sectors) in the study.
為了控制潛在的混雜變數，我們在分析中納入了幾個控制變數。具體來說，我們控制了公司年齡（即公司成立以來的時間長度）、公司規模（即員工人數）和創新戰略。以前的研究（例如，Jansen 等人，2006 年）表明區分勘探創新 （α = 0.87， F（555， 1351） = 3.23， p < 0.001） 和開發創新 （α = 0.79， F（555， 1351） = 4.03， p < 0.001） 作為兩種創新策略的重要性。 我們還控制了吸收能力 （α = 0.91， F（555， 1351） = 2.21， p < 0.001），以排除獲取、吸收、轉化和利用潛在知識的能力對公司聯盟管理能力的影響 （Jansen et al.， 2005）。 此外，我們控制了環境動態性 （α = 0.72， F（555， 1351） = 3.17， p < 0.001），以排除公司外部環境對公司聯盟管理能力的影響（例如，Karagozoglu和 Brown，1988）。最後，我們在研究中控制了工業（製造業和服務業）。

Common method bias test
常用方法偏差測試

To test for ex-post CMB, we conducted a Harman one-factor test, a widely accepted approach for testing the potential for CMB (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The results from the analysis demonstrated that the risk of CMB was not a significant concern, as eight factors were extracted with eigenvalues greater than one, but no one factor explained most of the variance. Furthermore, all the extracted factors accounted for 66.78% of the total variance, while a single-factor model accounted for only 12.53% of the variance, which was well below the maximum threshold of 50%. The poor factor loadings of all measurement items onto the single construct also confirmed that CMB was not a significant issue.
為了測試事後 CMB，我們進行了 Harman 單因素測試，這是一種被廣泛接受的測試 CMB 潛力的方法（Podsakoff 等人，2003 年）。分析結果表明，CMB 的風險不是一個顯著的問題，因為提取了8個特徵值大於1的因素，但沒有一個因素可以解釋大部分方差。此外，所有提取的因數佔總方差的 66.78%，而單因數模型僅占方差的 12.53%，遠低於 50% 的最大閾值。所有測量專案對單個結構的不良因數載荷也證實了CMB不是一個重要問題。

Additionally, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test for CMB by including the measures for the four constructs of interest with maximum likelihood estimates. In the light of the causal direction being from constructs to items, and the items being highly interchangeable and correlated, reflective measures were used. We further followed the recommendations of Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand, and Magley (1997) and Little, Rhemtulla, Gibson, and Schoemann (2013). We formed four item parcels for the following constructs, alliance management capability, business model innovation, and SDG performance, in order to produce stable parameter results (Kishton and Widaman, 1994; Landis, Beal, and Tesluk, 2000; Smith, Amiot, Callan et al., 2012), and to make sure the data more closely approximate a normal distribution (i.e., better quality, Bandalos and Finney, 2001; Hau, Wen, and Cheng, 2004). Original items were used for strategic flexibility (5 items). The analysis indicated that the proposed model had acceptable fit (χ2 = 590.49, df = 113, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.05 ≤ 0.08, CFI = 0.97 ≥ 0.90, TLI = 0.97 ≥ 0.90; Table 1)
此外，我們進行了驗證性因數分析 （CFA） 以通過包括具有最大似然估計的四種感興趣結構的測量來檢驗 CMB。鑒於因果方向是從結構到物品，並且物品具有高度可互換性和相關性，因此使用了反射措施。我們進一步遵循了 Fitzgerald、Drasgow、Hulin、Gelfand 和 Magley （1997） 以及 Little、Rhemtulla、Gibson 和 Schoemann （2013） 的建議。我們為以下結構、聯盟管理能力、商業模式創新和 SDG 績效形成了四個專案包，以產生穩定的參數結果（Kishton和 Widaman，1994 年;Landis、Beal 和 Tesluk，2000 年;Smith， Amiot， Callan et al.， 2012），並確保數據更接近正態分佈（即品質更好，Bandalos 和 Finney，2001 年; Hau， 溫， 和 Cheng， 2004）。原始專案用於戰略靈活性（5 項）。分析表明，所提出的模型具有可接受的擬合 （χ2 = 590.49，df = 113，p < 0.001，RMSEA = 0.05 ≤ 0.08，CFI = 0.97 ≥ 0.90，TLI = 0.97 ≥ 0.90;表 1）

The nested model comparisons have led to the rejection of the potential CMB. For example, in the CFA process, if all the items were included in a single construct, this one-factor model results in poor fit (χ2 = 8470.40, df = 119, p = 0.001, RMSEA = 0.19 > 0.08, CFI = 0.51 < 0.90, TLI = 0.44 < 0.90; Table 1). Discriminant validity tests indicated that the proposed model had the best fit, further validating that CMB is not an issue in this study.
嵌套模型比較導致對潛在 CMB 的拒絕。例如，在 CFA 過程中，如果所有專案都包含在單個構建體中，則此單因素模型會導致擬合不良 （χ2 = 8470.40，df = 119，p = 0.001，RMSEA = 0.19 > 0.08，CFI = 0.51 < 0.90，TLI = 0.44 < 0.90;表 1）。判別有效性檢驗表明，所提出的模型具有最佳擬合，進一步驗證了CMB不是本研究中的問題。

[Insert Table 1 here]
[在此處插入表 1]

Still, to minimize the potential for CMB, a partial correlation procedure was utilized after hypothesis testing to examine an appropriate marker variable (i.e., achievement of work-life balance). The procedure involved removing the correlations of theoretically unrelated and uncorrelated variables from the study variables, and the results showed no differences between the original findings and those obtained after using the partial correlation procedure (Online Appendix Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3). The paths retained their statistical significance, the direction remained unchanged, and there was negligible to no deviation in regression coefficients or z-values. These results suggest that CMB was absent or negligible and unlikely to have biased the study’s findings, providing further confidence in the results.
儘管如此，為了最大限度地減少 CMB 的可能性，在假設檢驗後使用偏相關程式來檢查適當的標誌變數（即，實現工作與生活平衡）。該程式涉及從研究變數中刪除理論上不相關和不相關變數的相關性，結果顯示原始發現與使用偏相關程式后獲得的結果之間沒有差異（在線附錄表 1、表 2 和表 3）。路徑保持其統計顯著性，方向保持不變，並且回歸係數或 z 值存在可忽略不計或沒有偏差。這些結果表明 CMB 不存在或可以忽略不計，並且不太可能使研究結果產生偏倚，從而為結果提供了進一步的可信度。

Results
結果

Correlation matrix and descriptive statistics are shown in Table 2. Before we move on to test our hypotheses, we have to make sure that the individual-level data can be aggregated to the firm level for hypotheses testing. We have adopted a multiple-informant approach in our survey. That means that we can arrive at ICC1, ICC2 and Rwg for each of our focal constructs and control variables. As shown in Table 3, all ICC1s, ICC2s and Rwgs are satisfactory. We then aggregate all the study and control variables into the firm level for hypotheses testing.
相關矩陣和描述性統計量如表 2 所示。在我們繼續測試我們的假設之前，我們必須確保個人層面的數據可以匯總到公司層面以進行假設檢驗。我們在調查中採用了多線人方法。這意味著我們可以得出每個焦點構建體和控制變數的 ICC1、ICC2 和 Rwg。如表 3 所示，所有 ICC1、ICC2 和 Rwgs 均令人滿意。然後，我們將所有研究和控制變數匯總到公司層面進行假設檢驗。

[Insert Table 2 & 3 here]
[在此處插入表2和表3]

Main analysis
主要分析

Multiple regression analysis was conducted to test the hypotheses, and multiplicative interaction terms were computed to examine moderation effects. To avoid potential multicollinearity, the constructs involved in the interaction terms were mean-centred. To check for mediation and moderation effects as well as robustness, the computational tool, PROCESS macro, facilitates the examinations (Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes, 2007; Hayes, 2022). The program calculated the 95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals of the mediation and interactions based on 5000 bootstrap samples. Previous research has used the same approach to test mediation and moderation hypotheses (e.g., Ahsan et al., 2023; Breugst et al., 2012; Huang et al., 2019; Oo et al., 2019), and this approach has proven to be robust. This approach allows us to test our direct and indirect as well as conditional indirect effect through bootstrapping. For each indirect effect and conditional effect as well as conditional indirect effect, the bootstrapped estimates and their corresponding 95% low and upper confidence intervals are reported.
進行多元回歸分析以檢驗假設，並計算乘法交互項以檢驗調節效應。為避免潛在的多重共線互項中涉及的結構以均值為中心。為了檢查中介和調節效應以及穩健性，計算工具 PROCESS 巨集促進了檢查（Preacher、Rucker 和 Hayes，2007 年;Hayes，2022 年）。該程式根據 5000 個 bootstrap 樣本計算了仲介和互動的 95% 偏差校正 bootstrap 置信區間。 以前的研究使用相同的方法來檢驗中介和調節假設（例如，Ahsan 等人，2023 年; Breugstet al.， 2012;Huang et al.， 2019; Ooet al.， 2019），這種方法已被證明是穩健的。這種方法允許我們通過 bootstrap 測試我們的直接和間接以及有條件的間接影響。 對於每個間接效應和條件效應以及條件間接效應，報告了靴束帶估計值及其相應的 95% 低濃度和上限濃度。

H1 posited a positive relationship between firms’ alliance management capability and their SDG performance. Regression Model 3 (PROCESS macro Model 4) indicated a significant relationship (b = 0.45 , p< 0.001, Table 4), providing support for H1.
H1 假設公司的聯盟管理能力與其 SDG 績效之間存在正相關關係。回歸模型 3 （PROCESS 巨集模型 4） 表明存在顯著關係 （b = 0.45 ，p< 0.001，表 4），為 H1 提供支援。

[Insert Table 4 here]
[在此處插入表4]

H2 proposed that firms’ business model innovation mediates the relationship between their alliance management capability and SDG performance. Regression Model 4 (PROCESS macro Model 4) indicated a significant relationship (b = 0.24, p < 0.01, Table 4 ), providing support for H2. Further analysis revealed significant effect coefficients for the total, direct, and indirect effects, with no zero values in the bootstrapped 95% confidence interval range, indicating a significant mediation effect. Therefore, the mediating effect of business model innovation is supported.
H2 提出，企業的商業模式創新在其聯盟管理能力與 SDG 績效之間的關係之間起仲介作用。回歸模型 4 （PROCESS 巨集模型 4） 表明存在顯著關係 （b= 0.24，p < 0.01，表 4），為 H2 提供支援。進一步分析顯示，總效應、直接效應和間接效應均具有顯著效應係數，在自舉的 95% 置信區間範圍內沒有零值，表明存在顯著的中介效應。因此，支援商業模式創新的中介效應。

H3 predicted that the positive relationship between firms’ alliance management capability and their business model innovation is moderated by strategic flexibility. Regression Model 2 (PROCESS macro Model 58) revealed that strategic flexibility moderates the effect between firms’ alliance management capability and business model innovation and thus supported this hypothesis (b = 0.23, p < 0.01, Table 4). The analysis of conditional values for low (-1 standard deviation), mean, and high (+1 standard deviation) values of strategic flexibility provided more detailed insights into this interaction effect. At high values (b = 0.13; p < 0.001, Table 5), there was a significant positive effect on the relationship between firms’ alliance management capability and their business model innovation. However, no effect was observed at low levels. Thus, the relationship between firms’ alliance management capability and their business model innovation was shown to strengthen at increasingly higher levels of strategic flexibility. Figure 2 presents the interaction plot.
H3 預測，公司的聯盟管理能力與其商業模式創新之間的正相關關係受到戰略靈活性的調節。回歸模型 2 （PROCESS 巨集觀模型 58） 顯示，戰略靈活性調節了公司的聯盟管理能力與商業模式創新之間的影響，因此支援了這一假設 （b = 0.23， p < 0.01， 表 4）。對戰略靈活性的低值（-1 個標準差）、平均值和高值（+1 個標準差）的條件值進行了分析，為這種交互效應提供了更詳細的見解。在高值 （b = 0.13; p < 0.001，表 5），對企業聯盟管理能力與其商業模式創新之間的關係存在顯著的正向影響。然而，在低水平下沒有觀察到任何影響。因此，公司的聯盟管理能力與其商業模式創新之間的關係被證明在越來越高水平的戰略靈活性下得到加強。 圖 2 顯示了互動作用圖。

[Insert Table 5 & Figure 2 here]
[在此處插入表5和圖2]

H4 posited that the positive relationship between firms’ business model innovation and their SDG performance is moderated by strategic flexibility. Regression Model 4 (PROCESS macro Model 1) showed that strategic flexibility moderates the relationship between firms’ business model innovation and their SDG performance and thus supported this hypothesis (b = 0.90; p < 0.001). Further analysis of the conditional values for low (-1 standard deviation), mean, and high (+1 standard deviation) values of strategic flexibility reveal more detailed insights into this interaction effect. At high values (b = 0.48, p < 0.001, Table 5), there was a significant positive effect of strategic flexibility on the relationship between firms’ business model innovation and their SDG performance. No effect was observed at low levels. These findings suggest that the relationship between firms’ business model innovation and SDG performance is strengthened at increasingly higher levels of strategic flexibility. Figure 3 presents the interaction plot.
H4 認為，公司的商業模式創新與其 SDG 績效之間的正相關關係受到戰略靈活性的調節。回歸模型 4（PROCESS 巨集觀模型 1）表明，戰略靈活性調節了公司的商業模式創新與其 SDG 績效之間的關係，因此支援了這一假設 （b = 0.90; p < 0.001）.進一步分析戰略靈活性的低值（-1 個標準差）、平均值和高值（+1 個標準差）的條件值，可以更詳細地瞭解這種交互效應。在高值（b = 0.4 8，p < 0.001，表 5）下，戰略靈活性對公司的商業模式創新與其可持續發展目標績效之間的關係存在顯著的積極影響。在低水準下未觀察到任何影響。這些發現表明，企業商業模式創新與 SDG 績效之間的關係在戰略靈活性水平越來越高的情況下得到加強。 圖 3 顯示了互動作用圖。

[Insert Table 6& Figure 3 here]
[在此處插入表格6和圖3]

H5 proposed that strategic flexibility would positively moderate the indirect effect of firms’ alliance management capability on their SDG performance via business model innovation. Regression Model 6 (PROCESS macro Model 58) showed that this is the case and thus supported this hypothesis (b = 0.58; p < 0.001, Table 4). Further analysis of the conditional values for low (-1 standard deviation), mean, and high (+1 standard deviation) values of strategic flexibility provided insights into this interaction effect. At high values (b = 0.29; p < 0.001, Table 7), there was a significant positive effect of on firms’ alliance management capabilities on their SDG performance. No effect was observed at low levels. Therefore, the indirect relationship between firms’ alliance management capability and their SDG performance was found to strengthen at increasingly higher levels of strategic flexibility.
H5 提出，戰略靈活性將通過商業模式創新積極調節公司的聯盟管理能力 對其 SDG 績效的間接影響。回歸模型 6（PROCESS 巨集模型 58）表明情況確實如此，因此支援這一假設 （b = 0.58; p < 0.001，表 4）。進一步分析戰略靈活性的低 （-1 標準差）、平均值和高 （+1 標準差） 值的條件值，提供了對這種交互效應的見解。在高值 （b= 0.29; p < 0.001，表7），對企業的聯盟管理能力對其可持續發展目標績效有顯著的積極影響。在低水準下未觀察到任何影響。因此，研究發現，企業的聯盟管理能力與其 SDG 績效之間的間接關係在戰略靈活性水平越來越高時得到加強。

[Insert Table 7 here]
[在此處插入表 7]

5.2. Post-hoc analysis
5.2. 事後分析

To further assess the robustness of the model, the PROCESS macro was used to analyse the two sub-dimensions of SDG performance, namely social innovation performance and eco-innovation performance.
為了進一步評估模型的穩健性，使用 PROCESS 馬cro 來分析 SDG 績效的兩個子維度，即社會創新績效和生態創新績效。

Specifically, Regression Models 1 to 5 in Table 8 provided further support for H1 to H5 using social innovation performance as the dependent variable. Furthermore, analysing the conditional values under Mplus for low (-1 standard deviation), mean, and high (+1 standard deviation) values of strategic flexibility offered finer-grained insights into this interaction effect (Table 9 and Table 10).
具體來說，表 8 中的回歸模型 1 到 5 使用社會創新績效作為因變數為 H1 到 H5 提供了進一步的支援。此外，分析 Mplus 下戰略靈活性的低值（-1 個標準差）、平均值和高值（+1 個標準差）的條件值，可以更精細地瞭解這種交互效應（表 9 和表 10）。

[Insert Table 8, Table 9, and Table 10 here]
[在此處插入表 8、表 9 和表 10]

Similarly, Regression Models 1 to 5 in Table 11 further support H1 to H5 using eco-innovation performance as dependent variable. Moreover, analysing the conditional values under Mplus for low (-1 standard deviation), mean, and high (+1 standard deviation) values of strategic flexibility provided finer-grained insights into this interaction effect (Table 12 and Table 13).
同樣，表 11 中的回歸模型 1 到 5 進一步支援使用生態創新績效作為因變數的 H 1 到 H5。此外，分析 Mplus 下戰略靈活性的低值（-1 個標準差）、平均值和高值（+1 個標準差）的條件值，可以更精細地瞭解這種交互效應（表 12 和表 13）。

[Insert Table 11, 12 and 13 here]
[在此處插入表 11、12 和 13]

5.3. Robustness check
5.3. 健壯性檢查

We also run the analysis to test the strategic flexibility as a potential mediator. The results of Table 14 show that the indirect effect of strategic flexibility is not significant (b = -0.00, p>0.05, Table 14). Hence, the strategic flexibility as a potential mediator is unlikely to occur and potential mediation-moderation does not exist in this study.
我們還運行分析以測試作為潛在中介的戰略靈活性。表 14 的結果表明 ， 戰略靈活性的間接影響並不顯著 （b = -0.00， p>0.05， Table 14）. 因此，作為潛在中介的戰略靈活性不太可能發生，並且本研究中不存在潛在的中介調節。

[Insert Table 14]
[插入表 14]

6. Discussion
6.討論

Strategic alliances are crucial for sustainable development, yet managing these partnerships effectively to maximise their benefits presents a complex challenge. Scholars often debate the optimal management of strategic alliances to enhance their efficiency and contribution to SDGs (e.g., Al-Tabbaa et al., 2023; Bouncken et al., 2022; Bouncken et al., 2020; Foroudi et al., 2023; Vurro et al., 2024). This study investigates whether a firm's ability to manage alliances can aid its pursuit of SDGs, particularly through the lens of business model innovation. Our findings indicate that alliance management capabilities directly enhance performance towards SDG 8 and SDG 12, and this relationship is further mediated by business model innovation. Additionally, strategic flexibility plays a moderating role, influencing both the direct impact of alliance management capabilities on business model innovation and the mediated effect on SDG performance. This research contributes to the ongoing discussion, highlighted by Gillani et al. (2023), van Gestel et al. (2024) and Vurro et al. (2024), on how alliance management capabilities can foster sustainable development within dynamic environments (Arndt et al., 2022).
戰略聯盟對於可持續發展至關重要，但有效管理這些夥伴關係以最大限度地發揮其利益是一項複雜的挑戰。學者們經常爭論戰略聯盟的最佳管理，以提高其效率和對可持續發展目標的貢獻（例如，Al-Tabbaa 等人，2023 年; Bouncken 等人，2022 年; Bouncken等人，2020 年; Foroudi 等人，2023 年; Vurro等人，2024 年）。本研究調查了公司管理聯盟的能力是否有助於其追求可持續發展目標，特別是從商業模式創新的角度來看。我們的研究結果表明，聯盟管理能力直接提高了實現 SDG 8 和 SDG 12 的績效，而這種關係進一步通過商業模式創新得到仲介。此外，戰略靈活性起著調節作用，影響聯盟管理能力對商業模式創新的直接影響和對SDG績效的中介影響。這項研究有助於正在進行的討論，Gillani 等人（2023 年）、van Gestel 等人（2024 年）和 Vurro 等人（2024 年）強調了聯盟管理能力如何在動態環境中促進可持續發展（Arndt 等人，2022 年）。

Theoretical contributions
理論貢獻

Our study extends the relational view theory by revealing the pivotal role of alliance management capabilities in maintaining quality employment and catalysing resource efficiency to achieve SDGs (Martinez et al., 2019). We deepen the understanding of how inter-organisational collaboration can effectively contribute to sustainability transitions and enrich the discourse on the antecedents of SDG achievement as a competitive advantage within firms. This responds to the call by Jiang et al. (2021) for more nuance studies regarding the interplay between organisational strategies and sustainable outcomes. At this same time, this clarifies that resources acquired from partnerships can generate competitive advantages more effectively when they are well-managed and integrated. In line with the prior research which has established the importance of alliances in sustainability (Lozano, 2007; Quintana-García et al., 2021; Riegler et al., 2023; Schneider & Clauß, 2020; Williams & Blasberg, 2022), our study advances the relationship by empirically validating how alliance management capabilities enhance the efforts placing in alliances. This focus on internal capabilities shifts the narrative from simply examining the roles of external partners to a deeper exploration of how alliance management capabilities crucially influence the success of sustainability-oriented alliances. Moreover, we reveal that business model innovation serves as a critical mediator between alliance management capabilities and SDG performance, while strategic flexibility enhances the impact of these capabilities on business model innovation and, ultimately, on SDG performance. This underscores the dynamic interplay between strategic flexibility and business model innovation in aiding organisations to meet their sustainability goals, particularly SDGs 8 and 12. Our findings offer a more comprehensive model that incorporates internal organisational attributes into the broader narrative of sustainability transitions, filling a notable gap in the literature by melding strategic management theory with sustainability research. Consequently, this opens up a new interdisciplinary avenue for scholarly investigation that explores the synergies between internal capabilities and external collaborations in driving sustainability goals. Through this, our study provides valuable strategies for firms aiming to optimise alliances for sustainable growth and deepens insights into how relational rents are generated through strategic partnerships.
我們的研究通過揭示聯盟管理能力在維持優質就業和催化資源效率以實現 可持續發展目標方面的關鍵作用，擴展了關係觀理論 （Martinez et al.， 2019）。 我們加深了對組織間合作如何有效促進可持續發展轉型的理解，並豐富了關於實現可持續發展目標作為公司內部競爭優勢的前因的討論。 這回應了 江 et al. （2021） 的呼籲，即對組織戰略和可持續結果之間的相互作用進行更多細微差別研究。同時，這闡明瞭從合作夥伴關係中獲得的資源 在得到良好管理和整合時可以更有效地產生競爭優勢。根據確定聯盟在可持續性中的重要性的 p rior 研究 （Lozano，2007 年;Quintana-García等人，2021 年;Riegler等人，2023 年;Schneider & Clauß，2020 年;Williams & Blasberg， 2022）的研究中，我們的研究 通過實證驗證聯盟管理能力如何增強聯盟中的努力來推進這種關係。 這種對內部能力的關注將敘述從簡單地研究外部合作夥伴的角色轉變為更深入地探索聯盟管理能力如何對以可持續發展為導向的聯盟的成功產生關鍵影響。此外，我們揭示了商業模式創新是聯盟管理能力和 SDG 績效之間的關鍵仲介，而戰略靈活性增強了這些能力對商業模式創新的影響，並最終增強了對 SDG 績效的影響。這突顯了戰略靈活性和商業模式創新之間的動態相互作用，有助於組織實現其可持續發展目標，特別是可持續發展目標 8 和 12。我們的研究結果提供了一個更全面的模型，將內部組織屬性納入更廣泛的可持續發展轉型敘述中，通過將戰略管理理論與可持續發展研究相結合，填補了文獻中的顯著空白。因此，這為學術研究開闢了一條新的跨學科途徑，探索內部能力和外部合作在推動可持續發展目標方面的協同作用。通過這種方式，我們的研究為旨在優化聯盟以實現可持續增長的公司提供了有價值的策略，並加深了對如何通過戰略合作夥伴關係產生關係租金的見解。

Second, our research accentuates the importance of business model adjustments to facilitate sustainability transition. While existing literature (Pedersen et al., 2018; Schneider & Clauß, 2020; Spieth et al., 2019) establishes the transformative role of business model innovation within organisations, our work goes further by empirically demonstrating its critical role in leveraging the opportunities that come from alliances. This is pivotal because business models are not static but dynamic frameworks that evolve over time and in response to varied externalities (Arndt, 2019). We show that business model innovation is not merely an optional but a crucial mechanism for maintaining quality employment and resource efficiency within firms. It serves as a conduit that helps firms not only adapt to but capitalize on the beneficial aspects of their alliances, thereby making a more effective and impactful stride toward achieving SDG 8 and SDG 12. We argue that business model innovation can act as the operational ‘glue’ that integrates the advantages of alliances into a firm’s sustainability strategy. This view significantly enhances our understanding of the operational intricacies involved in achieving a sustainable transition and offers a nuanced perspective that integrates external alliance opportunities with internal transformative strategies.
其次，我們的研究強調了商業模式調整對促進可持續發展轉型的重要性。雖然現有文獻（Pedersen et al.， 2018;Schneider & Clauß，2020 年;Spieth et al.， 2019）確立了商業模式創新在組織內的變革作用，我們的工作通過實證證明其在利用聯盟帶來的機會方面的關鍵作用而走得更遠。這一點至關重要，因為商業模式不是靜態的，而是動態的框架，它們會隨著時間的推移而發展，並回應不同的外部因素（Arndt，2019）。我們表明，商業模式創新不僅僅是一種可選，而是維持公司內部優質就業和資源效率的重要機制。它作為一個管道，説明公司不僅適應而且利用其聯盟的有益方面，從而朝著實現 SDG 8 和 SDG 12 邁出更有效和有影響力的一步。我們認為，商業模式創新可以充當運營「膠水」，將聯盟的優勢整合到公司的可持續發展戰略中。這一觀點顯著增強了我們對實現可持續轉型所涉及的運營複雜性的理解，並提供了一個微妙的視角，將外部聯盟機會與內部轉型戰略相結合。

Third, our study makes a significant contribution to the emerging discussion on collaborative business model innovation (Bouncken & Fredrich, 2016a; Spieth et al., 2021; Velu, 2015). While existing research confirms the benefits of external knowledge and partnerships in the process of business model innovation, our study advances this understanding by emphasizing the necessity of internal capabilities for managing these external relationships effectively. We empirically establish that merely having access to external knowledge is not enough; firms must possess the capabilities to manage their alliances to extract maximum value. This insight complements and extends the existing literature on the capabilities required for business model innovation (Clauss et al., 2021; Hock-Doepgen et al., 2020; Mezger, 2014; Teece, 2018) by introducing the notion of alliance management capability as a crucial factor. This integration suggests that future research in business model innovation needs to consider both external collaborative factors and internal management capabilities to provide a more nuanced understanding of how firms can leverage business model innovation for sustainable outcomes.
第三，我們的研究對關於協作商業模式創新的 新興討論做出了重大貢獻（Bouncken & Fredrich，2016a; Spieth et al.， 2021; Velu，2015 年）。雖然現有研究證實了外部知識和合作夥伴關係在商業模式創新過程中的好處，但我們的研究通過強調有效管理這些外部關係的內部能力的必要性來推進這種理解。我們憑實證確定，僅僅獲得外部知識是不夠的;公司必須具備 管理其聯盟以獲取最大價值的能力。這一見解補充和擴展了關於商業模式創新所需能力的現有文獻（Clauss et al.， 2021;Hock-Doepgen et al.， 2020;Mezger，2014 年;Teece，2018 年），通過將聯盟管理能力的概念作為一個關鍵因素引入。這種整合表明，未來的商業模式創新研究需要同時考慮外部協作因素和內部管理能力，以更細緻地理解公司如何利用商業模式創新實現可持續成果。

Last, our study advances the theoretical understanding of the role of strategic flexibility by demonstrating its moderating impact on the relationship between alliance management capability, business model innovation, and SDG performance. Traditional discussions have oscillated around whether strategic flexibility serves as an antecedent, a consequence, or a moderator in various contexts, including business model innovation. Our findings contribute to resolving this debate by providing empirical evidence that strategic flexibility acts as a significant moderating factor. Moreover, we enrich this debate by situating it within the context of SDG performance, an area where the role of strategic flexibility has been less explored. Building on the relational view (Dyer & Singh, 1998; Dyer, Singh, & Hesterly, 2018), our study posits that strategic flexibility can serve as an effective buffer mechanism in inter-organisational relationships. It does so by enabling firms to adjust their formal and informal knowledge-exchange mechanisms dynamically, which in turn allows them to maximize relational rents. These rents are crucial in that they provide a competitive edge in achieving better SDG performance. Our work suggests that strategic flexibility not only aids in internal capability development—such as alliance management capability—but also magnifies the returns from these capabilities by optimizing their application in varied contextual settings, in this case, SDG performance. Additionally, strategic flexibility enhances a firm’s ability to respond to volatile external conditions, such as market disruptions and/or regulatory changes, which are particularly pertinent when working towards SDGs that are impacted by a multitude of complex factors. Thus, in essence, strategic flexibility offers a dual advantage: it acts as a situational enhancer that maximizes the benefits derived from alliance management capability and business model innovation and serves as a resilience mechanism that helps firms navigate the complex and often volatile pathway to achieving SDGs.
最後，我們的研究通過證明戰略靈活性對聯盟管理能力、商業模式創新和SDG績效之間關係的調節影響，推進了對戰略靈活性作用的理論理解。傳統討論一直圍繞著戰略靈活性在各種情況下（包括商業模式創新）是前因、結果還是調節因素而搖擺不定。我們的研究結果通過提供經驗證據證明戰略靈活性是一個重要的調節因素，從而有助於解決這一爭論。此外，我們通過將 SDG 績效置於 SDG 績效的背景下來豐富這一辯論，而戰略靈活性的作用在該領域的作用尚未得到充分探索。建立在關係觀點之上（Dyer & Singh，1998;Dyer， Singh， & Hesterly， 2018），我們的研究假設戰略靈活性可以作為組織間關係中的有效緩衝機制。它通過使公司能夠動態地調整其正式和非正式的知識交流機制來實現這一點，這反過來又使它們能夠最大化關係租金。這些租金至關重要，因為它們為實現更好的可持續發展目標提供了競爭優勢。我們的研究表明，戰略靈活性不僅有助於內部能力發展（例如聯盟管理能力），還可以通過在各種背景下優化其應用（在本例中為 SDG 績效）來放大這些能力的回報。此外，戰略靈活性增強了公司應對波動的外部條件的能力，例如市場中斷和/或監管變化，這在努力實現受眾多複雜因素影響的可持續發展目標時尤為重要。 因此，從本質上講，戰略靈活性具有雙重優勢：它充當情境增強器，最大限度地利用聯盟管理能力和商業模式創新帶來的好處，並作為一種彈性機制，説明公司駕馭複雜且往往不穩定的實現可持續發展目標的道路。

Managerial Implication
管理影響

The first is to invest in alliance management capability. Our findings underscore the importance of developing and leveraging alliance management capabilities for enhancing SDG performance. Firms should not just seek partnerships but invest in the internal resources and mechanisms required to manage these alliances effectively. This entails setting up dedicated teams or units responsible for alliance governance, conflict resolution, and knowledge exchange. It is not just about forming partnerships; it is about managing them in a way that aligns with sustainability objectives. Through effective alliance management, firms can maximise the relational rents and collaborative advantages that come from interorganisational cooperation, thereby directly enhancing their contributions to the SDGs.
首先是投資於聯盟管理能力。我們的研究結果強調了開發和利用聯盟管理能力對提高可持續發展目標績效的重要性。公司不僅應該尋求合作夥伴關係，還應該投資於有效管理這些聯盟所需的內部資源和機制。這需要建立專門的團隊或單位負責聯盟治理、衝突解決和知識交流。這不僅僅是建立合作夥伴關係;而是以符合可持續發展目標的方式管理它們。通過有效的聯盟管理，公司可以最大限度地利用組織間合作所產生的關係租金和協作優勢，從而直接提高他們對可持續發展目標的貢獻。

The second is to prioritise business model innovation. Our research suggests that business model innovation serves as a vital mediator in the relationship between alliance management capability and SDG performance. Managers should, therefore, be proactive in adapting their business models to integrate sustainability objectives and leverage external inputs from alliances. This could involve the redesign of products or services, rethinking supply chains, or creating new customer engagement strategies that align with SDGs. It is about using the innovative capabilities of the organisation, honed through alliances, to deliver meaningful and sustainable impact. Investing in R&D and establishing cross-functional teams could be steps in facilitating this type of innovation.
第二是優先考慮商業模式創新。我們的研究表明，商業模式創新是聯盟管理能力與 SDG 績效之間關係的重要仲介。因此，管理者應積極主動地調整其商業模式，以整合可持續發展目標並利用聯盟的外部投入。這可能涉及重新設計產品或服務、重新思考供應鏈或制定與 SDG 一致的新客戶參與策略。它是關於利用組織的創新能力，通過聯盟磨練出來的，來產生有意義和可持續的影響。投資研發和建立跨職能團隊可能是促進此類創新的步驟。

The third is to nurture strategic flexibility. Strategic flexibility emerges as a key moderating factor that can enhance the effectiveness of both alliance management capability and business model innovation in contributing to SDG performance. Managers should view strategic flexibility not merely as a contingency plan but as an inherent organisational capability. This means embedding flexibility into decision-making processes, organisational culture, and even contractual terms in alliances. In a rapidly changing world beset with challenges ranging from market volatility to regulatory shifts, strategic flexibility enables firms to pivot quickly, adapting both their internal strategies and external alliances to meet emerging sustainability goals. By doing so, firms can optimize their alliance portfolios and adapt their business models in response to evolving sustainability challenges, thus maximizing their SDG performance.
t hird 是培養s戰略 f靈活性。 戰略靈活性是一個關鍵的調節因素，可以提高聯盟管理能力和商業模式創新的有效性，為可持續發展目標做出貢獻。管理者不僅應將戰略靈活性視為應急計劃，還應將其視為一種內在的組織能力。這意味著將靈活性嵌入到決策流程、組織文化甚至聯盟中的合同條款中。在一個瞬息萬變、挑戰不斷、從市場波動到監管轉變等挑戰的世界中，戰略靈活性使公司能夠快速調整，調整其內部戰略和外部聯盟，以實現新興的可持續發展目標。通過這樣做，公司可以優化其聯盟組合並調整其商業模式，以應對不斷變化的可持續發展挑戰，從而最大限度地提高其可持續發展目標績效。

Furthermore, in the light of the strengthening effect of strategic flexibility on the relationship between business model innovation and SDG performance, we advise that strategic flexibility is one key enabling condition for the effect of business model innovation on SDG performance. Business model innovation is in and of itself a contributing factor to a firm’s competitive advantage. At the same time, the pursuit of SDG performance demands the firm to be innovative in its business model so that the firm can fully capitalize on its innovative business model, apart from economic rents. Strategic flexibility plays a key role in helping the firm achieve SDG performance for long-term sustainability, in addition to short-term financial gains, given the firm’s innovative business model.
此外，鑒於戰略靈活性對商業模式創新與 SDG 績效之間關係的加強作用，我們建議戰略靈活性是商業模式創新對 SDG 績效影響的關鍵使能條件之一。商業模式創新本身就是公司競爭優勢的一個促成因素。同時，追求 SDG 績效要求公司在其商業模式中進行創新，以便公司能夠充分利用其創新的商業模式，而不是經濟租金。鑒於公司的創新商業模式，除了短期財務收益外，戰略靈活性在説明公司實現可持續發展目標以實現長期可持續性方面發揮著關鍵作用。

Notwithstanding the above key takeaways and noteworthy contributions, this study remains limited in several ways. First, this study is limited to evidence from large firms in Taiwan and thus future research should seek alternative evidence from small firms and other developing and developed countries to either reaffirm or refute the findings herein this study. Second, this study only considered alliance management capability, business model innovation, and strategic flexibility as a macro construct and thus future research can explore the specific dimensions of these constructs (e.g., the reactive versus proactive and the offensive versus defensive manifestations of strategic flexibility; Brozovic, 2018) to provide finer-grained insights that would extend the richness of the findings herein this study.
儘管有上述關鍵收穫和值得注意的貢獻，但這項研究在幾個方面仍然有限。 首先，這項研究僅限於來自臺灣大公司的證據，因此未來的研究應該從小公司和其他發展中國家和發達國家尋求替代證據，以重申或反駁本研究中的發現。 其次，本研究僅將聯盟管理能力、商業模式創新和戰略靈活性視為一個巨集觀結構，因此未來的研究可以探索這些結構的具體維度（例如，戰略靈活性的反應與主動以及進攻與防禦的表現; Brozovic，2018 年）提供更細粒度的見解，以擴展本研究結果的豐富性。

References
引用

Abdelkafi, N., & Täuscher, K. (2016). Business models for sustainability from a system dynamics perspective. Organization & Environment, 29(1), 74-96.
Abdelkafi， N.， & Täuscher， K. （2016）.從系統動力學角度看可持續發展的商業模式。組織與環境，29（1），74-96。

Al Lawati, H., & Hussainey, K. (2022). Does sustainable development goals disclosure affect corporate financial performance? Sustainability, 14(13), 7815.
Al Lawati， H. 和 Hussainey， K. （2022）。Does sustainable dvelolopment goals disclosure affect corporate financial performance？ 可持續性，14（13），7815。

Amit, R., & Zott, C. J. S. E. J. (2015). Crafting business architecture: The antecedents of business model design. 9(4), 331-350.
Amit， R.， & Zott， C. J. S. E. J. （2015）。製作業務架構：商業模式設計的前因。 9（4），331-350。

Anand, B. N., & Khanna, T. 2000. Do firms learn to create value? The case of alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 295-315
Anand， B. N.， & Khanna， T. 2000.公司學會創造價值嗎？聯盟的情況。戰略管理雜誌， 21， 295-315

Arndt, F. (2019). Dynamic capabilities: A retrospective, state-of-the-art and future research agenda. Journal of Management & Organization, 1-4.
阿恩特，F.（2019 年）。動態功能：回顧性、最先進的和未來的研究議程。管理與組織雜誌，1-4。

Arndt, F., Galvin, P., Jansen, R. J. G., Lucas, G. J. M. & Su, P. (2022). Dynamic capabilities: New ideas, microfoundations, and criticism. Journal of Management & Organization, 28, 423-428.
Arndt， F.， Galvin， P.， Jansen， R. J. G.， Lucas， G. J. M. & Su， P. （2022）.動態能力：新想法、微觀基礎和批評。管理與組織雜誌，28,423-428。

Ahsan, M., Adomako, S., Donbesuur, F., & Mole, K. F. (2023). Entrepreneurial passion and product innovation intensity in new ventures: mediating effects of exploration and exploitation activities. British Journal of Management, 34(2), 849-872.
Ahsan， M.， Adomako， S.， Donbesuur， F.， & Mole， K. F. （2023）。新企業的創業激情和產品創新強度：勘探和開發活動的中介效應。 英國管理雜誌， 34（2），849-872。

Bock, A. J., Opsahl, T., George, G., & Gann, D. M. (2012). The effects of culture and structure on strategic flexibility during business model innovation. Journal of Management Studies, 49(2), 279-305.
博克，A. J.，奧普薩爾，T.，喬治，G.和江恩，D. M.（2012）。 culture 和 s結構對 business model innovation 期間 strategic f靈活性的影響。管理研究雜誌，49（2），279-305。

Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42-56.
博肯，N. M. P.，肖特，SW，拉納，P.和埃文斯，S.（2014）。開發可持續商業模式原型的文獻和實踐回顧。Cleaner P生產雜誌， 65,42-56。

Bolton, R., & Hannon, M. (2016). Governing sustainability transitions through business model innovation: Towards a systems understanding. Research Policy, 45(9), 1731-1742.
博爾頓，R.和漢農，M.（2016）。通過商業模式創新管理可持續性轉型：邁向系統理解。研究政策，45（9），1731-1742。

Bouncken, R. B., & Fredrich, V. (2016). Business model innovation in alliances: Successful configurations. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3584-3590.
Bouncken， R. B.， & Fredrich， V. （2016）.聯盟中的商業模式創新：成功的配置。商業研究雜誌，69（9），3584-3590。

Bouncken, R. B. Fredrich, V. & Gudergan, S. (2022). Alliance management and innovation under uncertainty. Journal of Management & Organization, 28, 549- 563.
Bouncken， R. B. Fredrich， V. & Gudergan， S. （2022）。不確定性下的聯盟管理和創新。管理與組織雜誌， 28， 549- 563.

Bouncken, R. B. Fredrich, V., Kraus, S. & Ritala, P. (2020). Innovation alliances: Balancing value creation dynamics, competitive intensity and market overlap. Journal of Business Research, 112, 240-247.
Bouncken， R. B. Fredrich， V.， Kraus， S. & Ritala， P. （2020）.創新聯盟：平衡價值創造動態、競爭強度和市場重疊。商業研究雜誌， 112， 240-247.

Bouncken, R. B., Fredrich, V. & Gudergan, S. (2022). Alliance management and innovation under uncertainty. Journal of Management & Organization, 28, 540-563.
Bouncken， R. B.， Fredrich， V. & Gudergan， S. （2022）。不確定性下的聯盟管理和創新。管理與組織雜誌，28,540-563。

Bradley, S. W., Kim, P. H., Klein, P. G., McMullen, J. S., & Wennberg, K. (2021). Policy for innovative entrepreneurship: Institutions, interventions, and societal challenges. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 15(2), 167-184.
布蘭得利，SW，金，PH，克萊因，PG，麥克馬倫，JS和溫伯格，K.（2021）。創新創業政策：制度、干預措施和社會挑戰。戰略創業雜誌，15（2），167-184。

Breugst, N., A. Domurath, H. Patzelt and A. Klaukien (2012). Perceptions of entrepreneurial passion and employees’ commitment to entrepreneurial ventures’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36, pp. 171–192.
Breugst， N.， A. Domurath， H. Patzelt 和 A. Klaukien （2012）。對創業激情和員工對創業企業的承諾的看法“，創業理論與實踐，第 36 期，第 171-192 頁。

Brozovic, D. (2018). Strategic flexibility: A review of the literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(1), 3-31.
布羅佐維奇，D.（2018 年）。戰略靈活性：文獻綜述。國際管理評論雜誌，20（1），3-31。

Buckley, P. J., Glaister, K. W., Klijn, E., & Tan, H. (2009). Knowledge accession and knowledge acquisition in strategic alliances: The impact of supplementary and complementary dimensions. British Journal of Management, 20(4), 598-609.
巴克利，PJ，格拉斯特，KW，克林，E.和坦，H.（2009）。戰略聯盟中的知識獲取和知識獲取：補充和互補維度的影響。 英國管理雜誌，20（4），598-609。

Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2010). From strategy to business models and onto tactics. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 195-215.
Casadesus-Masanell， R.， & Ricart， J. E. （2010）.從戰略到商業模式，再到戰術。長期規劃，43（2），195-215。

Chams, N. & Garcia-Blandon, J. (2019). On the importance of sustainable human resource management for the adoption of sustainable development goals. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 141, 109-122.
Chams， N. 和 Garcia-Blandon， J. （2019）。關於可持續人力資源管理對通過可持續發展目標的重要性。資源、保護和回收，141,109-122。

Claudy, M. C., Peterson, M., & Pagell, M. (2016). The roles of sustainability orientation and market knowledge competence in new product development success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(S1), 72-85.
Claudy， M. C.， Peterson， M.， & Pagell， M. （2016）.The roles of sustainability orientation and market knowledge competence in new product development success. 產品創新管理雜誌，33（S1），72-85。

Clauss, T., Abebe, M., Tangpong, C., & Hock, M. (2021). Strategic agility, business model innovation, and firm performance: An empirical investigation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 68(3), 767-784.
Clauss， T.， Abebe， M.， Tangpong， C.， & Hock， M. （2021）。Strategic agility， business model innovation， and firm performance： An empirical investigation. IEEE 工程管理匯刊，68（3），767-784。

Clauss, T., & Bouncken, R. B. (2019). Social power as an antecedence of governance in buyer-supplier alliances. Industrial Marketing Management, 77, 75-89.
Clauss， T. 和 Bouncken， R. B. （2019）。社會權力作為買方-供應商聯盟中治理的前提。工業行銷管理， 77， 75-89。

Clauss, T., Breier, M., Kraus, S., Durst, S., & Mahto, R. V. (2022). Temporary business model innovation–SMEs’ innovation response to the Covid‐19 crisis. R&D Management, 52(2), 294-312.
Clauss， T.， Breier， M.， Kraus， S.， Durst， S.， & Mahto， R. V. （2022）。臨時商業模式創新 – 中小企業對 Covid-19 危機的創新反應。研發管理， 52（2）， 294-312.

Clauss, T., & Kesting, T. (2017). How businesses should govern knowledge-intensive collaborations with universities: An empirical investigation of university professors. Industrial Marketing Management, 62, 185-198.
Clauss， T. 和 Kesting， T. （2017）。企業應如何管理與大學的知識密集型合作：對大學教授的實證調查。工業行銷管理， 62， 185-198.

Clauss, T., & Tangpong, C. (2018). In search for impregnable exchange relationships with buyers: Exploratory insights for suppliers. Industrial Marketing Management, 75, 1-16.
Clauss， T. 和 Tangpong， C. （2018）。尋找與買家堅不可摧的交換關係：供應商的探索性見解。工業行銷管理， 75， 1-16.

Cozzolino, A., Verona, G., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2018). Unpacking the disruption process: New technology, business models, and incumbent adaptation. Journal of Management Studies, 55(7), 1166-1202.
Cozzolino， A.， Verona， G.， & Rothaermel， F. T. （2018）.Unpacking the disruption process： New technology， business models， and incumbent adaptation. 管理研究雜誌，55（7），1166-1202。

de Ruyter, K., Keeling, D. I., Plangger, K., Montecchi, M., Scott, M. L., & Dahl, D. W. (2022). Reimagining marketing strategy: Driving the debate on grand challenges. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 50(1), 13-21.
de Ruyter， K.， Keeling， D. I.， Plangger， K.， Montecchi， M.， Scott， M. L.， & Dahl， D. W. （2022）.重新建構想行銷策略：D撕裂關於重大挑戰的辯論。 營銷科學學會雜誌，50（1），13-21。

Diwan, H., & Amarayil Sreeraman, B. (2023). From financial reporting to ESG reporting: A bibliometric analysis of the evolution in corporate sustainability disclosures. Environment, Development and Sustainability.
Diwan， H.， & Amarayil Sreeraman， B. （2023）。從財務報告到 ESG 報告：企業可持續發展披露演變的文獻計量分析。 環境、發展和可持續性。

Doz, Y. L., & Kosonen, M. (2010). Embedding strategic agility: A leadership agenda for accelerating business model renewal. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 370-382.
Doz， Y. L.， & Kosonen， M. （2010年）。嵌入戰略敏捷性：加速業務模式更新的領導議程。長期規劃，43（2-3），370-382。

Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and source of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660-679.
戴爾，J. H.和辛格，H. （1998）。關係觀：合作戰略和組織間競爭優勢的來源。管理學會評論，23（4），660-679。

Dyer, J. H., Singh, H., & Hesterly, W. S. (2018). The relational view revisited: A dynamic perspective on value creation and value capture. Strategic Management Journal, 39(12), 3140-3162.
戴爾，J. H.，辛格，H.和海斯特利，W. S.（2018）。重新審視關係檢視：關於價值創造和價值捕獲的動態視角。戰略管理雜誌，39（12），3140-3162。

Emma, G.-M., & Jennifer, M.-F. (2021). Is SDG reporting substantial or symbolic? An examination of controversial and environmentally sensitive industries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 298, 126781.
Emma， G.-M.， & Jennifer， M.-F.（2021）. 可持續發展目標報告是實質性的還是象徵性的？對有爭議和環境敏感的行業的考察。Cleaner Production 雜誌， 298， 126781.

Erten, B., Oral, B. & Yakut, M. Z. (2022). The role of virtual and augmented reality in occupational health and safety training of employees in PV power systems and evaluation with a sustainable perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 379, 134499.
Erten， B.， Oral， B. & Yakut， M. Z. （2022）。虛擬實境和擴增實境在光伏發電系統員工的職業健康和安全培訓以及可持續評估中的作用。清潔生產雜誌， 379， 134499.

Filho, W. L., Barbir, J., Ozuyar, P. G., Nunez, E., Diaz-Sarachaga, J. M., Guillaume, B., Anholon, R., Rampasso, I. S., Swart, J., Velazquez, L. & Ng, T. F. (2022). Assessing provisions and requirements for the sustainable production of plastics: Towards achieving SDG 12 from the consumer’s perspective. Sustainability, 14, 16542.
Filho， W. L.， Barbir， J.， Ozuyar， P. G.， Nunez， E.， Diaz-Sarachaga， J. M.， Guillaume， B.， Anholon， R.， Rampasso， I. S.， Swart， J.， Velazquez， L. & Ng， T. F. （2022）.評估塑膠可持續生產的規定和要求：從消費者的角度實現 SDG 12。可持續性，14,16542。

Foss, N. J., & Saebi, T. (2017). Fifteen years of research on business model innovation: How far have we come, and where should we go? Journal of Management, 43(1), 200-227.
福斯，新澤西州和薩比，T.（2017）。十五年 研究 business model innovation： 我們走了多遠，我們應該去哪裡？ 管理雜誌，43（1），200-227。

George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A., & Tihanyi, L. (2016). Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 1880-1895.
喬治，G.，霍華德-葛籣維爾，J.，喬希，A.和蒂漢伊，L.（2016）。通過管理研究理解和應對社會重大挑戰。管理學會雜誌， 59（6）， 1880-1895。

Ghisetti, C., Marzucchi, A., & Montresor, S. (2015). The open eco-innovation mode. An empirical investigation of eleven European countries. Research Policy, 44(5), 1080–1093
Ghisetti， C.， Marzucchi， A.， & Montresor， S. （2015）.開放的生態創新模式。對11個歐洲國家的實證調查。研究政策， 44（5）， 1080–1093

González-Benito, J., & González-Benito, Ó. (2006). A review of determinant factors of environmental proactivity. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(2), 87-102.
González-Benito， J.， & González-Benito， Ó. （2006）.環境主動性的決定因素綜述。商業戰略與環境，15（2），87-102。

Grewal, R., & Tansuhaj, P. (2001). Building organizational capabilities for managing economic crisis: The role of market orientation and strategic flexibility. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 67-80.
Grewal， R. 和 Tansuhaj， P. （2001）。建立管理經濟危機的組織能力：市場導向和戰略靈活性的作用。市場營銷雜誌， 65（2）， 67-80。

Gutierrez, L., Montiel, I., Surroca, J. A., & Tribo, J. A. (2022). Rainbow wash or rainbow revolution? Dynamic stakeholder engagement for SDG-driven responsible innovation. Journal of Business Ethics, 180(4), 1113-1136.
古鐵雷斯，L.，蒙鐵爾，I.，蘇羅卡，J. A.，&特裡博，J. A.（2022）。彩虹洗滌還是彩虹革命？利益相關者積极參與可持續發展目標驅動的負責任創新。商業倫理雜誌，180（4），1113-1136。

Heide, J. B., & Miner, A. S. (1992). The shadow of the future: Effects of anticipated interaction and frequency of contact on buyer-seller cooperation. The Academy of Management Journal, 35(2), 265-291.
Heide， J. B.， & Miner， A. S. （1992年）。The shadow of the f uture： Effects of anticipated interaction and frequency of contact on buyer-s eller cooperation. 管理學會雜誌，35（2），265-291。

Herrero, M., Thornton, P. K., Mason-D’Croz, D., Palmer, J., Bodirsky, B. L., Pradhan, P., Barrett, C. B., Benton, T. G., Hall, A., & Pikaar, I. (2021). Articulating the effect of food systems innovation on the Sustainable Development Goals. The Lancet Planetary Health, 5(1), e50-e62.
Herrero， M.， Thornton， P. K.， Mason-D'Croz， D.， Palmer， J.， Bodirsky， B. L.， Pradhan， P.， Barrett， C. B.， Benton， T. G.， Hall， A.， & Pikaar， I. （2021）.闡明糧食系統創新對可持續發展目標的影響。柳葉刀行星健康，5（1），e50-e62。

Hock-Doepgen, M., Clauss, T., Kraus, S., & Cheng, C.-F. (2020). Knowledge management capabilities and organizational risk-taking for business model innovation in SMEs. Journal of Business Research, 130, 683-697.
Hock-Doepgen， M.， Clauss， T.， Kraus， S.， & Cheng， C.-F.（2020）. 中小企業商業模式創新的知識管理能力和組織風險承擔。 商業研究雜誌， 130,683-697。

Hoetker, G., & Mellewigt, T. (2009). Choice and performance of governance mechanisms: Matching alliance governance to asset type. Strategic Management Journal, 30(10), 1025-1044.
Hoetker， G.， & Mellewigt， T. （2009）。治理機制的選擇和性能：將聯盟治理與資產類型相匹配。 戰略管理雜誌， 30（10）， 1025-1044。

Huang, T. Y., Souitaris, V., & Barsade, S. G. (2019). Which matters more? Group fear versus hope in entrepreneurial escalation of commitment. Strategic Management Journal, 40(11), 1852-1881.
黃，T. Y.，Souitaris，V.和Barsade，SG（2019）。哪個更重要？在創業承諾升級中，群體恐懼與希望。 戰略管理雜誌， 40（11），1852-1881。

Inigo, E. A., Ritala, P., & Albareda, L. (2020). Networking for sustainability: Alliance capabilities and sustainability-oriented innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 89, 550-565.
Inigo， E. A.， Ritala， P.， & Albareda， L. （2020）.可持續發展網路：聯盟能力和以可持續發展為導向的創新。工業行銷管理，89,550-565。

Kamalaldin, A., Linde, L., Sjödin, D., & Parida, V. (2020). Transforming provider-customer relationships in digital servitization: A relational view on digitalization. Industrial Marketing Management, 89, 306-325.
Kamalaldin， A.， Linde， L.， Sjödin， D.， & Parida， V. （2020）.在數位服務化中轉變供應商與客戶的關係：數位化的關係檢視。工業行銷管理，89,306-325。

Karimi, J., & Walter, Z. (2016). Corporate entrepreneurship, disruptive business model innovation adoption, and its performance: The case of the newspaper industry. Long Range Planning, 49(3), 342-360.
Karimi， J. 和 Walter， Z. （2016）。Corporate entreneurship， disruptive business model innovation adoption， and its performance： The case of the newspaper industry. 長期規劃，49（3），342-360。

Kauppila, O.-P. (2015). Alliance management capability and firm performance: Using resource-based theory to look inside the process black box. Long Range Planning, 48(3), 151-167.
考皮拉，O.-P.（2015）. 聯盟管理能力和公司績效：使用基於資源的理論查看流程黑匣子內部。長期規劃，48（3），151-167。

Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19(5), 461– 477.
Lane， P. J.， & Lubatkin， M. （1998年）。相對吸收能力和組織間學習。戰略管理雜誌，19（5），461-477。

Lim, W. M. (2022). The sustainability pyramid: A hierarchical approach to greater sustainability and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals with implications for marketing theory, practice, and public policy. Australasian Marketing Journal, 30(2), 142-150.
林，WM（2022 年）。可持續性金字塔：提高可持續性和聯合國可持續發展目標的分層方法，對營銷理論、實踐和公共政策產生影響。澳大利亞營銷雜誌，30（2），142-150。

Lim, W. M. (2023). Transformative marketing in the new normal: A novel practice-scholarly integrative review of business-to-business marketing mix challenges, opportunities, and solutions. Journal of Business Research, 160, 113638.
林，WM（2023 年）。新常態下的變革性行銷：對企業對企業行銷組合挑戰、機遇和解決方案的新型實踐-學術綜合回顧。商業研究雜誌， 160， 113638.

Lim, W. M., Ciasullo, M. V., Douglas, A., & Kumar, S. (2022). Environmental social governance (ESG) and total quality management (TQM): A multi-study meta-systematic review. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence.
Lim， W. M.， Ciasullo， M. V.， Douglas， A.， & Kumar， S. （2022年）。環境、社會治理 （ESG） 和全面品質管理 （TQM）：一項多研究薈萃系統評價。全面品質管理和業務卓越。

Lozano, R. (2007). Collaboration as a pathway for sustainability. Sustainable Development, 15(6), 370-381.
洛薩諾，R.（2007 年）。合作是可持續發展的途徑。可持續發展，15（6），370-381。

Ludeke-Freund, F., & Dembek, K. (2017). Sustainable business model research and practice: Emerging field or passing fancy? Journal of Cleaner Production, 168, 1668-1678.
Ludeke-Freund， F.， & Dembek， K. （2017）.可持續商業模式研究與實踐：新興領域還是一時興起？Cleaner Production 雜誌，168,1668-1678 。

Mezger, F. (2014). Toward a capability‐based conceptualization of business model innovation: insights from an explorative study. R&D Management, 44(5), 429-449.
梅茨格，F.（2014 年）。邁向基於能力的商業模式創新概念化：來自探索性研究的見解。研發管理， 44（5）， 429-449.

Ministry of Economic Affairs (2023). Ministry of Economic Affairs, Annual report, Taipei, Taiwan.
經濟事務部 （2023）。 經濟部，年度報告，臺北，臺灣。

Montiel, I., Cuervo-Cazurra, A., Park, J., Antolín-López, R., & Husted, B. W. (2021). Implementing the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals in international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 52(5), 999-1030.
Montiel， I.， Cuervo-Cazurra， A.， Park， J.， Antolín-López， R.， & Husted， BW （2021）。在國際業務中實施聯合國可持續發展目標。國際商業研究雜誌，52（5），999-1030。

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables: User's guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.
Muthén， L. K.， & Muthén， B. O. （2017）. Mplus：使用潛在變數進行統計分析：使用者指南（第 8 版）。Muthén & Muthén.

Oo, P. P., T. H. Allison, S. Sahaym and S. Juasrikul (2019). ‘User entrepreneurs’ multiple identities and crowdfunding performance: effects through product innovativeness, perceived passion, and need similarity’, Journal of Business Venturing, 34, art. 105895.
Oo， P. P.， T. H. Allison， S. Sahaym 和 S. Juasrikul （2019）。 “使用者企業家的多重身份和眾籌績效：通過產品創新性、感知激情和需求相似性產生的影響”，《商業風險雜誌》，第 34 期，第 105895 條。

Park, N. K., Mezias, J. M., & Song, J. (2004). A resource-based view of strategic alliances and firm value in the electronic marketplace. Journal of Management, 30(1), 7-27.
Park， N. K.， Mezias， J. M.， & Song， J. （2004年）。電子市場中戰略聯盟和公司價值的基於資源的觀點。管理雜誌，30（1），7-27。

Pedersen, E. R. G., Gwozdz, W., & Hvass, K. K. (2018). Exploring the relationship between business model innovation, corporate sustainability, and organisational values within the fashion industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(2), 267-284.
Pedersen， E. R. G.， Gwozdz， W.， & Hvass， K. K. （2018）。探索 fashion industry 內的 relationship between business model innovation， corporate sustainability， and organisational values .商業倫理雜誌，149（2），267-284。

Pereira, V., Temouri, Y., Wood, G., Bamel, U., & Budhwar, P. (2023). How do grand challenges determine, drive and influence the innovation efforts of for-profit firms? A multidimensional analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management.
Pereira， V.， Temouri， Y.， Wood， G.， Bamel， U.， & Budhwar， P. （2023）.重大挑戰如何決定、推動和影響營利性公司的創新工作？多維分析。產品創新管理雜誌。

Pieroni, M. P., McAloone, T. C., & Pigosso, D. C. (2019). Business model innovation for circular economy and sustainability: A review of approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production, 215, 198-216.
皮耶羅尼，M. P.，麥卡洛內，TC和皮戈索，D. C.（2019）。迴圈經濟和可持續性的商業模式創新：方法綜述。清潔生產雜誌， 215， 198-216。

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
Podsakoff， P. M.， MacKenzie， S. B.， Lee， J.-Y.， & Podsakoff， N. P. （2003）.行為研究中的常見方法偏差：對文獻的批判性回顧和推薦的補救措施。應用心理學雜誌，88（5），879-903。

Quintana-García, C., Benavides-Chicón, C. G., & Marchante-Lara, M. (2021). Does a green supply chain improve corporate reputation? Empirical evidence from European manufacturing sectors. Industrial Marketing Management, 92, 344-353.
Quintana-García， C.， Benavides-Chicón， CG， & Marchante-Lara， M. （2021）。綠色供應鏈是否能提高企業聲譽？來自歐洲製造業的經驗證據。工業行銷管理，92,344-353。

Rai, S. M., Brown, B. D. & Ruwanpura, k. N. (2019). SDG 8: Decent work and economic growth - A gendered analysis. World Development, 113, 368-380.
Rai， SM， Brown， BD & Ruwanpura， KN （2019）。可持續發展目標 8：體面工作和經濟增長 - 性別分析。世界發展，113,368-380。

Reuer, J., & Zollo, M. (2000). Managing governance adaptations in strategic alliances. European Management Journal, 18(2), 164-172.
Reuer， J. 和 Zollo， M. （2000）。管理戰略聯盟中的治理調整。歐洲管理雜誌，18（2），164-172。

Riegler, M., Burton, A. M., Scholz, M., & de Melo, K. (2023). Why companies team up for sustainable development: Antecedents of company engagement in business partnerships for sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment.
Riegler， M.， Burton， A. M.， Scholz， M.， & de Melo， K. （2023）.為什麼公司聯手實現可持續發展：公司參與可持續發展業務夥伴關係的前因。商業戰略與環境。

Rothaermel, F. T., & Deeds, D. L. (2006). Alliance type, alliance experience and alliance management capability in high-technology ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4), 429-460.
Rothaermel， F. T.， & Deeds， D. L. （2006）.在高科技企業中的聯盟類型、聯盟經驗和聯盟管理能力。商業風險雜誌，21（4），429-460。

Sáez-Martínez, F. J., Díaz-García, C., & Gonzalez-Moreno, A. (2016). Firm technological trajectory as a driver of eco-innovation in young small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production, 138, 28–37.
Sáez-Martínez， FJ， Díaz-García， C.， & Gonzalez-Moreno， A. （2016）。堅實的技術軌跡是年輕、中小型企業生態創新的驅動力。清潔生產雜誌， 138， 28-37.

Sanchez, R. (1995). Strategic flexibility in product competition. Strategic Management Journal, 16(S1), 136-159.
桑切斯，R.（1995 年）。在產品競爭中具有戰略靈活性。戰略管理雜誌，16（S1），136-159。

Sarkar, M. B., Echambadi, R., & Harrison, J. S. (2001). Alliance entrepreneurship and firm market performance. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6‐7), 701-711.
Sarkar， M. B.， Echambadi， R.， & Harrison， J. S. （2001年）。聯盟創業和公司市場表現。戰略管理雜誌，22（6-7），701-711。

Schilke, O., & Goerzen, A. (2010). Alliance management capability: An investigation of the construct and its measurement. Journal of Management, 36(5), 1192-1219.
Schilke， O. 和 Goerzen， A. （2010）。聯盟管理能力：對結構及其測量的 n 調查。 管理雜誌，36（5），1192-1219。

Schneider, S., & Clauß, T. (2020). Business models for sustainability: Choices and consequences. Organization & Environment, 33(3), 384-407.
Schneider， S. 和 Clauß， T. （2020）。可持續發展的商業模式：選擇和後果。組織與環境，33（3），384-407。

Schneider, S., & Spieth, P. (2014). Business model innovation and strategic flexibility: Insights from an experimental research design. International Journal of Innovation Management, 18(6), 1440009.
施耐德，S.和斯皮思，P. （2014）。 商業模式創新和戰略靈活性：我從實驗研究設計中看到了。 國際創新管理雜誌， 18（6）， 1440009。

Schreiner, M., Kale, P., & Corsten, D. (2009). What is alliance management capability and how does it impact alliance outcomes and success? Strategic Management Journal, 30(13), 1395-1419.
Schreiner， M.， Kale， P.， & Corsten， D. （2009年）。什麼是聯盟管理能力，它如何影響聯盟成果和成功？戰略管理雜誌，30（13），1395-1419。

Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2008, June). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer software]. Available from http://quantpsy.org/.
Selig， J. P.， & Preacher， K. J. （2008年6月）。評估仲介的蒙特卡洛方法：一種為間接效應創建置信區間的互動式工具 [計算機軟體]。http://quantpsy.org/ 起 提供。

Snihur, Y., & Wiklund, J. (2019). Searching for innovation: Product, process, and business model innovations and search behavior in established firms. Long Range Planning, 52(3), 305-325.
Snihur， Y. 和 Wiklund， J. （2019）。尋找創新：成熟公司的產品、流程和商業模式創新以及搜索行為。長期規劃，52（3），305-325。

Spieth, P., Laudien, S. M., & Meissner, S. (2021). Business model innovation in strategic alliances: A multi-layer perspective. R&D Management, 51(1), 24-39.
Spieth， P.， Laudien， SM， & Meissner， S. （2021）。戰略聯盟中的商業模式創新： 多層次視角。 研發管理， 51（1）， 24-39.

Spieth, P., Schneider, S., Clauß, T., & Eichenberg, D. (2019). Value drivers of social businesses: A business model perspective. Long Range Planning, 52(3), 427-444.
Spieth， P.， Schneider， S.， Clauß， T.， & Eichenberg， D. （2019）。社會企業的價值驅動因素：商業模式視角。長期規劃，52（3），427-444。

Spieth, P., & Schuchert, S. (2018). Business model innovation alliances: How to open business models for cooperation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 22(04), 1850042.
Spieth， P. 和 Schuchert， S. （2018）。 商業模式創新聯盟：如何開啟合作商業模式。國際創新管理雜誌， 22（04）， 1850042.

Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 172-194.
蒂斯，DJ（2010 年）。商業模式、商業戰略和創新。長期規劃，43（2），172-194。

Teece, D. J. (2012). Dynamic capabilities: Routines versus entrepreneurial action. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1395-1401.
蒂斯，DJ（2012年）。動態能力：例行公事與創業行動。 管理研究雜誌，49（8），1395-1401。

Teece, D. J. (2018). Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 40– 49.
蒂斯，DJ（2018 年）。商業模式和動態功能。長期規劃，51（1），40-49。

Usunier, J.-C. (1998). International and cross-cultural management research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
烏蘇尼爾，J.-C.（1998）. 國際和跨文化管理研究。 加利福尼亞州千橡市：Sage。

Van Der Waal, J. W., Thijssens, T., & Maas, K. (2021). The innovative contribution of multinational enterprises to the Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 285, 125319.
Van Der Waal， J. W.， Thijssens， T.， & Maas， K. （2021）。跨國企業對可持續發展目標的創新貢獻。Cleaner Production 雜誌， 285， 125319.

van Kleef, J. A. G., & Roome, N. J. (2007). Developing capabilities and competence for sustainable business management as innovation: A research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(1), 38-51.
van Kleef， J. A. G.， & ROOME， N. J. （2007 年）。將可持續商業管理的能力和能力培養為創新：研究議程。 Cleaner P介紹雜誌，15（1），38-51。

Velu, C. (2015). Business model innovation and third-party alliance on the survival of new firms. Technovation, 35, 1-11.
Velu， C. （2015 年）。商業模式創新和第三方聯盟促進新公司生存。技術創新， 35， 1-11.

Von Delft, S., Kortmann, S., Gelhard, C., & Pisani, N. (2019). Leveraging global sources of knowledge for business model innovation. Long Range Planning, 52(5), 101848.
馮·代爾夫特，S.，科特曼，S.，格爾哈德，C.和皮薩尼，N.（2019）。利用全球知識資源進行商業模式創新。長期規劃， 52（5）， 101848.

Williams, A., & Blasberg, L. A. (2022). SDG platforms as strategic innovation through partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 180(4), 1041-1057.
威廉姆斯，A.和布拉斯伯格，洛杉磯（2022）。SDG platforms as strategic innovation through partnerships. 商業倫理雜誌，180（4），1041-1057。

Zahoor, N., Al-Tabbaa, O., & Khan, Z. (2023). R&D alliances and SMEs post-entry internationalization speed: The impact of alliance management capability and co-innovation ambidexterity. Global Strategy Journal, 13(2), 315-348.
Zahoor， N.， Al-Tabbaa， O.， & Khan， Z. （2023年）。研發聯盟和中小企業進入後國際化速度：聯盟管理能力和共同創新二元性的影響。全球戰略雜誌，13（2），315-348。

Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2007). Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 18(2), 181-199.
Zott， C.， & Amit， R. （2007年）。商業模式設計和創業公司的績效。組織 Science， 18（2）， 181-199。

Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business model design: An activity system perspective. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 216-226.
Zott， C.， & Amit， R. （2010年）。商業模式設計：An activity system perspective. 長期規劃，43（2），216-226。

Al-Tabbaa, O., Nasr, A., Zahoor, N., & De Silva, M. (2023). Socio-emotional wealth preservation and alliance success in family firms: The role of political instability and alliance management capability. British Journal of Management, 34, 915–941. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12626
Al-Tabbaa， O.， Nasr， A.， Zahoor， N.， & De Silva， M. （2023）.家族企業的社會情感財富保值和聯盟成功：政治不穩定和聯盟管理能力的作用。英國管理雜誌，34,915-941。https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12626

Barrales-Molina, V., Bustinza, Ó. F., & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, L. J. (2013). Explaining the causes and effects of dynamic capabilities generation: A multiple-indicator multiple-cause modelling approach. British Journal of Management, 24, 571–591. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00829.x
Barrales-Molina， V.， Bustinza， Ó. F.， & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez， L. J. （2013）.解釋動態能力生成的原因和影響：一種多指標多原因建模方法。英國管理雜誌，24,571-591。https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00829.x

Becker-Ritterspach, F., Geppert, M., Lange, K., & Saka-Helmhout, A. (2015). Changing business models and employee representation in the airline industry: A comparison of British Airways and Deutsche Lufthansa. British Journal of Management, 26, 388–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12096
Becker-Ritterspach， F.， Geppert， M.， Lange， K.， & Saka-Helmhout， A. （2015）.航空業不斷變化的商業模式和員工代表：英國航空公司和德國漢莎航空公司的比較。英國管理雜誌，26,388-407。https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12096

Garcia Martinez, M., Sanchez Garcia, M., & Zouaghi, F. (2019). Casting a wide net for innovation: Mediating effect of R&D human and social capital to unlock the value from alliance portfolio diversity. British Journal of Management, 30, 769–790. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12310
Garcia Martinez， M.， Sanchez Garcia， M.， & Zouaghi， F. （2019）.廣撒網創新：調節研發人力和社會資本的作用，以釋放聯盟投資組合多樣性的價值。英國管理雜誌，30,769-790。https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12310

Gupta, S., Wang, Y., & Czinkota, M. (2021). Reshoring and sustainable development goals. British Journal of Management, 32, E6–E9. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12500
Gupta， S.， Wang， Y.， & Czinkota， M. （2021）.迴流和可持續發展目標。英國管理雜誌， 32， E6–E9. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12500

Herhausen, D., Brozović, D., Morgan, R. E., & Volberda, H. W. (2021). Re-examining strategic flexibility: A meta-analysis of its antecedents, consequences, and contingencies. British Journal of Management, 32, 435–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12413
Herhausen， D.， Brozović， D.， Morgan， R. E.， & Volberda， H. W. （2021）。重新審視戰略靈活性：對其前因、後果和意外事件的薈萃分析。英國管理雜誌，32,435-455。https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12413

Jiang, F., Jiang, X., Sheng, S., & Wang, G. (2021). A moderated mediation model linking entrepreneurial orientation to strategic alliance performance. British Journal of Management, 32, 1338–1358. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12428
江，F.，江，X.，盛，S.和王，G.（2021 年）。一種將創業導向與戰略聯盟績效聯繫起來的調節仲介模型。英國管理雜誌，32,1338-1358。https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12428

Patzelt, H., zu Knyphausen-Aufseß, D., & Nikol, P. (2008). Top management teams, business models, and performance of biotechnology ventures: An upper echelon perspective. British Journal of Management, 19, 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00552.x
Patzelt， H.， zu Knyphausen-Aufseß， D.， & Nikol， P. （2008）.生物技術企業的高層管理團隊、商業模式和績效：上層視角。英國管理雜誌，19,205-221。https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00552.x

Vlaisavljevic, V., Cabello-Medina, C., & Pérez-Luño, A. (2016). Coping with diversity in alliances for innovation: The role of relational social capital and knowledge codifiability. British Journal of Management, 27, 304–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12155
Vlaisavljevic， V.， Cabello-Medina， C.， & Pérez-Luño， A. （2016）.應對創新聯盟中的多樣性：關係社會資本和知識可編纂性的作用。英國管理雜誌， 27， 304–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12155

Van Gestel, N., Ferlie, E., & Grotenbreg, S. (2024). A public value strategy for sustainable development goals: Transforming an existing organization? British Journal of Management, 35, 839–853. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12742
Van Gestel， N.， Ferlie， E.， & Grotenbreg， S. （2024）。可持續發展目標的公共價值戰略：改造現有組織？英國管理雜誌，35,839-853。https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12742

Figure 1. Conceptual model
圖 1. 概念模型

Table 1 Comparisons of measurement models
表 1 測量模型比較

Notes: ^a alliance management capability (AMC); business model innovation (BMI); strategic flexibility (SF); SDG performance (SDG).
注：^a 聯盟管理能力 （AMC）;商業模式創新 （BMI）;戰略靈活性 （SF）;SDG 績效 （SDG）。

^b Three factors: AMC combined with BMI; SF; SDG.
^b三個因素： AMC 與 BMI 結合;SF;可持續發展目標。

^c Three factors: AMC combined with SF; BMI; SDG.
c三個因素：AMC 聯合 SF;體重指數;可持續發展目標。

^d Three factors: AMC combined with SDG; BMI; SF.
d三個因素：AMC 與 SDG 相結合;體重指數;SF.

^e Three factors: BMI combined with SF; AMC; SDG.
^e三個因素： BMI 與 SF 結合; 一個MC;可持續發展目標。

^f Three factors: BMI combined with SDG; AMC; SF.
^f三個因素：BMI與 SDG 相結合; 一個MC;SF。

^g Three factors: SF combined with SDG; AMC; BMI.
^g三個因素：SF 與 SDG 相結合; 一個MC;BMI.

^h Two factors: AMC, BMI and SF combined; SDG.
^h兩個因素：AMC、BMI 和 SF 相結合;可持續發展目標。

ⁱ Two factors: AMC, BMI and SDG combined; SF.
兩個因素：AMC、BMI 和 SDG 相結合;SF。

^j Two factors: AMC, SF and SDG combined; BMI.
兩個因素：AMC、SF 和 SDG 相結合;BMI.

^k Two factors: BMI, SF and SDG combined; AMC.
^k兩個因素：BMI、SF 和 SDG 相結合; 一個MC。

^l One factor: all four variables combined.
一個因素：所有四個變數的組合。

^* p < .05, ^** p < .01, ^*** p < .001.
^*p < .05， ^**p < .01， p < .001.

Table 2. Correlation matrix and descriptive statistics
表 2. 相關矩陣和描述性統計

Note: ^* p < .05; ^** p < .01; ^*** p < .001. SD: Standard deviation. N = 556
註：^*p < .05; ^**p < .01; p < .001.SD：標準差。N = 556