Characteristics of Open Innovation among Polish SMEs in the Context of Sustainable Innovative Development Focused on the Rational Use of Resources (Energy)

Abstract

Open innovations (OI) are playing an increasingly important role in the innovative development (RI) of SMEs. This has led to a need to analyze the impact of OI on innovative development serving the implementation of the assumptions of sustainable development, the positive effect of which is to reduce the negative impact on the environment thanks to a more rational use of both natural and produced resources (e.g., energy). This development is described in this article as “sustainable innovative development”. Research was conducted on a sample of 800 SMEs in Poland using the quantitative method (questionnaire). The aim of this study was to identify the impact of OI on sustainable innovation development. This goal was achieved through the verification of three research hypotheses. It turns out that SMEs obtain significant benefits by exploring the environment, i.e., by showing a high level of willingness to cooperate with various entities in the environment for sustainable innovative development. Moreover, the results show that SMEs cooperating with the environment are more developed in terms of sustainable innovative development than those that base their development on their own internal resources (no cooperation). Hence, it follows that OIs have a positive impact on sustainable innovative development.

1. Introduction

Innovations are the source of the development of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which, in turn, are the “driving force” for the entire economy. This thesis has been proven many times in the literature [1] (pp. 272–302). The economic importance of these enterprises has been noted in many continents, including Japan and the USA. The difference, however, concerns the time at which these enterprises started to be promoted and supported. While in the USA, this occurred in the 1970s, in Europe, this process took place in the following decade. In Poland, SMEs grew significantly in the mid-1990s [2] (p. 101). However, the impact of innovation in the context of this significance is particularly important, as it is the basic (essential) factor for improving the competitiveness of SMEs in local, regional and world markets [3] (pp. 3–9).

The development of each enterprise is treated as a priority; a long-term lack of development may lead to stagnation (regression) and, consequently, to liquidation and cessation of economic activity. According to some authors, development may occur in two ways, i.e., through restructuring or through innovation [4]. In the first case, innovation is like a tool, which means that it becomes an instrument of influence in the enterprise (in the environment), the end result of which is “innovative development”. This development is often referred to as “development through innovation” and is often equated with “organizational development” [5] (p. 63). Among the many determinants of this development, open innovation (OI) can be cited first.

Cooperation with equal external entities, such as other companies, customers, suppliers, universities, research units or business environment institutions, may be two-way (“inside-out” (exploitation) and “outside-in” (exploration)) or one-way, depending on the preferences of each enterprise [6] (pp. 1–18).

Another issue concerns the interrelationships between development (including innovative development) and sustainability. Some authors argue that these two concepts cannot be combined, or that they are incompatible with each other, and even contradictory [7] (pp. 1–19). This is due to the fact that each development requires specific material outlays related to the “consumption” of resources, which are often difficult to renew. On the other hand, the concept of “sustainability” assumes the rational management of resources in such a way that they will be sufficient for both present and future generations [8]. In turn, others claim the opposite, i.e., that there is no contradiction between these concepts (areas) and, on the contrary, they have a complementary character based on ecological assumptions [9] (pp. 228–242). This approach, assuming complete compliance, is referred to as “sustainable development”; it considers both the ecological “resource” (environmental) aspect but also the “reproductive” aspect, in which consumption is not treated as the last link in the life of products (processes). There is talk of recycling, recovery of materials and their re-use in production [10] (pp. 221–232). An important element in these processes is innovation, i.e., innovative development aimed at finding technical and technological means to protect natural resources (or produced, for example, energy) through their greater rationalization. This development has been called “sustainable innovative development”.

The aim of this article is therefore to identify the impact of OI on sustainable innovative development (i.e., the rationalization of the use of resources, including energy). This goal is achieved through the verification of three main and two detailed research hypotheses. It was assumed that OIs have a positive impact on sustainable innovative development. As a result, this hypothesis was positively verified, which proves not only that OI is a factor influencing the sustainable innovative development of the analyzed SMEs, but also (or perhaps most importantly) that innovation plays a key role in this development.

2. Open Innovation and Sustainable Development of Innovative SMEs—Theoretical Dimension

Open innovations are described quite broadly in the literature. The notion was conceptualized at the beginning of the previous decade. H. Chesbrough, who introduced this concept to general use and is considered to be the creator of “open innovation” [11] (p. 43.e). In general terms, OI means a link between carrying out independent R&D activity and the propensity to use external resources (knowledge). Many scientists have studied this relationship, including H. Chesbrough, A.K. Crowther, J. Henkel or K. Laursen and A.J. Salter. The first of them noticed that proprietary and external resources are complementary [12] (pp. 229–236). On the other hand, J. Henkel proved that the exchange of resources with external entities takes place selectively, which means that only those elements of knowledge that are of little use from the point of view of the enterprise (i.e., those resulting from an excess of R&D activity) reach the environment. Transferring such knowledge to the environment, on the one hand, is aimed at encouraging potential partners to cooperate, and on the other hand, can inspire the development of new solutions [13] (pp. 953–969). In turn, Larsen and Salter identified negative aspects resulting from a high level of openness to the environment. The use of OI by enterprises may boil down mainly to seeking out ready-made solutions instead of undertaking their own R&D activity. In practice, this means that enterprises are more inclined to implement innovation than other entities in the environment and are more likely to implement it than to produce it using their own resources [14] (pp. 1201–1215).

So, the question that needs to be asked is: what are OI? On the basis of the above considerations, it should be stated that they concern the exchange of intangible resources (mainly knowledge) between various entities (organizations) in the environment. Second, OI entail the conscious and deliberate use of two streams of knowledge: internal/outflowing and external/inflowing [15] (pp. 1–21). In the context of the sources of innovative development, these streams are related with the exploitation of an entity’s own resources and exploration of the environment in search of useful solutions [16] (pp. 319–331). In practice, this means that an enterprise may use its own and/or external resources for innovative development [14] (pp. 1201–1215). Third, OI may take the form of crowdsourcing, where society participates in the process of generating ideas. Among such a wide group of “originators”, there are not only enterprises, but also social movements, groups of potential consumers of future innovative solutions and prosumers. Such an approach is characterized by a “mass”, because the organizers assume that the more participants, the greater the probability of creating new ideas and values [17] (p. 7). Fourth, OI most often imply a one-way transfer of knowledge, i.e., from the environment to the enterprise. This applies in particular to small and medium-sized enterprises which, due to their limited resources, prefer to commercialize solutions coming from the environment [18] (pp. 311–316). Fifth, relational resources are the most important in this context, as they allow such entities to supplement the existing internal deficiencies in the environment. One characteristic of these enterprises is the presence of relationships with a low degree of formality and a relatively high level of personal involvement. This influences the transition from typical market relations (of a random nature) to relations aimed at creating permanent and systematic contacts with the environment (partner relations) [19]. These notions explain the enormous importance for the development of SMEs resulting directly from the exploration of the environment and the need to verify research hypothesis H1 to confirm the validity of the aforementioned claims.

Studying OI implies the necessity to clarify the concept of “sustainable innovative development”. This consists of two essential elements: innovative development and sustainable development. The combination of these concepts includes innovative enterprises—where development takes place thanks to the implemented innovative solutions—which consider aspects related to sustainable development and environmental protection in the context of a more rational use of resources. In other words, innovative development takes place in accordance with the assumptions of sustainable development.

Innovative development is a key aspect of the development of an organization. It may be understood as a process or activity carried out in the long term thanks to the resources possessed by the organization. This process (or activity) should bring specific benefits [20] (p. 9) resulting from technical, technological, organizational or other implementations made with the participation of individuals, groups or working teams [19]. The added value of these implementations is the improvement of organizational efficiency, defined by specific measures such as managed skills, acquired competences, or increasing the number of customers [21] (pp. 37–48). The factors motivating such development are the need and willingness to make changes in various areas of the organization [22] (pp. 10–12). Needs, on the other hand, are determined by elements such as the organizational culture, work climate, leadership styles, or intra-organizational communication [23] (p. 40). When defining the correlation between these two concepts, it should be stated that organizational development—whereby innovation is a “tool”, i.e., it is carried out by means of various types of “innovative” implementations—is defined as a type of innovative development.

Another interpretation of this concept views it in terms of the process of creating and increasing added value. The purpose of this process is to try to look at the company in a holistic way, to search for new ways to develop the company and to identify areas of value-added reserves [24] (p. 45). A different perception of this process means properly preparing the organization to develop new or improved products or services and delivering them to the market [25] (pp. 461–473). The process approach to innovative development includes the use of a comprehensive organizational development management mechanism, e.g., organizational (i.e., related to defining the principles of cooperation with other organizations in the environment, the division of responsibilities between organizational units, creating systems connected with databases to enable internal and external communication, etc.), economic (creating production development plans taking into account the limited resources of the organization), motivational (aimed at increasing employee readiness for innovative activities by using various materials or other stimulants, or strategic (related to setting goals, defining a development scenario that takes into account the influence of the external environment and the correlation between the organization and the environment). These elements prove that innovative development is a process that includes many components which interact with each other under the influence of the environment [19].

In the literature, it is common to think of innovative development as “development through innovation” [26] (pp. 26–27). According to Stabryła, this means the development that is carried out with the help of various types of innovative solutions (technical, organizational, economic) contributing to the creation of new, original and effective theoretical concepts and specific practical solutions in various areas of the company’s activities.

In view of these factors, this article assumes that innovative development is a process related to the development of an organization which may be accomplished by means of innovation, consisting of the implementation of new products under the influence of the environment. This development is determined by the level of openness to the environment and the cooperation with external entities. The aim should be the creation and/or implementation of innovations. This thesis is the basis for the verification of the research hypotheses adopted in this article (including H2).

Another element that requires strong conceptualization is the concept of “sustainability”. The notion of sustainability encompasses “the ability to hold a certain subject, result, or process over time,” that is, in a stable, unchanging manner, and to carry out activities that do not exhaust the resources upon which that ability depends [8]. One may therefore conclude that that the main features of “sustainability” are renewal and non-destructive repeatability. However, such a general understanding is incomplete, as it does not consider the adaptation of human activities to natural systems. Therefore, a full definition of this concept should consider ecological aspects [27] (pp. 24–37). In this respect, sustainability is considered from three perspectives: development, needs and future generations. In the first case, sustainability concerns aspects of socio-economic development in line with ecological assumptions. In the second case, the concept is related to the redistribution of resources in such a way that there are enough of them for everyone. In the final case, the emphasis is on the use of resources in a rational way, so that future generations are not deprived of them [28] (pp. 67–94). These three concepts are the keys to sustainability in the context of ecology and resource rationalization.

Another important issue concerns the definition of the term “sustainable development”. First, this concept is presented as a process of change in which funds are obtained, the direction of investment is determined, the development of technology is directed, etc., and thus the potential to meet needs and desires is increased [29] (pp. 191–198). This approach clearly emphasizes the link between innovative and sustainable development. Moreover, it is of great importance to emphasize the “procedural” scope of this concept in the context of “organizational development”, as presented above. Other approaches to “sustainable development” indicate that the goal of innovative technologies is to improve the use of natural resources and to eliminate the negative effects of human impact on the natural environment [30] (pp. 111–124).

Other definitions are more general and relate directly to the “resource” approach. They highlight the issue of resource rationalization in the context of mutual interactions between communities and ecosystems [31] (pp. 93–98). There are two types of resources: natural and synthetic. There is a mutual exchange relationship between them, i.e., an increase in the volume of natural resources usually reduces the volume of produced resources, and vice versa. However, these two types of resources are renewable to different extents. It should be remembered that not all natural resources can be restored to a state of equilibrium in the short term [32]. Additionally, in this approach, technological innovation plays a significant role—its use in combination with a more rational use of resources such as water and energy is intended to positively affect the protection of natural resources, especially those that are difficult to renew. However, as experience has shown, the deadline for achieving these goals may be extended due to various other priorities [33]. In view of these considerations, it is reasonable to use the phrase “innovative sustainable development”; but what does this entail? For the purposes of this article, it is assumed that it is a form of innovative development (as defined above) of small and medium-sized enterprises, aimed at protecting natural resources (or produced resources such as energy). Such innovations should have a positive impact on the environment (ecological dimension), increase resource savings (economic dimension), and ensure better living conditions for both present and future generations (social dimension).

3. Research Methodology and Presentation of the Research Sample

The research presented in this article applied two techniques: CATI and CAWI. The former was the principal technique while the latter was complementary. The basic criterion for the selection of samples was innovative activities conducted by SMEs (in the last three years), e.g., the implementation of new products, processes, services and technologies, marketing or management. The research was carried out in two stages: the first concerned the innovative development of enterprises, and the second related to the application of the OI concept. We contacted 2189 enterprises, requesting their participation in this research, of which 819 entities replied. In the second stage, as many as 10,000 enterprises were approached; we received with 800 responses. The lack of a database for sampling either innovative enterprises or those using OI made it impossible to obtain full representativeness of the surveyed sample. Hence, the conclusions presented herein allow for the formulation of conclusions concerning only this group of entities in Poland.

The lack of full representativeness of the research sample was also due to the fact that, despite the random nature of the research and even with a sufficiently large research sample, it was not possible to reflect the structure of all SMEs in Poland.

With regard to spatial selection, the research was focused on six voivodeships with different levels of entrepreneurial innovative development (three high and three low level regions) in order to maintain the symmetry of the research and to divide the studied sample by activity (it was assumed that 60% the surveyed enterprises would conduct manufacturing (production) activities. Therefore, a quota system in the research sample was applied to these two elements.

As the subject of the analysis is the OI phenomenon, the characteristics of the research sample will be defined based on the entities participating in the second of the aforementioned stages. These characteristics include several elements: spatial distribution, type of business activity, place of business (broken down by the number of inhabitants) and the market range of business activities. As mentioned above, the characteristics of the sample will consider the second stage of research, concerning the eradication of OI, as it is directly related to the subject of this article. With regard to the first of these elements, it should be noted that the spatial distribution of the sample was chosen fairly evenly; the only exception here was the Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship, which was a consequence of the relatively small number of entities operating there. In the remaining five voivodships, on average, 16% to 19% of innovative enterprises were surveyed (

Table 1. Division of the study sample by spatial distribution.

Size of Enterprises		Voivodeship						Together
		Lodzkie	Mazowieckie	Pomeranian	Silesian	Warmian-Masurian	Wielkopolskie
Micro	Number	52	46	58	55	24	49	284
	Percentage (%)	18.3	16.2	20.4	19.4	8.5	17.3	100
Small	Number	55	70	64	64	28	49	321
	Percentage (%)	17.1	21.8	19.9	19.9	8.7	12.5	100
Medium	Number	31	43	27	34	15	45	195
	Percentage (%)	15.9	22.1	13.8	17.4	7.7	23.1	100
Total	Number	138	159	149	153	67	134	800
	Percentage (%)	17.3	19.9	18.6	19.1	8.4	16.8	100

).

Most of the surveyed enterprises were based in the Mazowieckie (19.9%) and Silesian (19.1%) voivodships, with the fewest (apart from the above-mentioned Warmian-Masurian voivodship) being based in the Lodzkie (17.3%) and Wielkopolskie (16.8%) voivodships. Due to the second criterion concerning the type of business activity, in accordance with the research assumption presented above, most of the studied entities were production enterprises (75%), followed by service (14.8%) and trade enterprises (10.3%) (

Table 2. Division of the study sample according to type of economic activity.

Size of Enterprises		Type of Business Activity			Together
		Manufacturing	Services	Commercial
Micro	Number	178	68	38	284
	Percentage (%)	62.7	23.9	13.4	100
Small	Number	249	39	33	321
	Percentage (%)	77.6	12.1	10.3	100
Medium	Number	173	11	11	195
	Percentage (%)	88.7	5.6	5.6	100
Total	Number	600	118	82	800
	Percentage (%)	75.0	14.8	10.3	100

).

On the other hand, the third element characterizing the research sample (place of business activity) was no longer the subject of the selection, meaning that it will be subject to a short interpretation. It turns out that in urban agglomerations, smaller entities (micro and medium) are much more inclined to conduct business activities than larger ones (small and medium), for two main reasons. Firstly, such entities have more fluid access to knowledge in larger urban centers, which is extremely important for these enterprises. Secondly, operating in developed urban areas makes it possible to obtain cheaper logistic support. A breakdown by location of the studied enterprises is presented in the table below (

Table 3. Division of the study sample by location.

Size of Enterprises		Localization					Together
		Agglomeration	Big Cities *	Medium Cities **	Small Cities ***	Province
Micro	Number	90	38	74	39	43	284
	Percentage (%)	31.7	13.4	26.1	13.7	15.1	100
Small	Number	84	45	77	58	57	321
	Percentage (%)	26.2	14.0	24.0	18.1	17.8	100
Medium	Number	45	34	47	34	35	195
	Percentage (%)	23.1	17.4	24.1	17.4	17.9	100
Total	Number	219	117	198	131	135	800
	Percentage (%)	27.4	14.6	24.8	16.4	16.9	100

* <100,000 inhabitants; ** 20–100,000 inhabitants; *** >20,000 inhabitants.

).

Another element that characterized the research sample was market internship. In this study, as many as 75% of the respondents represented developing enterprises, and as many as 15% represented starting enterprises (

Table 4. Breakdown of the studied sample according to type of economic activity.

Size of Enterprises		Market Experience—Type of Enterprises			Together
		Starting (3 Years or Less)	Developing (from 3 to 10 Years)	Developed (over 10 Years)
Micro	Number	68	178	38	284
	Percentage (%)	23.9	62.7	13.4	100
Small	Number	39	249	33	321
	Percentage (%)	12.1	77.6	88.7	100
Medium	Number	11	173	11	195
	Percentage (%)	5.6	88.7	5.6	100
Total	Number	118	600	82	800
	Percentage (%)	14.8	75.0	10.3	100

).

The high level of interest among these two groups in the implementation of the OI concept resulted from the need to explore the environment in search of new ideas and ready-made innovative solutions. Mature enterprises do not treat OI as a source of inspiration for development, for two main reasons. Firstly, they are more focused on the exploitation of their own resources, and secondly, they tend to be “closed” entities relative to the environment, i.e., it is deemed that their current level of development is sufficient. As a consequence, they do not see the need for wider cooperation with other enterprises—often treating them as competitors.

The last element worth discussing in the context of the research sample analysis is the market reach of enterprises. Among the five types of markets (local, regional, domestic, foreign (European) and international (world)), the last three are dominant (

Table 5. Division of the study sample by location.

Size of Enterprises		Type of Market					Together
		Local	Regional	Domestic	Foreign	Global
Micro	Number	19	18	106	121	20	284
	Percentage (%)	6.7	6.3	37.3	42.6	7.0	100
Small	Number	16	21	84	142	58	321
	Percentage (%)	5.0	6.5	26.2	44.2	18.1	100
Medium	Number	3	11	37	94	50	195
	Percentage (%)	1.5	5.6	19.0	48.2	25.6	100
Total	Percentage	38	50	227	357	128	800
	Udział (%)	4.8	6.3	28.4	44.6	16.0	100

).

The dominance on these three types of markets shows a certain regularity, according to which the larger the enterprise, the wider the market range. In practice, this means that micro and small enterprises operate mainly on the domestic and foreign markets, while medium-sized enterprises are active on foreign and global (world) markets. This is associated with having greater resources related to sustainable innovative development (including those focused on a more efficient use of energy resources).

4. Characteristics of Open Innovation in the Context of Sustainable Innovative Development among Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in Poland

The characteristics of open innovation in the context of sustainable development of innovative SMEs in Poland are defined on the basis of the verification of several hypotheses, including three basic hypotheses (H0, H1 and H2) and two detailed ones (H1a and H1b). The hypotheses are presented below:

H0: 

Open innovation has a positive impact on the sustainable innovative development of small and medium-sized enterprises in Poland.

H1: 

Open innovation by small and medium-sized enterprises in Poland is characterized by prioritizing exploration over exploitation.

H1a: 

Enterprises obtain benefits from prioritizing exploration over exploitation.

H1b: 

The benefits described in H1a increase the tendency to establish new cooperation with various entities in the environment.

H2: 

SMEs cooperating in the field of exploration are more developed in the context of sustainable innovative development.

These hypotheses served as the basis for the research model, as presented in the figure below (Figure 1).

4.1. The Advantage of Exploration over Exploitation—The Effects and their Implications for Polish Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Focused on the Sustainable Use of Energy

Here, the basic hypothesis (H1) and two detailed hypotheses (H1a and H1b) will be verified. To this end, total OI metrics were created, both on the exploitation (OIES) and exploration (OIEX) side. For their construction, partial measures were used (nine for operation and eight for exploration) according to the following algorithm: OIES = (ES1 + ES2 + … + ES9)/9 and OIEX = (EX1 + EX2 + … + EX8)/8. A list of measures and research questions is presented in the below table (

Table 6. Research questions regarding OI measures.

Exploitation		Exploitation
Measures	Questions	Measures	Questions
ES1	How often does the enterprise create dependent and independent entities?	EX1	What is the frequency of external off-grid projects?
ES2	How often does the enterprise implement joint projects as part of its partnerships?	EX2	What is the frequency of cooperation with external partners regarding R&D and implementation activities?
ES3	How often does the company sell (make available) licenses, utility models, property rights, etc. to the environment?	EX3	What is the frequency of the company’s purchase of licenses, utility models, ownership rights, etc.?
ES4	How often does the company sell ready-made solutions (prototypes) to the environment?	EX4	What is the frequency of purchase of ready-made solutions (prototypes) by the company?
E55	How often do departments of the company establish contact with external entities?	EX5	What is the frequency of cooperation within a network to implement joint projects?
ES6	How often do the company’s employees establish contact with external entities?	EX6	What is the frequency of outsourcing innovation activities to external actors?
Es7	How many rationalization ideas are submitted by employees?	EX7	What is the frequency of implementing projects together with clients?
ES8	How many new ideas have been implemented within the organization?	EX8	What is the frequency of implementing projects together with entities that are not the company’s clients?
ES9	What is the frequency of accepting orders from external companies?

)

To verify H1, it is necessary to comparing three cases:

• The exploitation measure is greater than the exploration measure (OIES > OIEX), which proves that the latter is advantageous. In practice, this indicates that small and medium-sized enterprises are more inclined to use their own internal resources than to look for external solutions (low level of openness to the environment).
• The exploration measure is larger than the exploitation measure (OIEX > OIES), which proves that the former is advantageous. This indicates a greater propensity of small and medium-sized enterprises to use available resources in the environment (high level of openness to the environment).
• The measure of exploration is equal to the measure of exploitation (OIEX = OIES), which proves a lack of advantage of exploration over exploitation; as such, enterprises use both phenomena equally, indicating a balanced level of openness.

Positive H1 verification implies the occurrence of the second case. Thus, in order to verify H1, OIES and OIEX were calculated in the examined group of 800 enterprises. The results are presented in the table below (

Table 7. Value of OI metrics for the verification of H1 (p = 0.00026 < 0.05).

OI Metrics	Number of Enterprises	Arithmetic Average	Standard Deviation
OIES (Exploitation)	800	0.1024	0.1295
OIEX (Exploration)		0.1610	0.1625

).

The above data indicate that there is a significant advantage on the exploration side. Therefore, it was necessary to confirm that the surveyed enterprises use exploration rather than exploitation activities to a greater extent, i.e., they are more inclined to look for ready-made solutions in the environment than they use their own resources to generate innovation. Hence, it can be concluded that H2 has been positively verified.

The next step was to verify the expansion hypothesis, according to which the advantage of extraction over exploitation is the result of the greater benefits that enterprises obtain (H1a). To verify this hypothesis, specially built measures reflecting the level of benefits for exploitation (OIEX) and exploration (OIES) were used, i.e., questions about the effects of directly from outsourcing (for exploration) and insourcing (for exploitation). These measures set values in the range (0–5). In the case of “0”, none of the services in the activities undertaken (outsourcing or insourcing) was significant, i.e., there was no benefit. On the other hand, in the case “5”, each of the services, both on the outsourcing or insourcing side, was very important, yielding very large benefits. The results are presented in

Table 8. Value of OI metrics for the verification of H1a (p = 0.00026 < 0.05).

OI Metrics	Number of Enterprises	Medium Level of Importance	Standard Deviation
OIEX > OIES	422	0.488	0.783
OIEX < OIES	260	0.101	0.410
OIEX = OIES	118	-	-

.

The table above shows that the mean significance level was greater for the following inequality: OIEX > OIES. This means that the benefits resulting from the use of exploration are much greater than those resulting from exploitation (insourcing). This allowed us to positively verify H1a, which, in practice, means that the benefits resulting from the exploration of the environment are greater than those obtained from the exploitation of own resources by SMEs which are focused on sustainable innovative development related to the efficient use of energy.

Assuming that the advantage of exploration over exploitation positively influences the inclination to establish new cooperation with various entities in the environment, H1b will be verified on the basis of another measure prepared especially for this purpose. i.e., by determining the level of willingness to establish new cooperation, in which answers to the question about the importance and frequency of this cooperation were used. In contrast to the previous measures, this variable takes values in the range 0–1, where “1” means that new cooperation with various entities in the environment (systematic cooperation) was very important and “0” means that the new cooperation did not yield any benefits. The obtained results are presented in

Table 9. Value of OI metrics for verification H1b (p = 0.0066 < 0.05).

OI Metrics	Number of Enterprises	Medium Level of Importance	Standard Deviation
OIEX > OIES	422	0.27	0.251
OIEX < OIES	260	0.22	0.262
OIEX = OIES	118	-	-

.

The above table shows the positive verification of H1b. The tendency to establish new relationships with other entities in the environment applies to SMEs which are focused on sustainable innovative development regarding the effective use of energy. In practice, this means that such enterprises are more willing to establish new contacts with various types of entities, compared to those in which the advantage relates to operations. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that this type of enterprise is characterized by a greater level of openness to the environment, and thus, a greater willingness to cooperate.

4.2. Exploration—A Source of Sustainable Innovative Development for SMEs

The last hypothesis to be verified is H2, which seeks to examine the impact of OI on the level of sustainable innovative development regarding more efficient use of energy resources by SMEs in Poland. Only enterprises that participated in both the first and second stage of the research were used for this verification. Ninety such enterprises were enrolled. For this verification, it was necessary to divide them into two groups: those with a low level of cooperation and those with a high level of cooperation in the area of exploration. The cut-off value was 0.2 in the OI measure (described above). As a result of this division, 39 enterprises with a low level of cooperation and 51 with a high level of cooperation were selected. However, in order to verify the hypothesis, it was necessary to measure the innovative development of SMEs considering sustainable development regarding the efficient use of energy. Our metric for innovative development was created on the basis of data obtained from a study conducted on a group of surveyed enterprises. These data included answers to questions about, inter alia, the degree of novelty of the innovative changes introduced by the company, the impact of the degree of novelty of the introduced innovative changes and their impact on the modernization of the company, the share of turnover generated by innovative changes, the share of R&D expenditure in the company’s total sales, etc.

In this way, average innovative development quantifications were obtained for the two groups of SMEs. The obtained results are presented in

Table 10. Average levels of innovative development—H2 verification (p = 0.04868 < 0.05).

The Level of Openness to the Environment	Number of Enterprises	Average Level of the Innovative Development Measure	Standard Deviation
Lower level of openness	39	0.140	0.054
Higher level of openness	51	0.161	0.067
Together	90	-	-

.

The table above clearly shows that the average levels of innovative development are higher among SMEs characterized by a high level of openness to the environment. Therefore, H2 was verified positively. In practice, this means that SMEs that are more open are also more innovative than those whose level of openness is lower. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a relationship between the level of openness (willingness to cooperate with the environment) and the level of sustainable innovation development. As such, it pays to adopt sustainable and innovative development strategies aimed at efficient (economical) use of energy.

The above conclusion is the basis for the positive verification of H0. Additionally, on the basis of positive verification of H1, it can be concluded that the use of OI has a positive impact on the sustainable innovative development of small and medium-sized enterprises in Poland.

5. Discussion

The above analysis of the impact of OI on sustainable innovative development has limitations. Firstly, the research lacked a sampling frame, which forced us to create a research tool whereby answers were given only by companies that have implemented significant innovative initiatives in the last three years. Such an approach significantly limits the representativeness of the research sample. Secondly, the study was conducted only with regard to a few selected voivodeships in Poland. It is true that only voivodships that were “characteristic” in terms of innovation were considered, i.e., those with high or low levels of innovative development (a total of six were considered). Nevertheless, due to the available financial resources, the research was limited in a geographical sense. Thirdly, access to “mature” entities that have been operating on the market for over 10 years was difficult. Hence, the participation of these companies in the study was significantly limited. These enterprises are characterized by a “closed” attitude to the environment, not only in terms of cooperation with other entities, but also in terms of their willingness to provide answers to questions such as those in the research questionnaire. Hence, the share of such entities in the analyzed study was relatively low.

It should be emphasized that there is no contradiction between the broadly understood development of an enterprise and sustainability, as some authors have noted [7] (pp. 1–19). In practice, this means that development does not have to be focused on the exploitation of natural resources. On the contrary, resources should be used in a way that allows their reconstruction in the future [34] (pp. 511–528). The dimension of sustainable development takes on not only ecological dimensions, but also economic, social and technological ones [35] (pp. 189–208). Therefore, such development must be viewed as a multidimensional process, involving major changes in social structures and in the attitudes of national and supranational institutions, aimed at accelerating economic growth, reducing inequality and eliminating poverty [36] (pp. 806–811). Moreover, it is associated with maintaining a quality of the environment that ensures the stable operation of a business and a proper quality of life [37]. In the second case (social), sustainable development focuses on goals such as promoting education and training to support sustainable development, protecting and promoting health, fighting poverty, and supporting demographic development (population growth) [38]. Attention is also paid here to the protection of societies and culture, as well as the preservation of social principles and values and the observance of human rights [28] (pp. 67–94). All these goals of sustainable development can be achieved thanks to new technologies. Their absence in many countries is a limiting factor for the implementation of such development [33]. Hence, based on the considerations discussed in the literature, it is reasonable to say that innovative development supports the objectives of sustainable development. The combination of sustainable and innovative development is described in this article as “sustainable innovative development”, whereby innovation serves as a tool.

6. Conclusions

On the basis of the present research, some important conclusions may be drawn. Firstly, the concept of “sustainable innovative development” has not been adequately defined to date, and the definition presented herein and summarized below represents the author’s contribution to the field of management and quality sciences. The term means the implementation by SMEs of technological (or other) innovations aimed at the protection of natural resources (or energy resources). Secondly, SMEs in Poland undertake cooperation with various entities in the environment for sustainable innovative development (as evidenced by their tendency to OI). This tendency is manifested by prioritizing exploration over exploitation; SMEs generally use external resources to a greater extent (looking for innovative solutions in the environment) than internal resources (basing their sustainable innovative development on the use of their own resources). Third, when characterizing OI, it should be kept in mind that the propensity to explore results from the specific benefits that SMEs enjoy in comparison to when they use their own resources (e.g., costs related to running their own R&D activity). The above conclusions are based on the positive verification of H1, H1a, and H1b. Fourth, the level of openness to the environment is of fundamental importance when it comes to shaping the innovative development of sustainable SMEs. SMEs that cooperate with other entities and are willing to exchange the necessary knowledge in this area tend to be more developed. This conclusion is based on the positive verification of H2. Finally, since a greater level of openness translates directly into the level of development of such enterprises, it can be stated that the use of OI has a positive impact on sustainable innovative development.

The conclusions presented in this article do not exhaust discussion of the relevant issues. More research is needed, e.g., focusing on a few important issues. First, future research should monitor the level of openness among SMEs to the environment. Secondly, the sustainable development of SMEs in Poland and the tendency that these enterprises show in this respect should be analyzed. Third, it is necessary to examine the state of innovative implementations, as this would advance a number of economic entities. Fourth, research should cover issues related to the implementation of such innovative solutions that directly or indirectly affect sustainable development; deficiencies in this respect may have a negative impact on the competitiveness of the Polish economy and cause excessive exploitation of natural resources. Currently, the economic importance of the use of new ideas and innovative solutions in the field of environmental protection and energy saving is growing. Sustainable development is becoming more and more important, not only because of ecology, but also for economic reasons; the development of a modern industrial society focused on environmental protection is noticeable [39] (pp. 128–145). Fifth, open innovation is not homogeneous and can be used and implemented in many different ways. This may be the basis for further research, in which the above conclusions could serve as a starting point for the analysis of specific ways of implementing OI [40] (pp. 3–10).