This research examines how digital knowledge integration affects green innovation performance, suggesting implications for firms.
Purpose The “green productivity puzzle” suggests that digital investment does not always translate into environmental performance. Based on the knowledge-based view and the knowledge process perspective, this study aims to examine whether this puzzle reflects differences in the scale of digital knowledge or differences in how digital knowledge is integrated into firms’ technical and problem-solving processes. Design/methodology/approach This study distinguishes between the substantive integration of digital knowledge and the accumulation of general digital knowledge. Using Chinese listed firm data, knowledge digitization is operationalized as digital knowledge intensity, which captures the share of digital-physical coupled knowledge in the firm’s patent stock, and integration depth, which captures the depth of digital-physical knowledge integration as disclosed in patent claims. Findings Digital knowledge intensity and integration depth are both positively associated with green innovation performance, whereas the accumulation of purely digital knowledge is not. Mechanism analysis indicates that knowledge digitization is more strongly related to knowledge creation than to knowledge reuse, while cognitive friction weakens its positive association with green innovation performance. Additional analyses show that this positive effect is stronger for general-purpose connective technologies than for vertically specialized ones. Originality/value This study extends the theory of knowledge processes and shows that the green value of knowledge digitization depends on the degree of digital–physical knowledge coupling and the depth of integration. By linking knowledge digitization to knowledge creation, knowledge reuse and cognitive friction, it provides a knowledge-management perspective on how knowledge digitization shapes green innovation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: