Digitalization plays a major role in contributing towards the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Without transformation of existing businesses, both economic and environmental challenges of the future cannot be solved sustainably. However, there is much confusion on interrelationships and terms dealing with digitization or digitalization: Digital business model, digital transformation, digital entrepreneurship. How do these terms interrelate with and to digitalization, and how do they support firms to grow sustainably? To answer this question, we identified seven core digital-related terms based on a structured literature search within the management and economics domain, namely: Digital, Business Model, Digital Business Model, Digital Technology, Digital Innovation, Digital Transformation, and Digital Entrepreneurship. Thereafter, we analyzed prior literature for deriving a common understanding and definition as a basis for interrelations within a conceptual framework. Definitions were presented in a case study setup with twelve innovation and research and development (R&D) managers from various business units of a German high-tech company. Based on these insights, we propose a conceptual framework on how Digital Readiness, Digital Technology, and Digital Business Models might sustainably relate to Innovation, moderated by a Digital Transformation Process. With this approach, we aim to equip practitioners and researchers alike in handling and addressing change through digitalization sustainably.

Crises like the COVID‐19 pandemic affect firms’ innovation management and decision making. On the downside, crises lead to detriments like budget constraints, to which firms often respond by reducing their innovation activities. On the upside, crises are opportunities, where some firms exploiting changing market requirements and necessities excel. No matter in which direction, decision makers must react quickly but often rely on ad‐hoc decisions or even gut feeling when drafting their crisis response strategies. Through a series of distinct cases, we demonstrate that innovation management may fill this void through patent analytics. Drawing on biochemical expertise, we particularly describe the functions and effects of COVID‐19. To counter downside detriments, firms may circumvent budget constraints by discerning patents that can be (1) monetized, for example via sales or licensing deals, or (2) abandoned to achieve cost‐savings, allowing firms to maintain their innovation activities. To realize upside opportunities, firms and governments may use patent analytics to detect key biotechnology firms that are likely to successfully develop treatments and vaccinations against pandemics like COVID‐19. Promulgated U.S. interest in relocating foreign firms to the United States is not without technological and commercial reasoning. Herein, the insights of this study contribute to a better understanding of the use of patent information, such as smart patent indicators, harmonized patent data, novel annuity fee measures, and hand‐collected datasets of COVID‐19 and related antibodies’ patents to the management of innovation in times of crisis.

After the 2007–08 global financial crisis, research flourished on entrepreneurship through digital innovation in the financial market as well as on investors’ influence on digital technology-based entrepreneurs’ funding decisions. This study combines these two research streams to analyze the decision-making criteria for funding financial technology companies (fintechs), hybrid companies that combine digital entrepreneurship, technology, and banking. The study first uses prior literature to derive important characteristics to define fintechs and then uses 12 expert interviews to elaborate on decision-making criteria in funding. Except for smaller peculiarities, fintech funding does not appear to differ from that of other digital entrepreneurship in different markets, and—as with most digital business models—scalability was identified as a key criterion. Additionally, by serving as a major provider of money for young companies, banks have changed their role and positioning in funding new financial technology entrepreneurs. Through developments in digital technology, banks have shifted from traditional money-lending activities (i.e., debt-financing) to becoming stakeholders in fintechs and, hence, equity investors. We also describe how these formerly distinct fields have converged due to regulatory requirements, digital newcomers, and a need for constant innovation, with their future sustainable development dependent on sharing and collaboration.