The Impact of Digital Transformation on Labor Productivity and Production Cost Reduction in Enterprises in Vietnam: Evidence from SMEs in Hanoi and Neighboring Provinces

This study examines the impact of digital transformation (DT) on labor productivity (LP) and production cost reduction (PCR) among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Vietnam. Drawing on the resource-based view and dynamic-capabilities theory, a mixed-methods design was applied to integrate qualitative insights and quantitative validation. Semi-structured interviews with 15 SME managers were followed by a survey of 351 SMEs in Hanoi and neighboring provinces, analyzed using SmartPLS 4. Results indicate that DT significantly improves both LP (β = 0.46, p < 0.001) and PCR (β = 0.39, p < 0.001). Digital skills (DS) partially mediate these effects, highlighting that technology yields performance benefits mainly when supported by workforce competence. Moreover, firm characteristics—particularly size and sector—moderate the DT–performance relationship, with medium-sized and manufacturing firms realizing greater efficiency gains. The study contributes to the literature by providing empirical evidence from an emerging economy where research on DT outcomes remains limited. Practically, it underscores the need for SMEs to align digital investments with human-capital development and integrated process management. Policy recommendations emphasize training support, infrastructure enhancement, and phased digital adoption strategies to accelerate Vietnam’s SME digitalization.

digital transformation, labor productivity, production cost reduction

1. Arvanitis, S., & Loukis, E. (2016). Investigating the impact of ICT on innovation and performance of European firms. Information Systems Management, 33(3), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2016.1188578 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Autor, D. H., Katz, L. F., & Krueger, A. B. (2003). Computing inequality: Have computers changed the labor market? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1169–1213. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355303322552801 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O. A., Pavlou, P. A., & Venkatraman, N. (2013). Digital business strategy: Toward a next generation of insights. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 471–482. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.2.08 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bloom, N., Sadun, R., & Van Reenen, J. (2019). Management as a technology? (NBER Working Paper No. 22327). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w22327 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2017). Machine, platform, crowd: Harnessing our digital future. W. W. Norton & Company. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Brynjolfsson, E., Hitt, L. M., & Yang, S. (2002). Intangible assets: Computers and organizational capital. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 33(1), 137–181. https://doi.org/10.1353/eca.2002.0003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. European Commission. (2018). EntreComp: The entrepreneurship competence framework. Publications Office of the European Union. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2021). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Kane, G. C., Palmer, D., Phillips, A. N., Kiron, D., & Buckley, N. (2015). Strategy, not technology, drives digital transformation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 14(1), 1–25. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Kraus, S., Durst, S., Palacios, D., Brinker, M., & Lalonde, J. (2021). Digital transformation: An overview of the current state of the art. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 173, 121230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121230 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Le, H. T., & Nguyen, T. H. (2021). E-commerce adoption and productivity of Vietnamese SMEs. Journal of Asian Business and Economic Studies, 28(2), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABES-06-2020-0064 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Li, L., Su, F., Zhang, W., & Mao, J. Y. (2018). Digital transformation by SME entrepreneurs: A capability perspective. Information Systems Journal, 28(6), 1129–1157. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12153 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2022). Productivity Outlook 2022: The digital imperative. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264958732-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Pavlou, P. A., & El Sawy, O. A. (2011). Understanding the elusive black box of dynamic capabilities. Decision Sciences, 42(1), 239–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2010.00287.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. Free Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Rojko, A. (2017). Industry 4.0 concept: Background and overview. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 11(5), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v11i5.7072 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Solow, R. M. (1957). Technical change and the aggregate production function. Review of Economics and Statistics, 39(3), 312–320. https://doi.org/10.2307/1926047 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Teece, D. J. (2018). Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.06.007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Tran, M. K., & Do, T. T. (2022). Digital skills and SME competitiveness in Vietnam. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 16(4), 412–431. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJIE-04-2022-0037 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Vietnam Ministry of Planning and Investment. (2023). Vietnam SME Annual Report 2023. Hanoi: Author. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Wade, M., & Hulland, J. (2004). The resource-based view and information systems research: Review, extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 107–142. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148626 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Warner, K. S. R., & Wäger, M. (2019). Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal. California Management Review, 61(1), 45–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125618790241 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Westerman, G., Bonnet, D., & McAfee, A. (2014). Leading digital: Turning technology into business transformation. Harvard Business Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. Free Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study