Technology Analysis & Strategic Management

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctas20

Technological synergies as antecedents of

sustainable development: deep-tech versus
shallow-tech perspective

Zeljko Tekic, Asia Abuelez & Anja Tekic

To cite this article: Zeljko Tekic, Asia Abuelez & Anja Tekic (2023): Technological synergies
as antecedents of sustainable development: deep-tech versus shallow-tech perspective,
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2023.2220828

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2023.2220828

Published online: 20 Jun 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 56

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctas20
TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2023.2220828

Technological synergies as antecedents of sustainable

development: deep-tech versus shallow-tech perspective
Zeljko Tekic , Asia Abuelez and Anja Tekic
Graduate School of Business, HSE University, Moscow, Russia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Prior research suggests that synergies between deep and shallow Received 30 May 2022
technologies could create unprecedented capacity to achieve Revised 23 May 2023
sustainable development. However, there is little understanding if these Accepted 29 May 2023
synergies are already achieved and how different technologies work
KEYWORDS
together on a country level to enable its sustainable development. We Deep tech; shallow tech;
respond to this question starting from the contingency theory and sustainable development;
adopting a configurational perspective to inductively explore the SDGs; QCA
interaction effects of two key deep technologies (artificial intelligence
and Internet of things) and two key shallow technologies (broadband
and cloud computing) on a country’s sustainability performance. We
employ the fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) on a data
set of 79 countries, allowing us to embrace the synergies brought by
technological convergences. Our results determine how deep and
shallow technologies complement and substitute each other and thereby
create multiple technological pathways towards high and low
sustainable development at the national level. In this way, this study
offers significant implications for research, policy, and practice concerned
with the issues lying at the intersection of technology and sustainability.

1. Introduction
The growing concern for the socio-ecological system, climate emergency, and human well-being has
spawned the concept of sustainable development as a broad social aim, with digital technologies
increasingly being considered as a means of achieving this goal (Parrish 2010; George, Merrill, and
Schillebeeckx 2020; Kuzma et al. 2020; Skare and Porada-Rochon 2022). Broadly, there are two path-
ways to sustainability supported by technology: (1) relying on technology to provide substantial
advances in solving major societal, environmental, and economic challenges (e.g. an order of mag-
nitude more energy-efficient solution or moving to autonomous cars); and (2) relying on technology
to enable new business models to attack the same challenges facilitating novel combinations of
existing resources (e.g. sharing cars and apartments). The first approach is dependent on so-called
deep technologies (or deep tech) – technologies rooted in significant R&D advances in science,
engineering, or medicine (Siegel and Krishnan 2020; Romasanta et al. 2022; Schuh, Latz, and
Lorenz 2022), and frequently considered as foundational for the next generation of products and ser-
vices in their fields. On the other hand, off-the-shelf or shallow technologies (e.g. Internet technol-
ogies like Web 2.0 and cloud computing) allow accelerated experimentation with business
models, opening up new opportunities for organising business activities in a more sustainable
way (e.g. circular and sharing economy).

CONTACT Zeljko Tekic ztekic@hse.ru Graduate School of Business, HSE University, Shabolovka 26-28, Moscow 119049,
Russia
© 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 Z. TEKIC ET AL.

While the two research streams are very rich, there is little understanding of how deep and shallow
technologies work together on a country level to enable its sustainable development. The logic and
current discussion in the academic and practitioner literature (e.g. Del Río Castro, González Fernán-
dez, and Uruburu Colsa 2021; Gourevitch et al. 2021) suggest that convergences between deep and
shallow technologies should create unprecedented capacity to achieve the sustainable development
goals (SDGs). However, it is not clear if these synergies are already achieved across deep-tech/
shallow-tech verticals, or only within individual technology stacks. The purpose of this paper is to
fill identified gap by exploring how deep and shallow technologies interact and combine on a
country level to enable its sustainable development, and if identified combinations are exclusively
based on deep-tech/shallow-tech verticals or on synergies across them. Thus, in this paper, we
ask the following research questions:
RQ1: How do deep and shallow technologies interact and combine on a country level to enable its sustainable
development? and

RQ2: Are combinations of technologies enabling sustainable development on a country level exclusively based
on deep-tech/shallow-tech verticals or on synergies across the verticals?

We aim to answer these questions starting from contingency theory and by adopting a configura-
tional perspective. We employ fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) to inductively
explore the interaction effects of the country-level development of two key deep technologies (artifi-
cial intelligence and Internet of things) and two key shallow technologies (broadband and cloud
computing) on a country’s sustainability performance. Our study relies on the quantitative data
about 79 countries retrieved from the Global Connectivity Index 2020 (Huawei 2020) for the technol-
ogies and the Sustainable Development Report 2021 (Sachs et al. 2021) for sustainability
performance.
Our results offer important contributions to theory and literature. We determine multiple techno-
logical pathways towards high sustainability that are based on strong deep tech (i.e. AI or IoT) and
strong shallow tech (i.e. broadband and cloud computing), while weak shallow tech (i.e. broadband)
is determined as a pathway towards low sustainability. We also show how deep technologies sub-
stitute each other in their impact on sustainability. Together, these results suggest that there are sig-
nificant possibilities for synergies between deep and shallow technologies, as well as between deep
technologies on their own, for further advancing sustainability. Finally, by taking synergies brought
by technological convergences into account, our study provides strong evidence that contingency
theory and configurational approaches (Lawrence and Lorsch 1967; Van de Ven, Ganco, and Hinings
2013) are valuable in deepening our understanding of the influence of technological development
on sustainability at the national level.
The remainder of the paper is organised in the following way. In Section 2, we review the relevant
literature, while in Section 3 we present our theoretical framework. Section 4 describes the collected
data and methods used. Section 5 presents the results, while in Section 6 we discuss their implication
for theory and practice. The paper ends with conclusions presented in Section 7.

2. The nexus of technology and sustainability: literature review

2.1. Deep tech versus shallow tech
Deep tech or deep technology is a relatively new term coined and used by venture capital firms to
refer to technologies based on cutting-edge science and engineering with the potential to
address many of the challenges of economic development, public health, and climate change (de
la Tour et al. 2019; Gourevitch et al. 2021; Romasanta et al. 2022; Schuh, Latz, and Lorenz 2022).
Examples of solutions built on deep tech would include new medical devices or techniques for
fighting cancer, a clean energy solution trying to lessen the human impact on climate change,
and autonomous vehicles. Deep tech is used to contrast shallow tech – commoditized digital
 TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 3

technologies readily available, which are used to build numerous mobile apps, e-commerce, or
sharing economy services. These technologies are typically not pivotal for the success of applications
and services they are used in, rather they are enablers of novel business models which are at the
centre of their competitiveness (Urbinati et al. 2019; Romasanta et al. 2022). Opposite to that,
deep technologies are the key enablers of competitive advantage. Shallow tech in synergy with
novel business models is used to quickly respond to consumers’ current needs and demands. On
the other hand, deep tech projects require longer development times and significantly more
resources to move them to market. Table 1 presents the key differences between deep and
shallow technologies.
Seasoned practitioners Siegel and Krishnan (2020) define deep technology as something that
‘was impossible yesterday, is barely feasible today, and will quickly become so pervasive and impact-
ful that it is difficult to remember life without’, while Schuh, Latz, and Lorenz (2022) see them as
‘innovative technologies of (cyber-)physical nature that are characterized by long development
times, high capital requirements, as well as high market and technology uncertainty, and addresses
fundamental societal as well as environmental challenges’.
Unlike shallow tech-enabled and business model-based solutions which are typically software-
only solutions, deep technologies are dominantly built by integrating hardware and software
elements, encompassing fundamental functions such as sensing, imaging, detection, connectivity,
computation, inference, actuation, and control (Siegel and Krishnan 2020). Thus, deep tech sol-
utions are of higher complexity. Another element that prevents deep tech solutions from being
easily and legally copied or circumvented by potential competitors, is reliance on patent protec-
tion. Namely, as they are built around unique or hard-to-reproduce technological or scientific
advances (de la Tour et al. 2019), deep technologies can significantly benefit from existing IP
system.
Despite bearing significant risks related to technology development (next to those of market
commercialisation) recent reports suggest increased investors interest in deep tech (Nedayvoda
et al. 2021; Startup Genome 2022). Not only that the number of deep tech startups significantly
increased over the last 5 years (Startup Genome 2020), but they also received more funding than
other new tech ventures did (de la Tour et al. 2019) and became the main driver of the growth of
startup ecosystems around the globe (Startup Genome 2022).

Table 1. Differences between deep and shallow tech.

Deep tech
Based on new scientific and /or engineering breakthroughs
Key to competitive advantage
The complexity of tech and its IP protection act as barriers to
entry for potential competitors
Solutions based on deep tech are typically a combination of
hardware and software
Has the potential to radically change existing markets or to
create entirely new markets
Focused on solving complex social and environmental
challenges, not on a specific user
Access to research infrastructure (e.g. research labs,
supercomputers) and significant resources are needed to
move them to market
Long development cycles (5–10 years)
Validation requires rigorous testing of technology
Significant technology and market risks
Examples of solutions built on deep tech: new medical
techniques fighting cancer, clean energy solution lessening
the human impact on climate change, autonomous vehicles,
etc.
Shallow tech
Based on commoditized digital technologies readily available
Enables novel business models which are at the heart of
competitive advantage
The complexity of a business model and its execution act as
barriers to entry for potential competitors
Solutions based on shallow tech are typically software only
Incrementally improves existing markets
Focused on solving the current needs of end users
Can be developed ‘in a garage’ based on bootstrap financing
Short development cycles (from few days to a year)
Validation goes through iterative market development using
a dominantly lean startup methodology
Market risk only
Examples of solutions built on shallow tech: numerous
Internet companies, mobile apps, e-commerce or sharing
economy services like Uber and Airbnb
4 Z. TEKIC ET AL.

2.2. Sustainability through deep-shallow tech prism

Sustainable development, defined as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED 1987), has
become a critical objective for most of the world economies. And it is not surprising. From an
environmental perspective, climate crisis, severe biodiversity loss, and increased pollution create
numerous threats to the Earth’s ecosystems’ capacity to renew and survive in the long term,
putting in danger the harmonic co-existence of nature and humanity (Del Río Castro, González Fer-
nández, and Uruburu Colsa 2021). Our society is also moving towards engineering human behaviour
(Morozov 2019), the creation of surveillance capitalism (Zuboff 2019) and increased unemployment
risks (Scholz et al. 2018; Frank et al. 2019), which are threatening society’s ability to endure commu-
nities well-being, equity, and intergenerational justice (Osburg 2017).
These developments, together with still widespread dominance of economic growth at the
expense of environmental and social degradation, create numerous challenges on both local and
global levels. These challenges may lead to serious consequences disproportionately affecting
those more vulnerable, especially in low-income countries, inevitably resulting in a negative
impact on the entire society. For example, climate change can directly lead to an increase in infec-
tious diseases, water toxicity, and a decrease in air quality, while indirectly it can lead to starvation,
forced migration, and frequent conflicts (Montgomery 2017).
Sustainable development relies heavily on its interrelationship with technologies. Evidence from
the existing research suggests that both deep tech (Fernández Fernández, Fernández López, and
Olmedillas Blanco 2018; de la Tour et al. 2019; Gourevitch et al. 2021; Nedayvoda et al. 2021) and
shallow tech (Bocken et al. 2014; Muñoz and Cohen 2017; Laukkanen and Tura 2020; Henry et al.
2021) can accelerate progress towards achieving the Sustainability Development Goals, the most
universally accepted set of KPIs for measuring sustainable development (Sachs et al. 2021).
Previous research argues and shows that technological innovation is an important mechanism
to address the challenges of climate change and achieve sustainable development, even when the
priority objective of innovation invested in is not the environment (Fernández Fernández, Fernán-
dez López, and Olmedillas Blanco 2018). Using a bottom-up approach, the recent study done by
the leading consultancy in the field of deep tech (de la Tour et al. 2019) analysed 1646 deep tech
startups across the world and identified that the most frequently targeted SDG by deep tech ven-
tures is Goal 3 ‘Good health and well-being’ (51%), followed by Goal 9 ‘Industry, innovation, and
infrastructure’ (50%).
In this context, Industry 4.0 has also been discussed as it is seen not only as a promotor of econ-
omic growth but also as an enabler of a greener future (de Villiers, Kuruppu, and Dissanayake 2021).
Multiple studies show that the Internet of Things and big data (that is AI) are key drivers of sustain-
able development in the context of Industry 4.0 (Mabkhot et al. 2021; Nara et al. 2021). However, as
with some other technologies, evidence shows that these technologies are associated with substan-
tial positive impacts on economic metrics, and to a much smaller extent on environmental and social
metrics (Nara et al. 2021). Thus, Industry 4.0 is getting its extension in the form of Industry 5.0, which
aims to ‘achieve societal goals beyond jobs and growth to become a resilient provider of prosperity,
by making production respect the boundaries of our planet and placing the wellbeing of the indus-
trial worker at the center of the production process’ (European Commission 2021). In other words, it
puts the social and environmental aspects of sustainability at the centre of industry development.
When it comes to shallow technologies, their contribution to sustainable development is
observed more often indirectly, through the application of novel business models (e.g. sharing
economy), which they enable. In this way, shallow tech facilitates the creation of sustainable
value by unlocking the value of unused or underutilised assets at a fraction of the cost to some
who cannot or do not want to buy new products, through peer-to-peer exchange or collaborative
consumption (Bocken et al. 2014; Muñoz and Cohen 2017; Laukkanen and Tura 2020; Henry et al.
2021). In this manner, almost everything, from materials to data and information, can be shared
 TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 5

through recovery, recycling, redistribution, and other ways (Plewnia and Guenther 2018) with or
without compensation. By incentivizing consumers to rent, share, swap, or lend idle goods,
sharing economy business models influence change in consumers’ habits (Leismann et al. 2013),
maximise the utilisation of resources and avoid overconsumption in the long term (Laukkanen
and Tura 2020).
Sharing as a concept is not new – it has been around for centuries, but digital platforms and other
large-scale mediating technologies have not (Sutherland and Jarrahi 2018). The development of
online platforms that promote user-generated content, sharing, and collaboration became possible
once information technologies and Web 2.0 achieved a tipping point (Kaplan and Haenlein 2010). In
a similar manner, it was possible for sharing economy pioneers – Uber and Airbnb – to scale once
cloud computing infrastructure providing ‘limitless’ data storage and processing capabilities acces-
sible anytime (Gill and Buyya 2018) was ready and available (Marston et al. 2011).
Finally, we should not forget that the relationship between technology and sustainability is not
always positive (Bekaroo, Bokhoree, and Pattinson 2016; Aksin-Sivrikaya and Bhattacharya 2017;
Scholz et al. 2018; Bohnsack, Bidmon, and Pinkse 2022). Technologies – being shallow or deep –
may lead to negative environmental, social, and economic impacts, such as degradation of
nature, increase in electronic waste, energy, and water usage, unemployment, accelerated consump-
tion, and inequalities.

3. Theoretical framework
Our research framework is based on ideas from contingency theory and its configurational perspec-
tive. Contingency theory postulates that there is no universal – one size fits all – strategy that is
equally effective in all circumstances, but that in different contexts there are different strategies
(or sets of strategies) that fit better than others (Lawrence and Lorsch 1967; Donaldson 2001;
Otley 2016). In our case, this means that we start from the premise that there is no one best tech-
nology-based recipe (combination of deep and shallow tech ingredients) to achieve a high level
of sustainability in a country, but that different countries may achieve it through different pathways.
On the other hand, the configuration perspective allows us to examine many contingencies in a sim-
ultaneous manner based on a combination of multiple elements, rather than on a single-element
approach (Meyer, Tsui, and Hinings 1993; Van de Ven, Ganco, and Hinings 2013). Based on this,
we analyze how different combinations of shallow and deep technologies, which form technology
configurations, influence sustainability at the national level. In other words, rather than trying to
explain how a country achieved a specific level of sustainable development one-technology-at-a-
time, a configuration perspective enables us to focus on how it is done from the interaction of tech-
nologies taken together as a whole (Van de Ven, Ganco, and Hinings 2013). This approach is meth-
odologically supported by the Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), introduced by Charles Ragin
in 1987 (Misangyi et al. 2016; Greckhamer et al. 2018). The QCA takes into account different aspects
of causal complexity that lie at the core of our analysis, i.e. multiple conjunctural causation, causal
equifinality, and causal asymmetry, allowing us to determine the interconnectedness among tech-
nology elements (QCA conditions) and their mutual influence on national-level sustainable develop-
ment (QCA outcomes).
Starting from this theoretical framework and distinguishing between shallow and deep technol-
ogies, we aim to identify technology-based recipes countries use to achieve higher (and lower) levels
of sustainable development. Based on existing evidence (de la Tour et al. 2019; Huawei 2020; Startup
Genome 2020; Gourevitch et al. 2021; Romasanta et al. 2022), we use data on a country’s level of
development of AI and the IoT technologies to proxy the country’s level of deep technology devel-
opment, and a country’s level of development of the Internet broadband access and cloud comput-
ing technologies to proxy the country’s level of shallow technology development. Before we
proceed with methodology and results, we briefly present the technologies and their impact on
sustainability.
6 Z. TEKIC ET AL.

3.1. Shallow tech 1: Broadband

Broadband Internet access denotes access which: (1) has a high-speed (high enough that inter-
actions such as downloading a web page are happening ‘immediately’); and (2) is always on
(no need to every time connect to the Internet) (Savage and Waldman 2005). Broadband
access can be achieved through different wired (optical fibre, broadband over power line) and
wireless (4G and LTE mobile networks, satellites, and balloons) connections. It creates a platform
for the realisation of relevant ICT applications, such as Web 2.0. Better and more stable Internet
access enables, among other things, more job options, and better access to healthcare and edu-
cation – all primary targets of sustainable development (Sachs et al. 2021). However, it also
increases the consumption of goods and services (Teppayayon, Bohlin, and Forge 2009) and accel-
erates social changes in traditional families, such as an increased propensity for divorce (Zheng,
Duan, and Ward 2019).

3.2. Shallow tech 2: Cloud Computing

According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology definition, cloud computing is ‘a
model for enabling ubiquitous, convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configur-
able computing resources (e.g. networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be
rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction’
(NIST 2011). In other words, cloud computing is providing ‘limitless’ data storage and processing
capabilities accessible anytime (Gill and Buyya 2018) and in that way enables scalability and auto-
mation of business processes in energy- and cost-efficient way. The cloud provides affordable and
resilient computing resources for a wide range of users, offering opportunities for infrastructure
development and innovation, especially in the fields of healthcare and education. The most vital
impact cloud technologies have on SDGs is associated with energy efficiency (Accenture 2010; Gill
and Buyya 2018).

3.3. Deep tech 1: Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Artificial intelligence (AI) is typically defined as a machine’s ability to process, interpret and learn
from external data, and to use those learnings to accomplish specific tasks through flexible adap-
tation (Haenlein and Kaplan 2019). Its core component is based on the advances in machine learning,
which is the ability of computer systems to learn without being programmed in advance. The evol-
ving capability of AI systems to solve complex problems autonomously could radically change the
economy and society (McKinsey Global Institute 2018; Frank et al. 2019; Vinuesa et al. 2020). A
recent study shows that AI acts as an enabler of 79% of SDG targets, but at the same time, 35%
of targets may suffer negatively from tech development (Vinuesa et al. 2020). One of the major
impacts of AI on the socio-economic systems is the transformation of labour markets, as some of
the employment opportunities could be diminished as AI significantly increases productivity
(Frank et al. 2019). On the other hand, AI helps by accelerating new drug discovery, reducing the
number of medical mistakes, and improving diagnostic capabilities (DeepMind 2018; Savage 2021).

3.4. Deep tech 2: Internet of Things (IoT)

The Internet of Things (IoT) is a network of connected things (e.g. computing devices, mechanical and
digital machines, objects) and people, in which all its participants collect and share data about the way
they are used and about the environment around them in an automatised way (IBM 2016). IoT substan-
tially changes the way things and people connect, interact with each other, and participate in various
realms of society, including sustainability (de Villiers, Kuruppu, and Dissanayake 2021; Mabkhot et al.
2021). It is widely used in manufacturing applications within Industry 4.0 and is considered its most
 TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 7

important segment (Martinelli, Mina, and Moggi 2021). Further, IoT is used in many applications in
housing, smart city, and healthcare. From the environmental perspective, IoT helps increase transpar-
ency on environmental conditions (Schneider 2019).

4. Methodology
4.1. Data collection
Our sample comprises quantitative data on the national-level development of shallow technologies
(i.e. broadband and cloud computing) and deep technologies (i.e. AI and IoT), as well as the sustain-
ability performance of 79 countries. The measures related to the development of the technologies
have been retrieved from the Global Connectivity Index 2020 (Huawei 2020). The index benchmarks
79 countries, providing scores (0–120) that reflect their rate of national-level development of the four
key technologies, i.e. broadband, cloud computing, AI, and IoT, on the basis of 40 variables. The vari-
ables are measured (and normalised) against factors such as GDP, number of households, and total
population, so the index can benchmark countries according to relative levels of technology devel-
opment and overall connectivity rather than the absolute size of a market or economy. The index
exists from 2014 and is presented by Huawei, one of the leading global ICT companies.
Regarding the national-level sustainability performance, for each of the 79 countries in our
sample we retrieve the quantitative data from the Sustainable Development Report 2021 (Sachs
et al. 2021). The report presents a global assessment of the countries’ progress towards achieving
the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted by the UN in September 2015. The SDGs con-
stitute the most widely accepted agenda for sustainable development today and a crucial framework
for governments, civil society, and businesses to plan, measure, and communicate their contribution
to sustainable development (Sachs et al. 2021). We rely on the overall scores (0–100), which reflect
the countries’ achievement across all 17 SDGs.
Table 2 provides descriptive statistics of our final sample.

4.2. Data analysis

In this study, we employ the fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA), which allows us to
embrace complex interactions of multiple shallow and deep technology elements that comprise a
country’s technology base, and determine their joint influence on the national-level sustainability
development. To conduct the fsQCA, we define four condition sets, i.e. broadband, cloud computing,
AI, and IoT, as well as two outcome sets, i.e. high and low sustainability. The fsQCA enables us to
categorise each country in our sample according to the degree of its membership to a specific tech-
nology profile (i.e. strong versus weak broadband, cloud computing, AI, and IoT technology base), as
well as the degree of its accomplishment of the SDGs (i.e. high versus low). It captures fuzzy-set
membership, ranging from full non-membership to full membership (0–1), by means of calibration
of raw variables into set measures.
We employ the direct method of calibration that requires determining the thresholds for a coun-
try’s full membership (1), its full non-membership (0), and the cross-over point (0,5) of ultimate ambi-
guity with respect to its membership in condition and outcome sets (Fiss 2011; Schneider and

Table 2. Descriptive statistics.

Median Mean Min Max St. Dev.
Broadband 65,00 61,80 17,00 101,00 23,45
Cloud computing 39,00 41,66 21,00 93,00 13,44
Artificial intelligence 27,00 30,27 21,00 60,00 9,33
Internet of things 33,00 40,18 21,00 81,00 16,78
SDG Index Score 72,76 72,50 54,19 86,48 7,66
8 Z. TEKIC ET AL.

Wagemann 2012). The membership in the condition sets is coded 0 if the corresponding value is
lower than or equal to the 25th percentile (indicating full non-membership) and is coded 1 if this
value is higher than or equal to the 75th percentile (indicating full membership). The average
value of the sample is chosen as the crossover point between membership and non-membership
of a specific country in the condition set. The same calibration approach is used to define the coun-
try’s membership in the high sustainability outcome set, while the membership in the low sustain-
ability outcome set is coded as its negation (Table 3).

5. Results
5.1. Necessity analysis
A condition is considered to be necessary for the outcome, if the outcome is a subset of the con-
dition set (Ragin 2008). The aim of the necessity analysis is to identify necessary conditions that
are relevant to the outcome. Following the recommendations of Schneider and Wagemann
(2012), we set the consistency threshold at 0.9 and the threshold for the relevance of necessity at 0.6.
Results of the analyses of necessary conditions for high and low sustainability at the national level
are presented in Table 4. Only a weak IoT technology base of a country is identified as a necessary
condition for low sustainability, i.e. it is always present when the outcome is present, but it might not
be enough to produce the specific outcome on its own. No conditions meet the set thresholds of
consistency (0.9) and relevance of necessity (0.6) for high sustainability.

5.2. Sufficiency analysis

A condition is considered to be sufficient if it influences a specific outcome. In other words, if a
sufficient condition is present, the outcome is also present, while it denotes a subset of the
outcome set (Ragin 2008).
Sufficiency analysis includes the truth table analysis and logical minimisation, which result in the
minimal configurations of conditions that are associated with the outcome. Following the recommen-
dations of Schneider and Wagemann (2012) for exploratory studies, we set the consistency threshold
to the minimum recommended value of 0.75 and the threshold for the proportional reduction in
inconsistency (PRI) to 0.6. By applying the rules of Boolean algebra, we minimised the empirical
data from the truth tables into countries’ technology profiles associated with high and low sustainabil-
ity at the national level. All of the solutions are composed of core conditions – i.e. the technology
elements that indicate a strong relationship with the outcome – and peripheral conditions – i.e. the
technology elements that reinforce the influence of the core conditions (Fiss 2011).
Sufficiency analysis identifies three solutions associated with a high level of sustainability
(HIGH_SDG) and one solution associated with a low level of sustainability (LOW_SDG). The results
of the sufficiency analysis are presented in Table 5.
Solution 1 indicates that countries with a strong IoT technology base (core condition), comple-
mented by a strong broadband technology base (peripheral condition), achieve high sustainability

Table 3. Specification of calibration thresholds.

fsQCA sets Title Threshold full non-membership Crossover point Threshold full membership
Condition sets
Broadband BROADBAND 41.25 61.80 79.00
Cloud computing CLOUD 33.75 41.66 46.50
Artificial intelligence AI 24.00 30.27 34.5
Internet of things IOT 27.00 40.18 49.50
Outcome sets
High sustainability HIGH_SDG 67.75 72.50 78.79
Low sustainability LOW_SDG 78.79 72.50 67.75
 TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 9

Table 4. Analysis of necessity for high and low sustainability.

HIGH_SDG LOW_SDG
Consistency Relevance Coverage Consistency Relevance Coverage
BROADBAND 0.86 0.84 0.83 0.32 0.55 0.29
CLOUD 0.60 0.88 0.79 0.28 0.70 0.34
AI 0.64 0.91 0.84 0.24 0.69 0.29
IOT 0.71 0.93 0.89 0.20 0.65 0.23
∼BROADBAND 0.27 0.62 0.30 0.81 0.88 0.85
∼CLOUD 0.50 0.53 0.43 0.83 0.65 0.66
∼AI 0.46 0.52 0.40 0.87 0.68 0.69
∼IOT 0.39 0.52 0.35 0.91 0.73 0.74

at the national level. In this solution cloud computing and AI act as conditions of indifference; in
other words, both strong and weak cloud computing and AI technology base can be an integrative
element of a country’s technology profile for it to achieve the same level of sustainability. Solution 1
covers 26 countries that achieve high sustainability performance (such as Denmark, Finland, Nether-
lands, etc.), and two deviant cases, i.e. countries with strong IoT and broadband technology bases
that achieve low sustainability performance (namely, China and Singapore).
Further, Solution 2 indicates that countries with strong AI technology bases (core condition), com-
plemented by strong broadband and weak cloud computing technology base (peripheral con-
ditions), also achieve high sustainability at the national level. In this solution, IoT acts as a
condition of indifference. Solution 2 covers three countries that achieve high sustainability perform-
ance (i.e. Austria, Estonia, Italy), and one deviant case (i.e. United Arab Emirates).
Finally, Solution 3 indicates that countries with strong broadband and cloud computing technol-
ogy base (core conditions), even when complemented by weak AI technology bases (peripheral con-
dition), achieve high sustainability at the national level. In this solution, IoT acts as a condition of
indifference. Solution 3 covers four countries that achieve high sustainability performance (i.e.
Hungary, Chile, South Korea, and Uruguay). The solution covers no deviant cases.
Regarding low sustainability, Solution 4 determines a technology profile of countries that achieve
such sustainability results. Namely, countries with weak broadband technology bases (core con-
ditions), complemented by weak AI and IoT technology bases (peripheral conditions), achieve low
sustainability at the national level. In this solution, cloud computing acts as a condition of indiffer-
ence. Solution 4 covers 30 countries that achieve low sustainability performance (such as Lebanon,
Ghana, Namibia, Botswana, etc.), and five deviant cases, i.e. countries with the same technology
profile that achieve high sustainability performance (namely, Serbia, Thailand, Ukraine, Brazil, and
Argentina).

6. Discussion
Our results emphasise that there is no one-recipe-fits-all for achieving sustainable development at the
national level. In this way, this study provides valuable theoretical implications, while offering useful
guidelines for practitioners and policymakers concerned with the issues lying at the intersection
between technology and sustainability.

6.1. Theoretical implications

Our results suggest four important contributions to theory and literature. First, in accordance with
contingency theory (Lawrence and Lorsch 1967; Van de Ven, Ganco, and Hinings 2013), we demon-
strate that there is no one best tech-based pathway for achieving a high (or low) level of sustainabil-
ity on a national level. That is, different countries use different combinations of technologies to
achieve the same results. Further, the results also show that a country’s tech profile matters, not
 10
Z. TEKIC ET AL.
Table 5. Analysis of sufficiency for high and low sustainability.
HIGH_SDG LOW_SDG
1 2 3 4
BROADBAND ● ● ● ○
CLOUD ○ ●
AI ● ○ ○
IOT ● ○
Consistency 0.91 0.88 0.90 0.87
PRI 0.89 0.81 0.81 0.84
Raw coverage 0.69 0.20 0.17 0.76
Unique coverage 0.47 0.02 0.02 –
Cases covered 28 4 4 35
Typical cases – Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom, Austria, Hungary, Chile, South Lebanon, Ghana, Namibia, Botswana, Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania,
examples Germany, Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Czech Rep. Estonia, Italy Korea, Uruguay Uganda, Bangladesh, South Africa, Pakistan, Nigeria
Deviant cases China, Singapore United Arab – Serbia, Thailand, Ukraine, Brazil, Argentina
Emirates
Overall consistency 0.90 0.87
Overall PRI 0.88 0.84
Overall coverage 0.74 0.76
 TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 11

the level of development of a single (deep or shallow) technology. Finally, identified tech profiles
that lead to high and low levels of sustainability are asymmetrical. In this way, our results show
the causal equifinality, the multiple conjunctural causation, and the causal asymmetry features, pro-
viding strong evidence that configurational approaches (Van de Ven, Ganco, and Hinings 2013) are
valuable step forward in analysing how technology is influencing sustainability and that it should be
used to provide a more comprehensive picture about both positive and negative effects of technol-
ogy, taking synergies brought by technological convergences into account.
Second, from the point of view of core conditions, as anchors of identified solutions, our results
suggest that both deep tech (HIGH_SDG 1 and 2) and shallow tech (HIGH_SDG 3) recipes work. More
countries belong to deep tech paths (29:4, without deviant cases), confirming anecdotal evidence
(de la Tour et al. 2019; Gourevitch et al. 2021) that deep tech solutions are dominant drivers of sus-
tainable development, and suggesting that soon, shallow tech solutions, based on broadband and
cloud computing infrastructure, and innovative business model alone may not be enough for sup-
porting sustainable development of countries. However, on the other hand, the LOW SDG solution
indicates that under-developed broadband technology is a core condition for achieving a low level
of sustainable development in countries. When considered together, these two results emphasise
the need for investing in both shallow and deep tech in order to aspire for a more sustainable future.
Third, we confirm existing evidence that both deep technologies – AI and the IoT – have a signifi-
cant potential to provide new affordances for supporting sustainable development (Vinuesa et al.
2020; Mabkhot et al. 2021; Martinelli, Mina, and Moggi 2021; Nara et al. 2021), and show they are
able to do that independently of each other. Namely, these two technologies act as substitutes
for each other (in solutions HIGH_SDG 1 and 2), when complemented by broadband in the configur-
ations. However, the high solution determined by IoT’s presence as a core condition (HIGH_SDG 1)
covers the highest number of countries (26, without deviant cases). When paired with the fact that
the weak IoT technology base of a country is identified as a necessary condition for low sustainability
(see Table 4), we can infer that IoT’s development may be of special importance for sustainability
development. We believe it is a consequence of the fact that IoT is the only technology that
bridges two worlds – digital and real – as it includes numerous sensors and actuators which may
collect relevant information (e.g. environmental, such as pollution, temperature, humidity) in real-
time, but also providing needed feedback for action or even to act autonomously. This may make
it in the future even necessary ingredient in all tech-recipes for sustainability.
Finally, our results suggest that there are significant possibilities for synergies – between deep
and shallow technologies and between deep technologies on their own for further advancing sus-
tainability. Namely, none of the high solutions is based on a combination of core conditions from
shallow and deep tech, or a combination of core conditions from deep tech, which suggest the exist-
ence of additional capacities for convergence and synergies among technologies for sustainable
development.

6.2. Practical implications

Our results also offer several important implications for practitioners and policymakers. First, those in
charge of designing policies and incentives should start thinking in terms of configurations, not inde-
pendent technologies. In this way, potential negative side effects could be better mitigated, and
resources better used. Thinking through configurations should also lead to pushing for conver-
gences and synergies, where we see huge space for future improvements. Second, these configur-
ations should be based on combinations of deep and shallow tech to provide the most benefits for
sustainable development. Third, due to its specific impact on sustainability potential in future, it may
be useful to devote special attention to the development of IoT initiatives and support the technol-
ogy’s further integration across industries. Finally, as there is no one-recipe-fits-all, policy-making
efforts should start by carefully assessing the context from which they start, and choose benchmarks
based on similarity of contexts, not for other reasons.
12 Z. TEKIC ET AL.

7. Conclusion
In this study, we show how different deep and shallow technologies complement and substitute
each other and thereby create multiple technological pathways towards high and low sustainable
development at the national level. Our results highlight the importance of taking into account
the technological synergies and convergences to drive future sustainability potential at the national
level.
Based on the potential limitations of this study we propose three potential avenues for future
research. Firstly, related to the scope and operationalisation, researchers may consider a broader
range of technologies (including both shallow and deep tech) and a different measure of sustainabil-
ity (other than the SDGs). However, both ask for substantial effort in data collection. Secondly, our
study focuses on the overall sustainability score, while future studies may bring new insights if
they consider the role and influence of (deep and shallow) technology separately on three
different aspects of sustainability – social, economic, and environmental. Finally, future studies
may offer a deeper look at the difference in the nature of deep tech in developing and developed
economies.

Acknowledgments
This research has been in part conducted within the research project ‘AI-INNOM: Adding Data and Artificial Intelligence
into Innovation Equation: Conceptualizing and Exploring AI-Based Innovation Management’ as a part of the HSE Gradu-
ate School of Business Research Program in 2021–2023.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This work was supported by Graduate School of Business, HSE University, Moscow, Russia [grant number AI-INNOM
2021.003P].

ORCID
Zeljko Tekic http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6101-4447

Notes on contributors
Zeljko Tekic, PhD is Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Business, HSE University, Moscow. His research inter-
est evolves around topics of startups and digital transformation, and the development of tools and methodologies for
understanding them. Zeljko earned his PhD in Engineering Management at the University of Novi Sad (Serbia). He was a
postdoctoral scholar at the Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering in Stuttgart and at Freie Universität Berlin.
More recently, he was a visiting researcher and a visiting professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US).
Asia Abuelez, BA holds a bachelor’s degree in business administration from HSE Graduate School of Business, HSE Uni-
versity, Moscow. She was an exchange student at the University of Applied Sciences BFI Vienna (Vienna, Austria), and
has acquired significant professional experience at Boston Scientific, Paper Planes and 1C as an employee and a student
intern. Her research interests include international business, sustainable development and innovation management.
Anja Tekic, PhD is Associate Professor at HSE Graduate School of Business. She holds PhD degree in Innovation Manage-
ment from Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology - Skoltech, Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation. She
was a visiting scholar at the Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering (Fraunhofer IAO) and the Polytechnic Uni-
versity of Turin. Her research interests lie in the field of innovation management, primarily focused on crowdsourcing,
co-creation and open innovation.
 TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 13

References
Accenture. 2010. Cloud Computing and Sustainability: The Environmental Benefits of Moving to the Cloud. https://
download.microsoft.com/download/a/f/f/affeb671-fa27-45cf-9373-0655247751cf/cloud%20computing%20and%
20sustainability%20-%20whitepaper%20-%20nov%202010.pdf.
Aksin-Sivrikaya, S., and C. B. Bhattacharya. 2017. “Where Digitalization Meets Sustainability: Opportunities and
Challenges.” In Sustainability in a Digital World, edited by T. Osburg and C. Lohrmann, 37–49. Cham: Springer Nature.
Bekaroo, G., C. Bokhoree, and C. Pattinson. 2016. “Impacts of ICT on the Natural Ecosystem: A Grassroot Analysis for
Promoting Socio-environmental Sustainability.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 57: 1580–1595. doi:10.
1016/j.rser.2015.12.147.
Bocken, N. M. P., S. W. Short, P. Rana, and S. Evans. 2014. “A Literature and Practice Review to Develop Sustainable
Business Model Archetypes.” Journal of Cleaner Production 65: 42–56. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039.
Bohnsack, R., C. M. Bidmon, and J. Pinkse. 2022. “Sustainability in the Digital Age: Intended and Unintended
Consequences of Digital Technologies for Sustainable Development.” Business Strategy and the Environment 31
(2): 599–602. doi:10.1002/bse.2938.
DeepMind. 2018. “A Major Milestone for the Treatment of Eye Disease.” Accessed November 27, 2021. https://
deepmind.com/blog/article/moorfields-major-milestone.
de la Tour, A., M. Portincaso, K. Blandk, N. Goeldel, L. Are, C. Tallec, A. Gourevitch, and S. Pedroza. 2019. The Dawn of the
Deep Tech Ecosystem.
Del Río Castro, G., M. C. González Fernández, and Á Uruburu Colsa. 2021. “Unleashing the Convergence Amid
Digitalization and Sustainability Towards Pursuing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A Holistic Review.”
Journal of Cleaner Production 280: 122204. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122204.
de Villiers, C., S. Kuruppu, and D. Dissanayake. 2021. “A (New) Role for Business – Promoting the United Nations’
Sustainable Development Goals through the Internet-of-things and Blockchain Technology.” Journal of Business
Research 131: 598–609. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.066.
Donaldson, L. 2001. The Contingency Theory of Organizations. London, UK: Sage.
European Commission. 2021. Industry 5.0: Towards a Sustainable, Human-centric and Resilient European Industry.
Luxemburg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/308407.
Fernández Fernández, Y., M. A. Fernández López, and B. Olmedillas Blanco. 2018. “Innovation for Sustainability: The
Impact of R&D Spending on CO2 Emissions.” Journal of Cleaner Production 172: 3459–3467. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.
2017.11.001.
Fiss, P. C. 2011. “Building Better Causal Theories: A Fuzzy Set Approach to Typologies in Organization Research.”
Academy of Management Journal 54 (2): 393–420. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.60263120.
Frank, M. R., D. Autor, J. E. Bessen, E. Brynjolfsson, M. Cebrian, D. J. Deming, M. Feldman, et al. 2019. “Toward
Understanding the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Labor.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America 116 (14): 6531–6539. doi:10.1073/pnas.1900949116.
George, G., R. K. Merrill, and S. J. D. Schillebeeckx. 2020. “Digital Sustainability and Entrepreneurship: How Digital
Innovations are Helping Tackle Climate Change and Sustainable Development.” Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice 45 (5): 999–1027. doi:10.1177/1042258719899425.
Gill, S. S., and R. Buyya. 2018. “A Taxonomy and Future Directions for Sustainable Cloud Computing.” ACM Computing
Surveys (CSUR) 51 (5): 1–33. doi:10.1145/3241038.
Gourevitch, A., M. Portincaso, A. De La Tour, N. Goeldel, and U. Chaudhry. 2021. Deep Tech and the Great Wave of
Innovation. Paris: Boston Consulting Group & Hello Tomorrow. www.bcg.com/publications/2021/deep-tech-
innovation.
Greckhamer, T., S. Furnari, P. C. Fiss, and R. V. Aguilera. 2018. “Studying Configurations with Qualitative Comparative
Analysis: Best Practices in Strategy and Organization Research.” Strategic Organization 16 (4): 482–495. doi:10.
1177/1476127018786487.
Haenlein, M., and A. Kaplan. 2019. “A Brief History of Artificial Intelligence: On the Past, Present, and Future of Artificial
Intelligence.” California Management Review 61 (4): 5–14. doi:10.1177/0008125619864925.
Henry, M., D. Schraven, N. Bocken, K. Frenken, M. Hekkert, and J. Kirchherr. 2021. “The Battle of the Buzzwords: A
Comparative Review of the Circular Economy and the Sharing Economy Concepts.” Environmental Innovation and
Societal Transitions 38: 1–21. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2020.10.008.
Huawei. 2020. Global Connectivity Index 2020. https://www.huawei.com/minisite/gci/assets/files/gci_2020_whitepaper_
en.pdf?v=20201217v2.
IBM. 2016. “What is the Internet of Things (IoT)?” IBM Business Transformation Blog. Accessed February 27, 2023. https://
www.ibm.com/blogs/internet-of-things/what-is-the-iot/.
Kaplan, A. M., and M. Haenlein. 2010. “Users of the World, Unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media.”
Business Horizons 53 (1): 59–68. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003.
Kuzma, E., L. S. Padilha, S. Sehnem, D. J. Julkovski, and D. J. Roman. 2020. “The Relationship between Innovation and
Sustainability: A Meta-analytic Study.” Journal of Cleaner Production 259: 120745. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120745.
14 Z. TEKIC ET AL.

Laukkanen, M., and N. Tura. 2020. “The Potential of Sharing Economy Business Models for Sustainable Value Creation.”
Journal of Cleaner Production 253: 120004. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120004.
Lawrence, P. R., and J. W. Lorsch. 1967. Organizations and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Leismann, K., M. Schmitt, H. Rohn, and C. Baedeker. 2013. “Collaborative Consumption: Towards a Resource-saving
Consumption Culture.” Resources 2 (3): 184–203. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources2030184.
Mabkhot, M. M., P. Ferreira, A. Maffei, P. Podržaj, M. Mądziel, D. Antonelli, M. Lanzetta, et al. 2021. “Mapping Industry 4.0
Enabling Technologies Into United Nations Sustainability Development Goals.” Sustainability 13 (5): 2560. doi:10.
3390/su13052560.
Marston, S., Z. Li, S. Bandyopadhyay, J. Zhang, and A. Ghalsasi. 2011. “Cloud Computing – The Business Perspective.”
Decision Support Systems 51 (1): 176–189. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2010.12.006.
Martinelli, A., A. Mina, and M. Moggi. 2021. “The Enabling Technologies of Industry 4.0: Examining the Seeds of the
Fourth Industrial Revolution.” Industrial and Corporate Change 30 (1): 161–188. doi:10.1093/icc/dtaa060.
McKinsey Global Institute. 2018. “Notes from the AI Frontier: Insights from Hundreds of Use Cases.” Discussion Paper.
April 2018.
Meyer, A. D., A. S. Tsui, and C. R. Hinings. 1993. “Configurational Approaches to Organizational Analysis.” Academy of
Management Journal 36 (6): 1175–1195. doi:10.2307/256809.
Misangyi, V. F., T. Greckhamer, S. Furnari, P. C. Fiss, D. Crilly, and R. Aguilera. 2016. “Embracing Causal Complexity: The
Emergence of a Neo-configurational Perspective.” Journal of Management 43 (1): 255–282. doi:10.1177/
0149206316679252.
Montgomery, H. 2017. “Preventing the Progression of Climate Change: One Drug or Polypill?” Biofuel Research Journal 4
(1): 536–536. doi:10.18331/BRJ2017.4.1.2.
Morozov, E. 2019. “Capitalism’s New Clothes.” The Baffler. Accessed February 10, 2023. https://thebaffler.com/latest/
capitalisms-new-clothes-morozov.
Muñoz, P., and B. Cohen. 2017. “Mapping out the Sharing Economy: A Configurational Approach to Sharing Business
Modeling.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 125: 21–37. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.035.
Nara, E. O. B., M. B. da Costa, I. C. Baierle, J. L. Schaefer, G. B. Benitez, L. M. A. L. do Santos, and L. B. Benitez. 2021.
“Expected Impact of Industry 4.0 Technologies on Sustainable Development: A Study in the Context of Brazil’s
Plastic Industry.” Sustainable Production and Consumption 25: 102–122. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2020.07.018.
Nedayvoda, A., F. Delavelle, Y. So, L. Graf, and L. Taupin. 2021. Financing Deep Tech EMCompass; Special Note 1.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
NIST. 2011. The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing: Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Special Publication 800-145. Gaithersburg, US: National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://nvlpubs.nist.
gov/nistpubs/legacy/sp/nistspecialpublication800-145.pdf.
Osburg, T. 2017. “Sustainability in a Digital World Needs Trust.” In Sustainability in a Digital World, edited by T. Osburg
and C. Lohrmann, 3–19. Cham: Springer.
Otley, D. 2016. “The Contingency Theory of Management Accounting and Control: 1980–2014.” Management
Accounting Research 31: 45–62. doi:10.1016/j.mar.2016.02.001.
Parrish, B. D. 2010. “Sustainability-driven Entrepreneurship: Principles of Organization Design.” Journal of Business
Venturing 25 (5): 510–523. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.05.005.
Plewnia, F., and E. Guenther. 2018. “Mapping the Sharing Economy for Sustainability Research.” Management Decision
56 (3): 570–583. doi:10.1108/MD-11-2016-0766.
Ragin, C. C. 2008. Redisigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Romasanta, A., G. Ahmadova, J. D. Wareham, and L. Pujol Priego. 2022. Deep Tech: Unveiling the Foundations. SSRN
Electronic Journal. Elsevier BV, No. 276.
Sachs, J. D., C. Kroll, G. Fuller, and F. Woelm. 2021. Sustainable Development Report 2021: The Decade of Action for the
Sustainable Development Goals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009106559.
Savage, N. 2021. “Tapping Into the Drug Discovery Potential of AI.” Biopharma Dealmakers. https://doi.org/10.1038/
d43747-021-00045-7.
Savage, S. J., and D. Waldman. 2005. “Broadband Internet Access, Awareness, and Use: Analysis of United States
Household Data.” Telecommunications Policy 29 (8): 615–633. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2005.06.001.
Schneider, S. 2019. “The Impacts of Digital Technologies on Innovating for Sustainability.” Palgrave Studies in
Sustainable Business in Association with Future Earth, 415–433. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-97385-2_22.
Schneider, C. Q., and C. Wagemann. 2012. Set-theoretic Methods for the Social Science. A Guide to Qualitative Comparative
Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Scholz, R. W., E. J. Bartelsman, S. Diefenbach, L. Franke, A. Grunwald, D. Helbing, R. Hill, et al. 2018. “Unintended Side
Effects of the Digital Transition: European Scientists’ Messages from a Proposition-based Expert Round Table.”
Sustainability 10 (6): 2001. doi:10.3390/su10062001.
Schuh, G., T. Latz, and J. Lorenz. 2022. “Governmental Support Options for the Technology Transfer of Deep Tech
Innovations.” Information Technology and Management Science 25: 24–36. doi:10.7250/itms-2022-0004.
 TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 15

Siegel, J., and S. Krishnan. 2020. “Cultivating Invisible Impact with Deep Technology and Creative Destruction.” Journal
of Innovation Management 8 (3): 6–19. doi:10.24840/2183-0606_008.003_0002.
Skare, M., and M. Porada-Rochon. 2022. “The Role of Innovation in Sustainable Growth: A Dynamic Panel Study on Micro
and Macro Levels 1990–2019.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 175: 121337. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.
121337.
Startup Genome. 2020. The Global Startup Ecosystem Report 2020. San Francisco: Startup Genome. https://
startupgenome.com/reports/gser2020.
Startup Genome. 2022. The Global Startup Ecosystem Report 2022. San Francisco: Startup Genome. https://
startupgenome.com/reports/gser2022.
Sutherland, W., and M. H. Jarrahi. 2018. “The Sharing Economy and Digital Platforms: A Review and Research Agenda.”
International Journal of Information Management 43: 328–341. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.07.004.
Teppayayon, O., E. Bohlin, and S. Forge. 2009. “Will Broadband Networks Make the World Greener? Evaluating Pros and
Cons of Broadband Development” Communications & Strategies 1 (76): 19–38, 4th quart.
Urbinati, A., D. Chiaroni, V. Chiesa, and F. Frattini. 2019. “The Role of Business Model Design in the Diffusion of
Innovations: An Analysis of a Sample of Unicorn-Tech Companies.” International Journal of Innovation and
Technology Management 16: 1. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877019500111.
Van de Ven, A. H., M. Ganco, and C. R. (BOB) Hinings. 2013. “Returning to the Frontier of Contingency Theory of
Organizational and Institutional Designs.” Academy of Management Annals 7 (1): 393–440. doi:10.5465/19416520.
2013.774981.
Vinuesa, R., H. Azizpour, I. Leite, M. Balaam, V. Dignum, S. Domisch, A. Felländer, S. D. Langhans, M. Tegmark, and F. Fuso
Nerini. 2020. “The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.” Nature
Communications 11 (1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-14108-y.
WCED. 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. New York: UN.
Secretary-General; World Commission on Environment and Development.
Zheng, S., Y. Duan, and M. R. Ward. 2019. “The Effect of Broadband Internet on Divorce in China.” Technological
Forecasting and Social Change 139: 99–114. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.038.
Zuboff, S. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. New York,
NY: Profile books.