IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i10p4285-d1651815.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainable Emerging Technologies: Battle for Dominant Design

Author

Listed:
  • Esteban Fernández

    (Faculty of Business Administration, University of Oviedo, 33006 Oviedo, Spain)

  • Sandra Valle

    (Faculty of Business Administration, University of Oviedo, 33006 Oviedo, Spain)

  • Guillermo Pérez-Bustamante

    (Faculty of Business Administration, University of Oviedo, 33006 Oviedo, Spain)

Abstract

When sustainable emerging technologies (SETs) enter mainstream markets, a battle unfolds between pioneers and incumbents to establish the new dominant design. The purpose of this article is to explore the key factors that determine the outcome of such technological battles. Based on an extensive literature review and drawing on insights from behavioral economics, five research hypotheses are proposed to examine whether the final outcome depends on the discontinuous or disruptive nature of the SET—specifically, whether its entry into the mainstream market is direct or indirect—and on whether incumbents perceive it as a threat or an opportunity. The article also aims to clarify the prevailing confusion surrounding the concept of disruptive technology by proposing a refined definition that builds upon and complements previous ones. From an academic perspective, the contribution lies in incorporating behavioral economics into the analysis of technological battles, thus opening new avenues for research, as well as offering a definition of disruptive technology that could help standardize research frameworks in this field. From a managerial standpoint, this article supports innovation managers in understanding the introduction and expansion of SETs, enabling them to develop more effective strategic responses.

Suggested Citation

  • Esteban Fernández & Sandra Valle & Guillermo Pérez-Bustamante, 2025. "Sustainable Emerging Technologies: Battle for Dominant Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-25, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:10:p:4285-:d:1651815
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/10/4285/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/10/4285/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mary Tripsas & Giovanni Gavetti, 2000. "Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: evidence from digital imaging," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1147-1161, October.
    2. Ron Adner & Daniel Snow, 2010. "Old technology responses to new technology threats: demand heterogeneity and technology retreats," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(5), pages 1655-1675, October.
    3. Jim Dewald & Frances Bowen, 2010. "Storm Clouds and Silver Linings: Responding to Disruptive Innovations Through Cognitive Resilience," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 34(1), pages 197-218, January.
    4. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Kilkki, Kalevi & Mäntylä, Martti & Karhu, Kimmo & Hämmäinen, Heikki & Ailisto, Heikki, 2018. "A disruption framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 275-284.
    6. Bergek, Anna & Berggren, Christian & Magnusson, Thomas & Hobday, Michael, 2013. "Technological discontinuities and the challenge for incumbent firms: Destruction, disruption or creative accumulation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 1210-1224.
    7. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    9. Fernando F. Suárez & James M. Utterback, 1995. "Dominant designs and the survival of firms," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(6), pages 415-430.
    10. Regattieri, Alberto & Piana, Francesco & Bortolini, Marco & Gamberi, Mauro & Ferrari, Emilio, 2016. "Innovative portable solar cooker using the packaging waste of humanitarian supplies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 319-326.
    11. Pao‐Lien Chen & Charles Williams & Rajshree Agarwal, 2012. "Growing pains: Pre‐entry experience and the challenge of transition to incumbency," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 252-276, March.
    12. James M. Utterback & Happy J. Acee, 2005. "Disruptive Technologies: An Expanded View," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(01), pages 1-17.
    13. Andrea Urbinati & Davide Chiaroni & Vittorio Chiesa & Simone Franzò & Federico Frattini, 2018. "An Exploratory Analysis on the Contextual Factors that Influence Disruptive Innovation: The Case of Uber," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(03), pages 1-26, June.
    14. Constance E. Helfat & Marvin B. Lieberman, 2002. "The birth of capabilities: market entry and the importance of pre-history," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 11(4), pages 725-760, August.
    15. Brem, Alexander & Nylund, Petra A. & Schuster, Gerd, 2016. "Innovation and de facto standardization: The influence of dominant design on innovative performance, radical innovation, and process innovation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 50, pages 79-88.
    16. Maine, Elicia & Garnsey, Elizabeth, 2006. "Commercializing generic technology: The case of advanced materials ventures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 375-393, April.
    17. Saeed Khanagha & Mohammad Taghi Ramezan Zadeh & Oli R. Mihalache & Henk W. Volberda, 2018. "Embracing Bewilderment: Responding to Technological Disruption in Heterogeneous Market Environments," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(7), pages 1079-1121, November.
    18. Antonio, Jerome L. & Kanbach, Dominik K., 2023. "Contextual factors of disruptive innovation: A systematic review and framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    19. Gilbert, Brett Anitra, 2012. "Creative destruction: Identifying its geographic origins," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 734-742.
    20. Nylund, Petra A. & Brem, Alexander & Agarwal, Nivedita, 2022. "Enabling technologies mitigating climate change: The role of dominant designs in environmental innovation ecosystems," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    21. Clayton M. Christensen & Rory McDonald & Elizabeth J. Altman & Jonathan E. Palmer, 2018. "Disruptive Innovation: An Intellectual History and Directions for Future Research," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(7), pages 1043-1078, November.
    22. Suarez, Fernando F., 2004. "Battles for technological dominance: an integrative framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 271-286, March.
    23. Vecchiato, Riccardo, 2017. "Disruptive innovation, managerial cognition, and technology competition outcomes," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 116-128.
    24. Schuelke-Leech, Beth-Anne, 2018. "A model for understanding the orders of magnitude of disruptive technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 261-274.
    25. Ricardo A. Marques Lameirinhas & João Paulo N. Torres & João P. de Melo Cunha, 2022. "A Photovoltaic Technology Review: History, Fundamentals and Applications," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-44, March.
    26. Steven Klepper & Kenneth L. Simons, 2000. "Dominance by birthright: entry of prior radio producers and competitive ramifications in the U.S. television receiver industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 997-1016, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Antonio, Jerome L. & Kanbach, Dominik K., 2023. "Contextual factors of disruptive innovation: A systematic review and framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    2. Sean T. Hsu & Susan K. Cohen, 2022. "Overcoming the Incumbent Dilemma: The Dual Roles of Multimarket Contact During Disruption," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 319-348, March.
    3. Papachristos, George, 2017. "Diversity in technology competition: The link between platforms and sociotechnical transitions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 291-306.
    4. Camerani, Roberto & Corrocher, Nicoletta & Fontana, Roberto, 2020. "It's never too late (to enter)… till it is! Firms’ entry and exit in the digital audio player industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    5. Onufrey, Ksenia & Bergek, Anna, 2021. "Transformation in a mature industry: The role of business and innovation strategies," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    6. Yuliya Snihur & Christoph Zott & Raphael (Raffi) Amit, 2021. "Managing the Value Appropriation Dilemma in Business Model Innovation," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 22-38, March.
    7. Pinar Ozcan & Douglas Hannah, 2020. "Social Origins of Great Strategies Advertising Suppliers to Realize Disruptive Social Media Technology," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(3), pages 193-217, September.
    8. Anavir Shermon & Mahka Moeen, 2022. "Zooming in or zooming out: Entrants' product portfolios in the nascent drone industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(11), pages 2217-2252, November.
    9. Giovanni Gavetti, 2012. "PERSPECTIVE—Toward a Behavioral Theory of Strategy," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 267-285, February.
    10. Lihong Qian & Rajshree Agarwal & Glenn Hoetker, 2012. "Configuration of Value Chain Activities: The Effect of Pre-Entry Capabilities, Transaction Hazards, and Industry Evolution on Decisions to Internalize," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1330-1349, October.
    11. Cucculelli, Marco & Le Breton-Miller, Isabelle & Miller, Danny, 2016. "Product innovation, firm renewal and family governance," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 90-104.
    12. Hakan Ozalp & J.P. Eggers & Franco Malerba, 2023. "Hitting reset: Industry evolution, generational technology cycles, and the dynamic value of firm experience," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(5), pages 1292-1327, May.
    13. Lee, Gwendolyn K., 2009. "Understanding the timing of 'fast-second' entry and the relevance of capabilities in invention vs. commercialization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 86-95, February.
    14. Joshua S. Gans & Michael Kearney & Erin L. Scott & Scott Stern, 2021. "Choosing Technology: An Entrepreneurial Strategy Approach," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 39-53, March.
    15. Bergek, Anna & Berggren, Christian & Magnusson, Thomas & Hobday, Michael, 2013. "Technological discontinuities and the challenge for incumbent firms: Destruction, disruption or creative accumulation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 1210-1224.
    16. Ansari, Shahzad (Shaz) & Krop, Pieter, 2012. "Incumbent performance in the face of a radical innovation: Towards a framework for incumbent challenger dynamics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1357-1374.
    17. Pamela Adams & Roberto Fontana & Franco Malerba, 2022. "Knowledge resources and the acquisition of spinouts," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 12(2), pages 277-313, June.
    18. Chila, Vilma, 2021. "Knowledge dynamics in employee entrepreneurship : Implications for parents and offspring," Other publications TiSEM a1f5d18c-783b-4af6-8414-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. Bohnsack, René & Pinkse, Jonatan & Kolk, Ans, 2014. "Business models for sustainable technologies: Exploring business model evolution in the case of electric vehicles," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 284-300.
    20. Corinne A. Coen & Catherine A. Maritan, 2011. "Investing in Capabilities: The Dynamics of Resource Allocation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 99-117, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:10:p:4285-:d:1651815. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.