Sustainable Digital Transformation as a Dynamic Strategic Capability: The Influence of Institutional and Technological Uncertainty
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47604/ejbsm.3880Keywords:
Sustainable Digital Transformation, Dynamic Capabilities, Institutional Pressure, Strategic Capability, Technological UncertaintyAbstract
Purpose: This study examines sustainable digital transformation (SDT) as a dynamic strategic capability for Kenyan organizations operating under institutional pressure and technological uncertainty. It investigates the influence of institutional pressures and technological uncertainty on SDT capability, its relationship with strategic adaptability, and the moderating roles of leadership support and organizational learning culture.
Methodology: This study utilized PRISMA-inspired systematic scoping review. Data sources included major academic databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, and Taylor & Francis Online, which were treated as the primary repositories for high-quality peer-reviewed scholarly literature. In addition, Google Scholar was used as a supplementary search engine to identify additional relevant studies, including grey literature such as conference papers, theses, working papers, and institutional reports that may not be indexed in Scopus or Web of Science. The peer reviewed literature considered was from 2014-2026
Findings: Institutional pressures including coercive, mimetic, and normative, significantly drive the development of SDT capabilities by compelling organizations to adopt green digital infrastructure, ESG reporting systems, and compliance technologies. However, technological uncertainty creates strategic paralysis, skill obsolescence, sunk-cost dilemmas, and e-waste challenges, often resulting in the “digitalization paradox.” SDT capability positively enhances strategic adaptability by enabling sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring processes. Additionally, leadership support and organizational learning culture are critical moderators that strengthen the conversion of external pressures into robust capabilities and mitigate uncertainty barriers.
Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: Based on the study findings, Kenyan organizations should move beyond superficial digital adoption by embedding sustainability into core strategies, supported by visible leadership commitment and strong learning cultures. In addition, policymakers should prioritize integrated green-digital standards, skills development programs, and incentives for capability building to support Kenya’s twin digital and green transitions. Practically, this framework offers practical pathways for achieving genuine sustainability performance and strategic resilience in emerging economies.
Downloads
References
Abdelwahed, N. A. A., Soomro, F. A., Bano, S., Aldoghan, M. A., Elrayah, M., & Soomro, B. A. (2025). Enabling sustainable futures: examining organizational dynamics and technology platforms in digital transformation to achieve firm sustainability. International Journal of Innovation Science, 17(4), 1023-1049.
Adisa, M. O., Ojikutu, G. A., Abdullai, L., Oyedeji, S., & Porras, J. (2023, November). Dynamic capabilities for sustainable digital transformation amid crisis: insights from law firms in emerging economy. In International Conference on Software Business (pp. 478-492). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
Afnetwork. (2026, February 8). 2025 recap: The Nigerian fintech sector expanded 70% in 2025, says the Central Bank of Nigeria. Africa Fintech Network. https://africafintechnetwork.com/2025-recap-the-nigerian-fintech-sector-expanded-70-in-2025-says-the-central-bank-of-nigeria/
Akinsola, K. (2025). The evolving role of corporate governance in shaping business practices and legal accountability in the 21st century. Available at SSRN 5115523.
Alzoraiki, M., Milhem, M., Ateeq, A., Almeer, S., & Hussein, T. M. (2024). Strategic flexibility: an essential capability for innovation and sustainable performance in times of technological uncertainty. In Business Development via AI and Digitalization: Volume 1 (pp. 271-281). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
Awa, H. O., Ojiabo, O. U., & Orokor, L. E. (2017). An integrated TOE–DOI theoretical framework for exploring the adoption and diffusion of innovations in organizations. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 30(2), 260–280. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-07-2016-0151
Baker, J. (2012). The technology–organization–environment framework. In Y. K. Dwivedi, M. R. Wade, & S. L. Schneberger (Eds.), Information systems theory: Explaining and predicting our digital society (Vol. 1, pp. 231–245). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6108-2_12
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Battilana, J., & Casciaro, T. (2012). Change agents, networks, and institutions: A contingency theory of organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 381–406.
Beatty, S. (2026, February 18). 6 projects that helped Microsoft meet its renewable energy goal. Microsoft. https://news.microsoft.com/source/features/sustainability/6-projects-that-helped-microsoft-meet-its-renewable-energy-goal/
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation.
Cavada, M., Tight, M. R., & Rogers, C. D. (2019). A smart city case study of Singapore—Is Singapore truly smart? In Smart city emergence (pp. 295-314). Elsevier.
Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. Sage.Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 149–190). Academic Press.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11), 1105–1121.
Elbolok, R. M., Alshafie, W. F., Eldalash, S. A., Mohamed, H. M., & Sabaa, S. M. (2025). The role of digital transformation in enhancing sustainable innovation: The mediating effect of digital organizational culture in higher education institutions. Journal of Management, 4, 104-116.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. McGraw-Hill.
Foss, N. J., Klein, P. G., Kor, Y. Y., & Mahoney, J. T. (2008). Entrepreneurship, subjectivism, and the resource-based view. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(1), 73–94.
Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T. B., & Meyer, R. E. (Eds.). (2017). The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Hirsch, P. M., & Lounsbury, M. (1997). Ending the family quarrel: Toward a reconciliation of “old” and “new” institutionalisms. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(4), 406–418.
HOANG, D. V., Duy, H. A., Thuy, D. T., Giang, D. T., Chau, V. N. M., Ngoc, N. L. M., & Quynh, V. H. (2025). Digital capabilities and competitive advantage in the context of technological uncertainty: Evidence from emerging market SMEs. International Journal of Innovation Management, 29(03n04), 2550018.
Kikondu, F. K., M’kuma, E. K., & Nyamu, J. (2025). Digital transformation strategies on the performance of solar power enterprises in Nairobi, Kenya.
Kim, C. G., & Yang, O. S. (2024). Global companies’ dynamic response to business environment uncertainty through digital transformation: Sustainable digital quality–customer value–market performance relationships. Sustainability, 16(15), 6541.
Kobusingye, L., Xiao, Y., & Ntizoyimana, J. C. (2025). Digital transformation, innovation and market expansion capabilities: exploring pathways to organizational growth in SMEs across East African countries. Business Process Management Journal, 1-24.
KPMG. (2025). KPMG 2025 global- Energy, Natural Resources and Chemicals. https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmgsites/es/pdf/2025/11/global-ceo-outlook-survey-energy-natural-resources-chemicals.pdf.coredownload.inline.pdf
Kraaijenbrink, J., Spender, J. C., & Groen, A. J. (2010). The resource-based view: A review and assessment of its critiques. Journal of Management, 36(1), 349–372.
Küçükoğlu, U. (2025). Revisiting the technology–organization–environment framework for enriched applicability in sustainable digital transformation. Sustainability, 17(23), Article 10787. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172310787
Kuo, H. M., Chen, T. L., & Yang, C. S. (2022). The effects of institutional pressures on shipping digital transformation in Taiwan. Maritime Business Review, 7(2), 175-191.
Kwiotkowska, A. (2022). The interplay of resources, dynamic capabilities and technological uncertainty on digital maturity. Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja i Zarządzanie/Politechnika Śląska.
Kyalo, C. (2025). Factors affecting adoption of digital transformation among vehicle automotive firms in Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, Strathmore University).
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Harvard Business School.
Lu, H. P., & Wang, J. C. (2023). Exploring the effects of sudden institutional coercive pressure on digital transformation in colleges from teachers’ perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 28(12), 15991-16015.
Mansour, I. E. A., & Bouchachia, A. (2026). Institutional Conditions for Digital Innovation and Transformation: A Contingent Framework for Smart Technology Adoption in Developing Nations. Sustainability, 18(6), 2868.
Matreja, D. (2025). The Impact of Ai-Driven Automation on Employee Productivity and Operational Costs in Amazon India's Warehouse Operations (2020-2025). Available at SSRN 5879442.
Mishra, V., & Mishra, M. P. (2023). PRISMA for review of management literature–method, merits, and limitations–an academic review.
Murimi, A., & Kungu, P. (2025). Change management strategies and performance of Safaricom Public Limited, Nairobi City County, Kenya. International Academic Journal of Human Resource and Business Administration (IAJHRBA), 5(1), 183-197.
Ohiomah, I. (2026). Disruptive Technology Adoption for Sustainable Digital Transformation in South Africa’s Manufacturing Sector. Sustainability, 18(8), 3894.
Oliveira, T., & Martins, M. F. (2011). Literature review of information technology adoption models at firm level. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, 14(1), 110–121.
Otieno, O., Karimi, L., & Nyataya, B. (2025). Digital Transformation Strategy and Competitive Advantage of Financial Institutions in Kenya: Trends, Challenges and Opportunities for African Businesses. African Journal of Business and Development Studies, 2(1), 637-658.
Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191.
Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79–91.
Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 22–40.
Putri, E., Akbar, A. M., Alabdullah, T. T. Y., Ar-Ridho, K. J., Adhi, A. S., & Putri, W. A. A. (2025). Dynamic Capability Theory: Digital Transformation as a Sustainable Competitive Performance Strategy for MSMEs. Riset Akuntansi dan Keuangan Indonesia, 10(3), 314-325.
Safaricom Sustainability Report. (2024). Safaricom-sustainable-report-2024-Accelerating Digital Inclusion. https://www.safaricom.co.ke/images/Downloads/Safaricom-Sustainable-Report-2024-compressed.pdf
Saini, N., & Kharb, R. (2025). Empowering sustainable development through digital transformation: insights from digital India. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 19(3), 606-634.
Schoonhoven, C. B. (1981). Problems with contingency theory: Testing assumptions hidden within the language of contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(3), 349–377.
Shahzad, S., Faheem, M., Muqeet, H. A., & Waseem, M. (2024). Charting the UK's path to net zero emissions by 2050: Challenges, strategies, and future directions. IET Smart Grid, 7(6), 716-736.
Shead, S. (2018, August 19). Google trusts deepmind AI to manage Data Centre Cooling. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/samshead/2018/08/18/google-trusts-deepmind-ai-to-manage-data-centre-cooling/
Shenkar, O., & Ellis, S. (2022). The rise and fall of structural contingency theory: A theory’s autopsy. Journal of Management Studies, 59(3), 782–818.
Siddique, M., & Sulehri, N. A. (2026). Digital transformation and responsible production-consumption: The mediating roles of green innovation and organizational learning, and the moderating effect of leadership agility in Pakistan’s textile industry. Future Business Journal, 12(1), 76.
Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Gilbert, B. A. (2011). Resource orchestration to create value: Bundling, leveraging, and balancing. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(4), 57–70.
Statista. (2026, June 3). Spending on digital transformation technologies and services worldwide from 2025 to 2028. https://www.statista.com/statistics/870924/worldwide-digital-transformation-market-size/?srsltid=AfmBOoosebLabmr55yMUbSRUiZMUWKX6bjwRhzPu1PXd35jySpU6B-fV#google_vignette
Sun, L., Ong, T. S., Teh, B. H., & Low, J. H. (2026). Effects of market dynamics and policy uncertainty on the effectiveness of digital transformation: a perspective on the digitalization paradox. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 21(4), 1224-1246.
Tavistock.Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6(1), 1–22.
Tornatzky, L. G., & Fleischer, M. (1990). The processes of technological innovation. Lexington Books.
UNDP. (2021). Leveraging digitalisation for transformational governance case offering. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2024-03/undp_digitalisation_full_final.pdf
Wang, Y. M., Wang, Y. S., & Yang, Y. F. (2010). Understanding the determinants of RFID adoption in the manufacturing industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(5), 803–815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.03.006
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.
Zhang, L., Li, R., Qian, Y., You, Y., & Peng, D. (2026). Adapting to uncertainty: digital transformation strategy of Chinese listed companies under climate policy shifts. Chinese Management Studies, 20(4), 1011-1037.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Dr. Doreen Muriu
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
