Journal Pre-proof

Exploring the Nexus Between Environmental Corporate Social

Responsibility (ECSR) and Green Dynamic Capabilities: Implications
for Green Technological Innovation

Kinza Aish Research Scholar ,

Qamar Uz Zaman Assistant Professor ,
Sadaf Ehsan Assistant Professor ,
Dr. Anees Haider Zaidi Assistant Professor

PII: S2666-1888(25)00215-1
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2025.100647
Reference: SFTR 100647

To appear in: Sustainable Futures

Received date: 6 October 2024

Revised date: 15 April 2025
Accepted date: 30 April 2025

Please cite this article as: Kinza Aish Research Scholar , Qamar Uz Zaman Assistant Professor ,
Sadaf Ehsan Assistant Professor , Dr. Anees Haider Zaidi Assistant Professor , Exploring the Nexus
Between Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility (ECSR) and Green Dynamic Ca-
pabilities: Implications for Green Technological Innovation, Sustainable Futures (2025), doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2025.100647

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2025 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Highlights

• ECSR positively reflects on resource integration, resource reconfiguration, and

environmental insight capabilities.

• Firms focused on ECSR improve their green technological innovation.

• Green dynamic capabilities can improve green technological innovation.

• Green dynamic capabilities mediate the relationship between ECSR and green

technological innovation.
Exploring the Nexus Between Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility
(ECSR) and Green Dynamic Capabilities: Implications for Green
Technological Innovation

Kinza Aish
Research Scholar
COMSATS University Islamabad, Sahiwal-Pakistan
Contact: +92-332-4147901
kinzaaish611@gmail.com

Qamar Uz Zaman (Corresponding Author)

Assistant Professor
COMSATS University Islamabad, Sahiwal-Pakistan
Contact: +92-321-6301747
qamar@cuisahiwal.edu.pk

Sadaf Ehsan
Assistant Professor, Management Sciences
COMSATS University Islamabad, Lahore-Pakistan
sadafehsan@cuilahore.edu.pk

Dr. Anees Haider Zaidi

Assistant Professor
University of Warsaw, Poland
aneeshaider5@gmail.com

Abstract

This study intends to investigate the relationship between ECSR, green dynamic capability, and
green technological innovation. The green dynamic capability has three components, including
resource integration, resource reconfiguration, and environment insight capability. The data was
collected from 295 managers of manufacturing enterprises registered in Pakistan Stock Exchange
using a survey questionnaire. By using linear regression and structural equation modeling (SEM)
this study found that; (1) ECSR has a beneficial impact on resource integration, resource
reconfiguration, and environment insight capability. (2) ECSR has a favorable impact on green
technological innovation. (3) Resource integration, resource reconfiguration, and environment
insight capability improve green technological innovation. (4) Furthermore, resource integration,
resource reconfiguration, and environment insight capability serve as mediators between ECSR
and green technological innovation. Finally, this study suggests that managers should improve
ECSR practices since CSR activities considerably promote green dynamic capability and green
technological innovation.

Keywords: Green dynamic capabilities, Green technological innovation, Corporate social

responsibility

1 Introduction
Environmental corporate social responsibility (ECSR) has become increasingly important for
technological innovation for businesses worldwide, as environmental awareness in the
competitive business environment is growing at a rapid pace (Cheng, Wang, and Pan 2022;
Forcadell, Ubeda, and Aracil 2021a; H. Sun, Zhang, and Liu 2022). According to C. Xie,
Bagozzi, and Gronhaug (2019), firms need to take stakeholder needs and ECSR into account to
optimize the benefits of modifying current processes and products and creating new technologies
to safeguard the environment. Because of resource constraints, firms' technical innovation
depends largely on transactions and exchanges for complementary resources with external
stakeholders.
According to Wu, Yan, and Umair (2023) meeting the expectations and interests of external
stakeholders in business operations is therefore crucial for firms. As the shared concern of
external stakeholders, ECSR has gained attention more recently as a means of integrating the
diverse expectations and interests of stakeholders, hence assisting firms in garnering greater
support and attention from external stakeholders (Wu et al. 2023). According to Rahman and
Post (2012), ECSR reflects businesses' efforts to protect the environment through energy
conservation and pollution emission reduction. Consequently, in the current context of
environmental protection, ECSR is vital for businesses to drive technological innovation when
heightened environmental pressure and rapidly evolving technologies diminish the value added
by current processes and products (Jiakui et al. 2023; Yoo et al. 2012).
However, in the context of environmental protection, it is still unclear from the literature what
the internal mechanisms and boundary conditions are of the relationship between ECSR and
technical innovation. A thorough theoretical understanding from the perspective of ECSR is still
lacking, even though some innovation scholars have concentrated on access to firms'
technological innovation, including human capital, knowledge sharing (Yao et al., 2020), and
environmental regulation (Qiu et al. 2020). Furthermore, although Wu and Zhu (2021) found a
direct relationship between ECSR and innovation outcomes, they were unable to find a
significant relationship with technological innovation. Therefore, more research is required to
determine how ECSR can influence technological innovation.
ECSR and green technology innovation are two of the most important things that drive the
sustainable growth and the social value of businesses (Satapathy and Paltasingh 2019). The
connection between ECSR and innovation in green technology has been widely analyzed.
However, the outcomes are surprisingly distinct from one another. According to a study on the
relationship between ECSR and green technology innovation, manufacturers who actively
participated in ECSR efforts were more likely to use green technology innovation techniques to
address their stakeholders' concerns (Hong, Li, and Drakeford 2021; Wang and Altanbulag
2022). However, researchers feel that CSR initiatives do not stimulate the creation of new green
technologies. This is due to how firms invest resources to maintain different external
relationships (X. Xie, Huo, and Zou 2019). Regarding the relationship between CSR and green
technology innovation, the positivist viewpoint asserts that green technology innovation
engagement influences ECSR activities.

Green dynamic capability has received attention from academics and business leaders. The
incredible influence of green dynamic capability on a variety of company performance
outcomes, including firm reputation (Ali et al. 2021), brand image (Huang, Li, and Yen 2016),
and asset growth (Peng 2020) has been thoroughly established in a variety of business
disciplines. Green dynamic capability has been considered as a solid foundation for providing
value for the firm's stakeholders, such as its employees, customers, and business partners (Hong,
Drakeford, and Zhang 2020; Kobarg et al. 2020; Latif et al. 2020). Businesses can gain a
competitive edge through the development of dynamic capabilities including resource sharing
with supply chain partners (Khan, Ponce, et al. 2021), and designing products and services that
meet customer needs (Qiu et al. 2020).

The main goal of businesses that want to boost their green dynamic capability should emphasize
a balance between the economic benefits of their operations and the environmental
responsibilities (Li et al. 2019; Nguyen and Su 2021; Wei et al. 2023; Yuan and Cao 2022).
When a firm is in the "green development stage" of manufacturing, it must cultivate and promote
green dynamic capabilities (Chan et al. 2017; Jiakui et al. 2023; Qiu et al. 2020). Having the
green dynamic capability means that an organization can alter and generate green organizational
capability to react to the dynamic market (Choi et al. 2019). The promotion of green
technological innovation through the expansion of green dynamic capability is a key
organizational theory that also provides management with insight for promoting corporate green
technological innovation. However, many businesses have not devoted nearly enough resources
to advancing green technological innovation.

In light of these constraints, the following research questions were formulated for this study. (1)
How does ECSR contribute to the development of green dynamic capabilities? (2) How do these
capabilities influence green technological innovation? (3) Do green dynamic capabilities mediate
the relationship between ECSR and green technological innovation? To address these questions,
we surveyed 150 manufacturing firms in Pakistan and conducted structural equation modeling to
examine the proposed relationships. Our findings indicate that ECSR significantly enhances all
three dimensions of green dynamic capability, each of which positively influences green
technological innovation. Moreover, these capabilities partially mediate the ECSR–innovation
relationship, underscoring their role as critical conduits of strategic transformation.

The study adds numerous contributions to the body of knowledge. This study's initial finding is
that green dynamic capability elements influence the relationship between corporate social
responsibility and green technological innovation. Second, as far as the most seasoned academics
are aware, this is the first study to integrate ECSR, green technology innovation, and green
dynamic capabilities into a single theoretical framework. Thirdly, utilizing stakeholder theory
and RBV theory as theoretical foundations, this study proposes a theoretical framework for
analyzing the relationship between ECSR and corporate green technological innovation from the
standpoint of green dynamic capability. This study utilized a dimensional analysis of green
dynamic capability, including resource integration, resource reconfiguration, and environment
insight capabilities, to establish the relationship between environmental CSR and green
technological innovation.

This study is structured as follows: section 2 presents the intended literature review and study
hypotheses. In section 3, we examine how data was collected and which factors were measured.
The majority of the empirical findings are discussed in Sections 4 and 5. The report concludes
with its caveats and recommends next measures.

2 Theory and Literature

2.1 Theoretical background
As sustainability becomes a central concern in modern business strategy, ECSR has emerged as a
critical mechanism by which firms respond to societal expectations and ecological pressures.
ECSR is a term that denotes voluntary organizational initiatives that are designed to conserve
resources, mitigate environmental damage, and align with broader societal sustainability values
(Flammer 2013; Lyon and Maxwell 2008; Portney 2008). Despite the fact that prior research has
established a correlation between ECSR and reputational benefits and stakeholder legitimacy
(Lyon and Maxwell 2008; Portney 2008), the role of ECSR in promoting green technological
innovation is theoretically and empirically underdeveloped.
A burgeoning body of research indicates that innovation outcomes are not explicitly generated
by ECSR alone (Bocquet et al. 2017; Forcadell et al. 2021a). Rather, the strategic value of ECSR
is determined by the organizational processes that internalize and leverage it. The dynamic
capabilities perspective is consistent with this perspective, which underscores the significance of
firms' capacity to reorganize, integrate, and transform internal and external resources in response
to environmental change. We suggest that ECSR may catalyze the advancement of green
dynamic capabilities, which are a collection of higher-level organizational procedures that
facilitate innovation in response to ecological imperatives. The green dynamic capabilities of a
firm are its ability to detect environmental opportunities (environmental insight capability),
reconfigure resources to exploit them (resource reconfiguration), and integrate diverse
knowledge across stakeholders (resource integration). These capabilities are not inherent; rather,
they are developed through strategic commitment and sustained organizational learning. We
contend that the genuine adoption of ECSR establishes a normative and cognitive infrastructure
that promotes the development of these capabilities, thereby serving as a precursor to green
technological innovation.
Additionally, we examine the influence of green intellectual capital and resource dependence
structures on this transformation. The capacity of firms to transform ECSR into innovation
outcomes is influenced by their stock of environmentally relevant knowledge, absorptive
capacity, and stakeholder relationships, all of which vary. Organizations are subject to external
environments that both facilitate and restrict their strategic actions, as viewed through the lens of
resource dependence theory (Pfeffer, Salancik, and Leblebici 1976). Firms that possess robust
green intellectual capital—knowledge assets that are pertinent to environmental management—
are more adept at surmounting dependence-related constraints and implementing dynamic
change. Collectively, we establish a conceptual framework that demonstrates how ECSR
influences green technological innovation through the mediating mechanisms of green dynamic
capabilities. Our framework contributes to a more nuanced comprehension of the strategic role of
ECSR, which is not a symbolic or compliance-driven activity but a moral and cognitive anchor
that can influence the development of capabilities and innovation pathways under ecological
constraints.
2.2 Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility (ECSR)
CSR is becoming more popular as a business strategy because it gives companies a competitive
edge and helps the economy grow. For this reason, business leaders, government officials, and
management scholars have recently paid more attention to CSR (Kraus, Rehman, and García
2020). The term CSR refers to the idea that a company has responsibilities to people other than
its owners and employees and that it should pay special attention to social and environmental
issues in its day-to-day operations and interactions with those people (Xiong and Luo 2021). This
idea needs to be analyzed from two different perspectives to be understood thoroughly: CSR
practices are a reflection of a new business model that successfully incorporates the
environmental, social, and economic requirements of the organization and its stakeholders into
the day-to-day operations and strategic planning of the organization (Hernández, Yañez-Araque,
and Moreno-García 2020).

Three aspects are primarily used in current research to define ECSR. Firstly, an action-based
perspective defines environmental corporate social responsibility (ECSR) as a set of voluntary
environmental actions taken by businesses (Christmann 2004). A more limited interpretation of
this concept is that it refers to resource or energy-related actions (Christmann 2004). The second
perspective, which is process-based, holds that ECSR is an organizational process that is
optimized to lessen its environmental impact. The third and last viewpoint is product-based,
contending that businesses offer ecologically sustainable products and services through
environmental corporate social responsibility (Gilley et al. 2000). Broadly speaking, it pertains to
the enterprise's concurrent assessment of social and environmental concerns during production
and operation, so enabling the primary stakeholders to engage in the enterprise's environmental
initiatives (Islam and Asad 2024). Environmental corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a
management tactic that can affect workers' psychological characteristics and trigger actions.
The usual goals of CSR initiatives are examined in the body of research, including how they
relate to business success, competitiveness, and innovation in general (Song, Ren, and Yu 2019).
CSR assists firms in reducing costs and minimizing risks, enhancing their legitimacy and
reputation, gaining a competitive advantage in the market, and generating a win-win situation for
the economy and society. According to Parast and Adams (2012), CSR has a significant impact
on the petroleum industry's economic success. From the client's perspective, CSR promotes
satisfaction, trust, and loyalty (Han and Lee 2021). CSR efforts can reduce the probability of a
stock market crash, the probability of credit risk, the performance of the stock market, and the
ratio of real to genuine business value (Wang et al. 2021; Wei et al. 2023; Zhou et al. 2021).

2.3 Green dynamic capability

Businesses need the best allocation of their resources across solutions to deal with the shifting
and complicated environmental context considering the current resource limits and unstable
surroundings. This is necessary because there are limited resources. Teece, Pisano, and Shuen
(1997) proposed the concept of dynamic capability. It can be defined as the capacity of an
organization to integrate, establish, and restructure both its internal and external resources to
react to an environment that is constantly shifting. Building on the concept of dynamic
capability, the term "green dynamic capability" describes an organization's skill at perceiving,
grasping, and reconstructing both internal and external organizational resources, such as
technical and green resources, in response to changes in the business environment (Kabongo and
Boiral 2017). The ability to integrate and reproduce resources, as well as the transmission of
information into the surrounding environment, are the three specific components that make up
green dynamic capability (Yuan and Cao 2022).

First, resource integration requires merging “internal and external” environmental information
and environmental protection skills (Qiu et al. 2020). Integration of external resources also
necessitates the capacity to hire competent individuals with environmental expertise (Dangelico
2016). Second, convergence and regeneration of resources are the primary objectives of resource
recreation (Qiu et al. 2020). Maintaining competitive advantage requires the ability to
reorganize resources as the organization grows and the business environment evolves (Wang et
al. 2021). Businesses must be able to identify opportunities or threats and seize them by
redeploying organizational resources under their strategic requirements. This is a requirement for
competencies in environmental insight. According to the Hartman et al. (2017), environmental
insight capability can be viewed as the most fundamental relationship to dynamic capability.

2.4 Environmental CSR and green dynamic capability

Numerous factors have led to the proliferation of ECSR initiatives in the manufacturing industry.
It could be due to pressure from multiple stakeholders and competitors (Hernández et al. 2020).
Stakeholders exert pressure on several industrial enterprises, frequently. They require active
participation in CSR activities to reduce environmental impact (Islam et al. 2021). According to
current research, CSR is the most prevalent corporate strategy since it delivers a variety of
benefits to firms (Petrenko et al. 2016). Companies that participate actively in CSR practices can
fully consider customer demands for environmentally friendly product performance in product
design, manufacturing, and marketing; assimilate the green expertise and capabilities of their
suppliers; and minimize environmental harm that results from the procurement and production of
products (Mousavi, Bossink, and van Vliet 2019).

Companies that practice CSR seek to reduce environmental damage over the product’s life cycle.
For this reason, businesses are reorganizing their entire supply chain to include CSR
requirements (Khan, Yu, et al. 2021; Mousavi et al. 2019). To reduce the negative effects of their
products on the environment, CSR-aware businesses, for example, prioritize finding green
suppliers and ditching those who don't meet environmental protection standards (Khan, Yu, et al.
2021). CSR focused businesses will eventually change their economic structures, such as moving
away from selling and toward renting. This may reduce their negative impacts on the
environment. Companies will simultaneously actively enhance staff members' environmental
understanding and capacity for environmental protection through training and other methods
(Mousavi et al. 2019). The effects of the economic, social, and environmental aspects of CSR on
general innovation vary greatly depending on the viewpoint (García-Piqueres and García-Ramos
2020). These interconnections suggest that businesses are ripped to appreciate the supplementary
legislation, market trends, and client requirements related to green development, hence
identifying business prospects and capitalizing on new profit growth.

Summarizing the research on CSR, it is discovered that CSR supports numerous areas. For
instance, CSR activities assist businesses in developing positive working connections with
stakeholders as well as extending the reach of resource integration channels to access more
plentiful green resources (Flammer and Kacperczyk 2016). Companies can alter their product
lines, internal organizational structures, supply chains, and focus on environmental sustainability
with the aid of CSR techniques. Companies that actively engage in CSR efforts will proactively
cultivate positive relationships with regulators, trade groups, and clients (Forcadell, Úbeda, and
Aracil 2021b). This study shifts the lens into green dynamic capabilities and asserts that ECSR
has a good impact on the following:

H1a: ECSR positively contributes to resource integration capability.

H1b: ECSR positively contributes to the resource reconfiguration capability.

H1c: ECSR positively contributes to environmental insight capability.

2.5 ECSR and green technological innovation

Green technological innovation is a creative endeavor that incorporates innovative procedures
and products, distinguishing it from other inventive methods (X. Xie et al. 2019). In recent years,
there has been an increasing awareness of the need to focus on green technological innovation in
response to escalating global concerns including resource depletion and environmental
deterioration. Innovation is frequently thwarted by the high expense, and degree of uncertainty
associated with it. CSR is a business concept that helps an organization to be socially
accountable to itself, its management, employees, clients, and the community. CSR initiatives
focus on giving back to society and addressing stakeholder concerns. The more stakeholders'
requirements are taken into account when performing social responsibility, the stronger the firm's
relationship with its stakeholders and the higher its reputation and social status (Bocken 2015).
Therefore, organizations are more successful when they maintain mutually beneficial, trust-based
relationships with their stakeholders and allocate more resources to green technological
innovation (Cox and Wicks 2011).
The demand for environmental sustainability is increasing, and today's manufacturers cannot
ignore their corporate social duty (Carvalho and Madaleno 2022). It is projected that these
companies will successfully embrace environmentally sensitive innovative performances (Yuan
and Cao 2022). In addition, research indicates that innovation helps both the success of an
organization and its CSR (Achi, Adeola, and Achi 2022). However, there is currently not
enough research on how CSR is carried out in various national settings, particularly when it
comes to sustaining business company financial performance through green technology
innovation (Imran and Jingzu 2022). Providing scholars with the opportunity to explore the
significance of CSR, and its classification in countries like China, enhancing environmental
sustainability and developing green technologies. Therefore, these businesses utilize both
internal and external resources in a coordinated manner to encourage the development of
environmentally friendly technologies.

To address environmental challenges across various industries, environmentally conscious

entrepreneurs promote comprehensive supply chain frameworks and sustainable practices (Sahoo
and Goswami 2024). Employees, public officials, business leaders, and other stakeholders—
along with customers and competitors—express significant concern and exert considerable
pressure on companies to comply with social and environmental standards (Shilongo 2023).
Over recent decades, CSR has gained global recognition as a standard business approach (X.
Sun, Tang, and Li 2022). However, despite the growth of CSR research, the concept remains
ambiguously defined, leading to complications in empirical investigations (Orlitzky 2013).
Successful companies meet customer expectations, and in today’s competitive landscape,
organizations that fail to prioritize consumer needs risk falling behind. According to Chang et al.
(2017), engaging in CSR requires a company to make decisions and take actions that benefit
society. While ECSR has emphasized the importance of assessing green technological innovation
performance, researchers have largely overlooked the measurement of green performance itself
(Orazalin 2020). As a result, we pose the following hypothesis:

H2: ECSR has a positive impact on green technological innovation.

2.6 Green dynamic capability and green technological innovation

The literature review suggests that a company’s Green Dynamic Capabilities offer a solid
foundation for creating value for a range of stakeholders, including customers, employees, and
business partners (Bhardwaj et al. 2023). Companies can strengthen their competitive position by
cultivating dynamic capabilities (Posen et al. 2023), collaborating with supply chain partners to
share resources, and developing products and services aligned with consumer needs (Yang et al.,
2023). Moreover, dynamic capabilities are recognized for their significant impact on various
aspects of firm performance, such as asset growth (Abbas 2024) and the enhancement of brand
image and reputation. Nevertheless, organizations aiming to enhance their green dynamic
capability must carefully assess the financial returns of their initiatives in relation to their
environmental obligations (Wei et al. 2023). The ability of manufacturing companies to operate
in an environmentally responsible manner will determine their level of future prosperity to a
significant extent. In addition to this, there is an emphasis placed on the incorporation,
construction, and rehabilitation of internal and external resources that are relevant to
environmental protection (Lin and Chen 2017).

Resource integration capability utilizes the diverse skills and experiences of each team to design
and develop new and customized products by coordinating and cooperating between different
business divisions (Protogerou, Caloghirou, and Lioukas 2012). According to Deeds, Decarolis,
and Coombs (1997), adopting industry technology networks can improve performance via
empirical research. Under the influence of resource integration capabilities, firms can reorganize
and adapt existing strategies and resources to new environments. Strong resource integration
capabilities allow firms to combine data from multiple disciplines and apply it to creative
operations, thereby transforming potential opportunities into competitive advantages.

Resource reconfiguration capability refers to an organization's flexibility in rearranging its

resources. Verona and Ravasi (2003) and Wang et al. (2021) argue that reconfiguring resources
creates a flexible infrastructure that facilitates ongoing resource reassignment and alterations to
both the organizational structure and the nature of the connections between nodes. Using this
process of reorganization, the company might acquire an edge in the market by developing brand
new products. Efficient resource allocation, as supported by an empirical study by (Protogerou et
al. 2012), boosts enterprise adaptability and optimizes resource utilization. Lin and Chen (2017)
demonstrate how the capability to reconstruct resources can assist organizations in developing
essential competitive advantages and improving their status in the market. If companies refocus
their efforts and resources, they will be in a better position to address the challenges of
environmental sustainability (Dangelico, Pujari, and Pontrandolfo 2017).

Environmental insight capabilities reflect the method of collecting and using market environment
data. It displays the organization’s responsiveness to environmental changes and does a good job
of identifying opportunities and threats. A firm's responsiveness to market shifts and other
environmental factors depends on the quality of its environmental intelligence (Sharma and
Henriques 2005). Environmental awareness helps the organization comprehend green
development support regulations, developments in green technology, industry growth trends, and
customer demand. Identifying greening opportunities and swiftly responding to environmental
risks to GI safety are two of the most important things a firm can do (Teece 2014). The ability of
firms to rapidly adapt to important shifts in environmental management is crucial to the growth
of green innovation (H. Sun et al. 2022).

The study found that there are numerous studies on green dynamic capabilities, green product
innovation, green process innovation, and competitive advantage after synthesizing the literature
on this topic. Unfortunately, its significance has been neglected in green technologically
innovative contexts. This study focuses on green technological innovation and makes the
assertion that environmental insight capability, resource integration capability, and resource
reconfiguration capability all have a beneficial impact on green technological innovation.
Accordingly, we may pose the following hypotheses:

H3a: Resource integration capability positively contributes to green technological innovation.

H3c: Environmental insight capability positively contributes to green technological innovation.

H3b: Resource reconfiguration capability positively contributes to green technological

innovation.

2.7 Mediation of green dynamic capability

The idea that innovation and research and development (R&D) work both have positive
externalities has received a lot of attention in the research that has been done on the subject of
innovation. Traditional technological innovation often necessitates the formulation, assimilation,
and distribution of knowledge in multiple procedural domains within a manufacturing sector.
Green technological innovation, on the other hand, is a more sophisticated and rational process
than traditional technological innovation. This is because creating eco-friendly technologies is
typically more labor-intensive. Extreme unpredictability, a rigorous R&D procedure, and varied,
ever-evolving materials are typical features (X. Xie et al. 2019). Having expertise in one highly
specialized area of technology is not enough to advance in the field of green technology because
of these factors (Yuan and Cao 2022).

As seen above, it is clear that CSR practices have a significant effect on green innovation, and
that green dynamic capability acts as a link between the two. A company's attempts to improve
its corporate social responsibility (CSR) can assist it in gaining the trust of its constituents and in
satisfying the standards for environmentally responsible growth, established by its suppliers,
consumers, and the government. According to the dynamic capability theory, the institutional
theory, and the RBV theory, for enterprises to fulfill their social duties, they would employ
interest-related environmental limits as driving factors of green development (Wang et al. 2021;
Yuan and Cao 2022). Businesses have a greater likelihood of prioritizing efforts to discover
prospects for environmentally friendly innovation when there is institutional pressure from
stakeholders. They are more likely to work toward the mobilization and deployment of resources
to translate opportunities into green innovation practices, and they are also more likely to
continually expand their capacity for resource reconstruction (Hong et al. 2020; Peng 2020).

Therefore, businesses that actively uphold their social obligations can continuously enhance their
capacity for integrating green resources, resource reconstruction, and environmental information
understanding. Organizational transformation that fosters innovation and can further improve an
enterprise's ability to evolve is related to dynamic capabilities (Makkonen et al. 2014). Through
green practices and their green dynamic capabilities, businesses may address these concerns to
safeguard the environment and foster green innovation (Bitencourt et al. 2020). These green
behaviors and dynamics are based on green dynamic capabilities since they appear to be
necessary tools for the simultaneous improvement of society and the environment (Doyle and
Conboy 2020). In conclusion, green dynamic capabilities function as a link between CSR and
green technical innovation. Based on the foregoing, we can suggest that green dynamic
capabilities—such as resource integration, resource reconfiguration, and environmental insight
capability play a mediating role between CSR and green technological innovation.
H4a: Resource integration capability mediates the relationship between ECSR and green
technological innovation.

H4b: Resource reconfiguration capability mediates the relationship between ECSR and green
technological innovation.

H4c: Environmental insight capability mediates the relationship between ECSR and green
technological innovation.

Figure 1: Conceptual framework

Note: The black lines represent direct relationships, whereas the red lines represent indirect
relationships.

3 Methodology
3.1 Sampling and data collection
This research was conducted by use of questionnaire surveys. The sample data was taken from
manufacturing companies that use environmentally friendly, low-carbon production methods,
with a particular emphasis on nanotechnology, novel materials, and energy. They are all listed in
the Pakistan Stock Exchange. This research was completed over nine months, from June to
March 2023. According to the selected industry and regions, 150 enterprises were contacted
through phone and email to request their participation in the survey. This sample size was
deemed appropriate for the analysis, given the focus on manufacturing companies actively
involved in green innovation, aligning with similar studies in corporate sustainability (e.g., Yuan
& Cao, 2022). We shared the link to the online questionnaire with middle or senior managers
working for the selected businesses. A total of 550 questionnaires were submitted. We received
responses from 100 different businesses, and after removing the questionnaires that had partial
responses, we were left with a total of 295 usable questionnaires, which is a response rate of
53.63 %. The characteristics of the sample are listed in Table 1.

3.2 Measurement of variables

To ensure the validity and reliability of the variables, the questions were taken straight from
established studies. The survey questionnaire was examined for content validity, conformity to
theoretical definitions, and redundancy by three academics and two senior project managers with
experience working in Pakistan's industrial sector. The survey utilized a Likert scale of five
points, with one point denoting a strong disagreement and five points representing a strong
agreement. Turker's scale was used to measure how ECSR was perceived (Turker 2009). To
illustrate ECSR, the researchers utilized the four things that were focused on sustainable
development and the environment. The term "green dynamic capacity" refers to a collection of
three different concepts: the capability to gain environmental awareness, the integration of
resources, and the reconfiguration of resources (Teece et al. 1997).

Resource integration was measured by using 5 items items that were adopted from the studies of
(Dangelico et al. 2017) such as (1) There is collaboration between the enterprise's environmental
protection department and the product design, manufacturing, and marketing departments (2)
The enterprise will consider the requirements of customers for the environmental performance of
the product (3) The enterprise will incorporate the knowledge and competence of suppliers into
the environmental effect of raw materials and parts (4) The enterprise will incorporate the
knowledge and competence of suppliers into the environmental effect of the production process
(5) The enterprise will collaborate with wholesalers, retailers, and other channel members to
minimize environmental hazards of products.

Resource reconfiguration was measured by using 6 items that were adopted from the studies of
(Dangelico et al. 2017; Qiu et al. 2020) such as (1) The enterprise will recruit environmental
experts in the field of product life cycle assessment and environmental design (2) The enterprise
will train product development team members or developers by attending conferences, holding
symposiums, or using other ways to enhance employees' environmental knowledge and
competence (3) The enterprise will step up research and development in terms of product
environmental protection (such as increasing investment) (4) The enterprise will engage in
restructuring by creating new divisions, realigning product lines, or adopting other ways to
concentrate on environmental sustainability (5) The enterprise will realign its relationships with
suppliers by conducting environmental audits of suppliers or changing suppliers to mitigate the
environmental pollution caused by its products (6) The enterprise will realign its relationships
with customers to alleviate the environmental effect of its products (such as lending products
rather than selling products).

Environment insight capability is measured by using 4 items, but these items were adopted from
the studies of (Qiu et al. 2020; Xiaoxing et al. 2015) e.g (1) The enterprise can timely understand
and master the support policies related to green development (2) The enterprise can timely keep
abreast of and respond to industry green technology changes (3) The enterprise can timely
understand and master the development trend of the industry in time (4) The enterprise can
timely keep abreast of customers' green needs to adapt to market changes. In addition, five items
applied to assess green technology innovation (H. Sun et al. 2022; Xu et al. 2021). The author
analyses the data with SPSS22.0 and AMOS23.0 software, which is based on previous
theoretical and empirical study. To evaluate the model's suitability, data analysis was carried out
utilizing several methods related to descriptive statistics, regression, and SEM.

4 Results and analysis

4.1 Reliability and validity
The reliability analysis aims to assess the consistency of each model variable. In this research,
we used Cronbach's alpha to determine the consistency of the model's results. Table 3 shows that
all of the constructs have Cronbach's alphas more than 0.7 (Hair, Ortinau, and Harrison 2010),
and that all of the CRs computed using standardized factor loading are also greater than 0.7
(Fornell and Larcker 1981). Each scale is therefore assured to be adequately reliable. In the
confirmatory factor analysis, we assessed the composite reliability based on the factor loadings
(CFA). In addition, there is not a single factor loading that is below 0.50, which is a strong
indicator of the model's convergent validity (Hooper, Coughlan, and Mullen 2008). The results
of the model fit indices are reported in Table 2. The acceptable five-factor model fit indices (χ2
/df = 2.257, RMSEA = 0.0575, IFI = 0.906, TLI = 0.941, CFI = 0.954, NFI = 0.878, RFI =
0.842, PCFI = 0.898) suggest convergent validity (Flynn, Huo, and Zhao 2010; Hooper,
Coughlan, and Mullen 2008). Because the values for the average variance extracted (AVE) are
higher than 0.5, it may be concluded that the scale satisfies the standards for study and possesses
good convergent validity.

4.2 Descriptive Statistics

The descriptive statistics for the hypothesized and controlled variables are shown in Table 4. The
correlations between the constructs indicate that these latent variables are connected. As category
variables, industry type and firm ownership are transformed into dummy variables. The mean
values of CSR, GTI, RIC, RRC, and EIC are more than 4. This indicates a relatively high level
of ECSR, resource integration, resource reconfiguration, environmental insight competence, and
green technical innovation. Each variable has a relatively small standard deviation, indicating
that the data are not extremely dispersed. The findings give preliminary support for further
testing of the hypothesis.

4.3 Hypothesis testing

Table 5 shows the results of hierarchical linear regression. Hierarchical linear regression was
employed to examine the hypotheses (Feng et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2021). Model 2
demonstrates the outcomes of green dynamic capability and green technological innovation.
According to model 2, resource integration capability, resource reconfiguration capability, and
environment insight capability contributed significantly to green technological innovation with
coefficients of β = 0.286, p < 0.000, β = 0.455, p < 0.000, and β = 0.196, p < 0.000 respectively.
In model (1), CSR enhanced green technical innovation significantly (β = 0.357, p < 0.001).

Model 3-5 demonstrates the outcomes of ECSR and green dynamic capability. ECSR contributed
considerably to resource integration capability in model 3 (β = 0.226, p < 0.000). ECSR
contribute considerably to resource reconfiguration capabilities in model 4 (β = 0.349, p <
0.000). In model 5, ECSR contribute considerably to environmental perception (β = 0.291, p <
0.001). Moreover, model 6 demonstrates that green dynamic capability serves as a mediator
between ECSR and green technological innovation. According to model 6, resource integration
capability, resource reconfiguration capability, and environment insight capability play a
mediating role between environmental corporate social responsibility (ECSR) and green
technological innovation with estimate coefficients of β = 0.365, p < 0.000, β = 0.460, p < 0.000
and β = 0.530 and p < 0.000, supporting respectively.
4.4 Structural equation modeling
Structural Equation Modeling was utilized to confirm the results' robustness (SEM). SEM was a
useful technique for analyzing the complex interrelationships between the variables. Table 6
displays the outcomes of the direct and indirect effects. The link between ECSR and resource
integration capability (H1a) is extremely positive and significant, with a standardized estimate of
0.351 and a p-value of 0.000 respectively. The results of H1b suggest that ECSR will have a
beneficial influence on resource reconfiguration capability. These findings were supported by the
significance P-value of 0.000), which was calculated using estimates normalized to 0.443. The
results of testing hypothesis H1c demonstrated that there is a positive relationship between
ECSR and environment insight capability. The link between ECSR and environment insight
capability is favorable and significant, with standardized estimates of 0.259 and a P-value of
0.015 respectively.

The second hypothesis is confirmed since it predicts a connection between green CSR and green
technological innovation. These findings imply that there is a positive association between CSR
and green technological innovation (β =0.318, p<0.000). According to our third hypothesis,
green technological innovation is facilitated by green dynamic capability. “Resource integration
capability, resource reconfiguration capability and environment insight capability” significantly
contributed to green technological innovation with standardized coefficients of β = 0.318, p <
0.000, β = 0.256, p < 0.000, and β = 0.345, p < 0.000, supporting H3a, H3b and H3c.
Additionally, we discovered that there is a connection between ECSR and green technical
innovation via the indirect effect of green dynamic capabilities. According to the findings, the
capabilities of resource integration, resource reconfiguration, and environment insight all play a
role in mediating the relationship between corporate social responsibility and green technological
innovation, with standardized coefficients of β = 0.398, p < 0.000, β = 0.459, p < 0.000 and β =
0.575 and p < 0.000, supporting respectively.

5 Discussion and conclusion

This study investigated the impact of Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility (ECSR) on
green technological innovation, with a specific emphasis on the mediating function of green
dynamic capabilities (GDC), which are defined as resource integration, resource reconfiguration,
and environmental insight. The study investigated this relationship in the Pakistani
manufacturing sector, an emerging market context that is underrepresented in sustainability and
innovation research. It was founded on stakeholder theory, the resource-based view (RBV), and
dynamic capabilities theory.
Our research yields three fundamental insights. Initially, the green dynamic capabilities of firms
are substantially improved by ECSR. This relationship implies that organizations that participate
in ECSR are not only responding to stakeholder demands but also actively investing in
organizational learning and flexibility. These organizations become increasingly proficient in the
integration of a variety of environmental resources, the reconfiguration of internal procedures,
and the examination of the external environment for opportunities for green innovation. This
builds upon previous research (Forcadell et al. 2021b; Yuan and Cao 2022) by highlighting the
internal capability-enhancing effects of ECSR, rather than viewing CSR solely through the lens
of legitimacy or risk mitigation.
Subsequently, we demonstrate that GDCs function as a crucial conduit for the conversion of
ECSR into green technological innovation. This mediating mechanism provides a theoretically
grounded explanation for the process by which firms convert their socially responsible intentions
into operational innovation outcomes. Although CSR has been extensively linked to enhanced
innovation performance (Yang, Shi, and Wang 2021), our investigation pinpoints the
organizational capabilities that facilitate this correlation. This is in response to the call to unravel
the "black box" of CSR implementation (Dangelico 2016) and to advance the microfoundational
understanding of dynamic capabilities in sustainability contexts.
Third, our findings verify that green innovation is independently predicted by green dynamic
capabilities. It is crucial to note that we do not view GDC as a generic competence but rather as a
multidimensional and environmentally embedded capability system. By empirically validating
this construct and its components, we contribute to dynamic capabilities theory by emphasizing
the extent to which environmental challenges can influence the nature and focus of firm-level
adaptation mechanisms (Jiang & Stylos, 2021). This is especially important in emergent market
contexts, where firms are compelled to self-generate capabilities for sustainable transformation
to address institutional voids.
Furthermore, we investigated whether state-owned and private companies demonstrate distinct
responses to ECSR initiatives. The results indicate a complex picture: private firms are more
likely to demonstrate a more robust translation of ECSR into green innovation through GDC,
which may be attributed to their increased sensitivity to market-based incentives, competitive
pressure, and efficiency considerations. In contrast, state-owned enterprises (SOEs) may engage
in ECSR, but they may do so under broader policy mandates and with varying institutional
motivations. This can affect the effectiveness of these efforts in translating into innovation
outcomes. This distinction is consistent with the idea that the mobilization of internal
capabilities, strategic orientation, and managerial discretion are influenced by the ownership
structure (Hernández et al. 2020).) As a result, our research adds to the expanding body of
literature on ownership heterogeneity in sustainability strategies and emphasizes the significance
of context-sensitive policy and managerial interventions.
We provide a cohesive framework that advances three literatures: CSR, dynamic capabilities,
and sustainability-oriented innovation by devising and testing an integrated model that links
ECSR, GDC, and green technological innovation.. This integrative approach offers a
theoretically rich and practically pertinent roadmap for the development of long-term innovation
capacity by leveraging socially responsible behavior.
5.1 Theoretical and practical implications
5.1.1 Theoretical contributions
This investigation contributes numerous theoretical insights. Initially, it repositions ECSR as a
strategic precursor to green dynamic capabilities, transcending conventional perceptions of CSR
as externally motivated or symbolic. This demonstrates how CSR can promote internal agility
and innovation capacity when it is integrated into fundamental processes. Secondly, we
contribute to the field of dynamic capabilities theory by delineating the ways in which
environmental and social commitments influence the development of capabilities within
organizations. Our dimensional analysis of GDC (resource integration, reconfiguration, and
environmental insight) demonstrates how sustainability priorities alter the fundamental nature of
adaptive organizational routines. Third, we demonstrate that stakeholder-responsive actions do
not only confer external legitimacy but also stimulate internal resource reorientation, thereby
influencing innovation outcomes, thereby extending stakeholder theory. This establishes
stakeholder engagement as both an internal enabler and an external constraint.
Lastly, we contribute to the demand for increased contextualization in management theory by
situating the study within the Pakistani manufacturing sector. ECSR may function as a substitute
for formal institutional support in emerging markets, which frequently exhibit feeble regulatory
systems and institutional turbulence. Our results indicate that the internal capability-building
effects of ECSR may be even more crucial for the long-term sustainability of innovation in such
contexts.
5.1.2 Practical Contributions

The results provide practitioners and policymakers with practical insights. The findings
underscore the fact that ECSR is not merely an ethical obligation for managers, but also a means
of developing adaptive green innovation capacity. In order to facilitate green dynamic
capabilities, manufacturing firms should incorporate ECSR into their core strategic planning
processes and allocate resources to environmental scanning systems and cross-functional teams.
Deliberate capability-building is necessary for the development of GDC. Resource integration
can be nurtured through partnerships with green suppliers, reconfiguration through continuous
process innovation, and environmental insight through stakeholder dialogues and market
intelligence. ECSR must be regarded as a strategic resource rather than a peripheral activity by
firms that operate in emergent economies, where regulatory incentives for green innovation are
restricted. The results indicate that incentivizing firms that exhibit proactive ECSR engagement
and dynamic environmental responsiveness is beneficial for policymakers. This may encompass
sustainability-oriented supply chain initiatives, public recognition programs, or green innovation
grants.

5.2 Limitations and direction for future

The scope of this investigation and its results are restricted by the following: First, this study
only looked at manufacturing enterprises, which is one of the sample scope's limitations. Further
research may extend this perspective to other domains associated with green growth, such as
agricultural, manufacturing, and tourism, to test the findings' generalizability. Second, this study
was conducted in Pakistani manufacturing companies, which are representative of a certain
culture. It will be possible to evaluate the same study model in developing economies as well as
established economies in order to compare and contrast the findings, and future researchers will
improve on this. In conclusion, the scope of this study was limited to investigating the role of
CSR as a mediator between green technological innovation and green dynamic capabilities.
Future research may examine the organizational characteristics as a moderator.
6 References
Abbas, Jawad. 2024. “Does the Nexus of Corporate Social Responsibility and Green Dynamic Capabilities
Drive Firms toward Green Technological Innovation? The Moderating Role of Green
Transformational Leadership.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 208:123698.

Achi, Awele, Ogechi Adeola, and Francis Chukwuedo Achi. 2022. “CSR and Green Process Innovation as
Antecedents of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise Performance: Moderating Role of
Perceived Environmental Volatility.” Journal of Business Research 139:771–81.

Ali, Waris, Yu Danni, Badar Latif, Rehana Kouser, and Saleh Baqader. 2021. “Corporate Social
Responsibility and Customer Loyalty in Food Chains—Mediating Role of Customer Satisfaction
and Corporate Reputation.” Sustainability 13(16):8681.

Bhardwaj, Rohit, Saurabh Srivastava, Hari Govind Mishra, and Sumit Sangwan. 2023. “Exploring Micro-
Foundations of Knowledge-Based Dynamic Capabilities in Social Purpose Organizations.” Journal
of Knowledge Management 27(4):1016–41.

Bitencourt, Claudia Cristina, Fernando de Oliveira Santini, Gabriela Zanandrea, Cristiane Froehlich, and
Wagner Junior Ladeira. 2020. “Empirical Generalizations in Eco-Innovation: A Meta-Analytic
Approach.” Journal of Cleaner Production 245:118721.

Bocken, Nancy MP. 2015. “Sustainable Venture Capital–Catalyst for Sustainable Start-up Success?”
Journal of Cleaner Production 108:647–58.

Bocquet, Rachel, Christian Le Bas, Caroline Mothe, and Nicolas Poussing. 2017. “CSR, Innovation, and
Firm Performance in Sluggish Growth Contexts: A Firm-Level Empirical Analysis.” Journal of
Business Ethics 146(1):241–54. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2959-8.

Carvalho, Cindy, and Mara Madaleno. 2022. “The Corporate Social Responsibility Challenge on Financial
Performance: Portuguese Business Situation.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 1–
18.

Chan, Albert PC, Amos Darko, Ernest E. Ameyaw, and De-Graft Owusu-Manu. 2017. “Barriers Affecting
the Adoption of Green Building Technologies.” Journal of Management in Engineering
33(3):04016057.

Chang, Young Kyun, Won-Yong Oh, Jee Hyun Park, and Myoung Gyun Jang. 2017. “Exploring the
Relationship Between Board Characteristics and CSR: Empirical Evidence from Korea.” Journal of
Business Ethics 140(2):225–42. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2651-z.

Cheng, Yang, Yuan Wang, and Feihong Pan. 2022. “The Impact of CSR Perceptions on Employees’
Turnover Intention during the COVID-19 Crisis in China.” International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health 19(14):8297.

Choi, Seok-Beom, Yunting Feng, Junjun Liu, and Qinghua Zhu. 2019. “Motivating Corporate Social
Responsibility Practices under Customer Pressure among Small-and Medium-Sized Suppliers in
China: The Role of Dynamic Capabilities.” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management 26(1):213–26.
Christmann, P. 2004. “MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES AND THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT:
DETERMINANTS OF GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY STANDARDIZATION.” Academy of
Management Journal 47(5):747–60. doi: 10.2307/20159616.

Cox, Paul, and Patricia Gaya Wicks. 2011. “Institutional Interest in Corporate Responsibility: Portfolio
Evidence and Ethical Explanation.” Journal of Business Ethics 103(1):143–65.

Dangelico, Rosa Maria. 2016. “Green Product Innovation: Where We Are and Where We Are Going.”
Business Strategy and the Environment 25(8):560–76.

Dangelico, Rosa Maria, Devashish Pujari, and Pierpaolo Pontrandolfo. 2017. “Green Product Innovation
in Manufacturing Firms: A Sustainability-Oriented Dynamic Capability Perspective.” Business
Strategy and the Environment 26(4):490–506.

Deeds, David L., Dona Decarolis, and Joseph E. Coombs. 1997. “The Impact of Firmspecific Capabilities
on the Amount of Capital Raised in an Initial Public Offering: Evidence from the Biotechnology
Industry.” Journal of Business Venturing 12(1):31–46.

Doyle, Ronan, and Kieran Conboy. 2020. “The Role of IS in the Covid-19 Pandemic: A Liquid-Modern
Perspective.” International Journal of Information Management 55:102184.

Feng, Jian, Lingdi Zhao, Huanyu Jia, and Shuangyu Shao. 2019. “Silk Road Economic Belt Strategy and
Industrial Total-Factor Productivity: Evidence from Chinese Industries.” Management of
Environmental Quality: An International Journal.

Flammer, Caroline. 2013. “Corporate Social Responsibility and Shareholder Reaction: The Environmental
Awareness of Investors.” Academy of Management Journal 56(3):758–81. doi:
10.5465/amj.2011.0744.

Flammer, Caroline, and Aleksandra Kacperczyk. 2016. “The Impact of Stakeholder Orientation on
Innovation: Evidence from a Natural Experiment.” Management Science 62(7):1982–2001.

Flynn, Barbara B., Baofeng Huo, and Xiande Zhao. 2010. “The Impact of Supply Chain Integration on
Performance: A Contingency and Configuration Approach.” Journal of Operations Management
28(1):58–71.

Forcadell, Francisco Javier, Fernando Úbeda, and Elisa Aracil. 2021a. “Effects of Environmental
Corporate Social Responsibility on Innovativeness of Spanish Industrial SMEs✰,✰✰,★,★★.”
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 162:120355.

Forcadell, Francisco Javier, Fernando Úbeda, and Elisa Aracil. 2021b. “Effects of Environmental
Corporate Social Responsibility on Innovativeness of Spanish Industrial SMEs✰,✰✰,★,★★.”
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 162:120355.

Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker. 1981. “Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics.”
García-Piqueres, Gema, and Rebeca García-Ramos. 2020. “Is the Corporate Social Responsibility–
Innovation Link Homogeneous?: Looking for Sustainable Innovation in the Spanish Context.”
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 27(2):803–14.

Gilley, K. Matthew, Dan L. Worrell, Wallace N. Davidson III, and Abuzar El–Jelly. 2000. “Corporate
Environmental Initiatives and Anticipated Firm Performance: The Differential Effects of Process-
Driven versus Product-Driven Greening Initiatives.” Journal of Management 26(6):1199–1216.

Hair, Joseph F., David J. Ortinau, and Dana E. Harrison. 2010. Essentials of Marketing Research. Vol. 2.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin New York, NY.

Han, Sang-Lin, and Jong Won Lee. 2021. “Does Corporate Social Responsibility Matter Even in the B2B
Market?: Effect of B2B CSR on Customer Trust.” Industrial Marketing Management 93:115–23.

Hartman, Preston, Travis Gliedt, Jeffrey Widener, and Rebecca W. Loraamm. 2017. “Dynamic
Capabilities for Water System Transitions in Oklahoma.” Environmental Innovation and Societal
Transitions 25:64–81.

Hernández, Juan Pablo Sánchez-Infante, Benito Yañez-Araque, and Juan Moreno-García. 2020.
“Moderating Effect of Firm Size on the Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility in the
Economic Performance of Micro-, Small-and Medium-Sized Enterprises.” Technological
Forecasting and Social Change 151:119774.

Hong, Min, Ben Drakeford, and Kexian Zhang. 2020. “The Impact of Mandatory CSR Disclosure on Green
Innovation: Evidence from China.” Green Finance 2(3):302–22.

Hong, Min, Zhenghui Li, and Benjamin Drakeford. 2021. “Do the Green Credit Guidelines Affect
Corporate Green Technology Innovation? Empirical Research from China.” International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(4):1682.

Hooper, Daire, Joseph Coughlan, and Michael Mullen. 2008. “Evaluating Model Fit: A Synthesis of the
Structural Equation Modelling Literature.” Pp. 195–200 in 7th European Conference on research
methodology for business and management studies.

Huang, Jing-Wen, Yong-Hui Li, and Man-Ting Yen. 2016. “The Relationship between Green Innovation
and Business Performance-the Mediating Effect of Brand Image.” Xing Xiao Ping Lun 13(1):89.

Imran, Muhammad, and Gao Jingzu. 2022. “Green Organizational Culture, Organizational Performance,
Green Innovation, Environmental Performance: A Mediation-Moderation Model.” Journal of
Asia-Pacific Business 1–22.

Islam, Tahir, Rauf Islam, Abdul Hameed Pitafi, Liang Xiaobei, Mahmood Rehmani, Muhammad Irfan, and
Muhammad Shujaat Mubarak. 2021. “The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on
Customer Loyalty: The Mediating Role of Corporate Reputation, Customer Satisfaction, and
Trust.” Sustainable Production and Consumption 25:123–35.

Islam, Talat, and Momina Asad. 2024. “Enhancing Employees’ Creativity through Entrepreneurial
Leadership: Can Knowledge Sharing and Creative Self-Efficacy Matter?” VINE Journal of
Information and Knowledge Management Systems 54(1):59–73.
Jiakui, Chen, Jaffar Abbas, Hina Najam, Jiani Liu, and Jawad Abbas. 2023. “Green Technological
Innovation, Green Finance, and Financial Development and Their Role in Green Total Factor
Productivity: Empirical Insights from China.” Journal of Cleaner Production 382:135131.

Kabongo, Jean D., and Olivier Boiral. 2017. “Doing More with Less: Building Dynamic Capabilities for Eco-
Efficiency.” Business Strategy and the Environment 26(7):956–71.

Khan, Syed Abdul Rehman, Pablo Ponce, Muhammad Tanveer, Nathalie Aguirre-Padilla, Haider
Mahmood, and Syed Adeel Ali Shah. 2021. “Technological Innovation and Circular Economy
Practices: Business Strategies to Mitigate the Effects of COVID-19.” Sustainability 13(15):8479.

Khan, Syed Abdul Rehman, Zhang Yu, Heris Golpira, Arshian Sharif, and Abbas Mardani. 2021. “A State-
of-the-Art Review and Meta-Analysis on Sustainable Supply Chain Management: Future
Research Directions.” Journal of Cleaner Production 278:123357.

Kobarg, Sebastian, Jutta Stumpf-Wollersheim, Christopher Schlägel, and Isabell M. Welpe. 2020. “Green
Together? The Effects of Companies’ Innovation Collaboration with Different Partner Types on
Ecological Process and Product Innovation.” Industry and Innovation 27(9):953–90.

Kraus, Sascha, Shafique Ur Rehman, and F. Javier Sendra García. 2020. “Corporate Social Responsibility
and Environmental Performance: The Mediating Role of Environmental Strategy and Green
Innovation.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 160:120262.

Latif, Badar, Zeeshan Mahmood, Ong Tze San, Ridzwana Mohd Said, and Allah Bakhsh. 2020. “Coercive,
Normative and Mimetic Pressures as Drivers of Environmental Management Accounting
Adoption.” Sustainability 12(11):4506.

Li, Hui, Quanxue Deng, Jingxiao Zhang, Ayokunle Olubunmi Olanipekun, and Sainan Lyu. 2019.
“Environmental Impact Assessment of Transportation Infrastructure in the Life Cycle: Case Study
of a Fast Track Transportation Project in China.” Energies 12(6):1015.

Lin, Yu-Hsien, and Yu-Shan Chen. 2017. “Determinants of Green Competitive Advantage: The Roles of
Green Knowledge Sharing, Green Dynamic Capabilities, and Green Service Innovation.” Quality
& Quantity 51(4):1663–85.

Lyon, Thomas P., and John W. Maxwell. 2008. “Corporate Social Responsibility and the Environment: A
Theoretical Perspective.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 2(2):240–60. doi:
10.1093/reep/ren004.

Makkonen, Hannu, Mikko Pohjola, Rami Olkkonen, and Aki Koponen. 2014. “Dynamic Capabilities and
Firm Performance in a Financial Crisis.” Journal of Business Research 67(1):2707–19.

Mousavi, Seyedesmaeil, Bart Bossink, and Mario van Vliet. 2019. “Microfoundations of Companies’
Dynamic Capabilities for Environmentally Sustainable Innovation: Case Study Insights from High-
Tech Innovation in Science-Based Companies.” Business Strategy and the Environment
28(2):366–87.

Nguyen, Canh Phuc, and Thanh Dinh Su. 2021. “Tourism, Institutional Quality, and Environmental
Sustainability.” Sustainable Production and Consumption 28:786–801.
Orazalin, Nurlan. 2020. “Do Board Sustainability Committees Contribute to Corporate Environmental
and Social Performance? The Mediating Role of Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy.”
Business Strategy and the Environment 29(1):140–53. doi: 10.1002/bse.2354.

Orlitzky, Marc. 2013. “Corporate Social Responsibility, Noise, and Stock Market Volatility.” Academy of
Management Perspectives 27(3):238–54. doi: 10.5465/amp.2012.0097.

Parast, Mahour Mellat, and Stephanie G. Adams. 2012. “Corporate Social Responsibility, Benchmarking,
and Organizational Performance in the Petroleum Industry: A Quality Management
Perspective.” International Journal of Production Economics 139(2):447–58.

Peng, Xin. 2020. “Strategic Interaction of Environmental Regulation and Green Productivity Growth in
China: Green Innovation or Pollution Refuge?” Science of The Total Environment 732:139200.

Petrenko, Oleg V., Federico Aime, Jason Ridge, and Aaron Hill. 2016. “Corporate Social Responsibility or
CEO Narcissism? CSR Motivations and Organizational Performance.” Strategic Management
Journal 37(2):262–79.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey, Gerald R. Salancik, and Huseyin Leblebici. 1976. “The Effect of Uncertainty on the Use of
Social Influence in Organizational Decision Making.” Administrative Science Quarterly 227–45.

Portney, Paul R. 2008. “The (Not So) New Corporate Social Responsibility: An Empirical Perspective.”
Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 2(2):261–75. doi: 10.1093/reep/ren003.

Posen, Hart E., Jan-Michael Ross, Brian Wu, Stefano Benigni, and Zhi Cao. 2023. “Reconceptualizing
Imitation: Implications for Dynamic Capabilities, Innovation, and Competitive Advantage.”
Academy of Management Annals 17(1):74–112. doi: 10.5465/annals.2021.0044.

Protogerou, Aimilia, Yannis Caloghirou, and Spyros Lioukas. 2012. “Dynamic Capabilities and Their
Indirect Impact on Firm Performance.” Industrial and Corporate Change 21(3):615–47.

Qiu, Lu, Xiaowen Jie, Yanan Wang, and Minjuan Zhao. 2020. “Green Product Innovation, Green Dynamic
Capability, and Competitive Advantage: Evidence from Chinese Manufacturing Enterprises.”
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 27(1):146–65.

Rahman, Noushi, and Corinne Post. 2012. “Measurement Issues in Environmental Corporate Social
Responsibility (ECSR): Toward a Transparent, Reliable, and Construct Valid Instrument.” Journal
of Business Ethics 105(3):307–19. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0967-x.

Sahoo, Sushil Kumar, and Shankha Shubhra Goswami. 2024. “Green Supplier Selection Using MCDM: A
Comprehensive Review of Recent Studies.” Spectrum of Engineering and Management Sciences
2(1):1–16.

Satapathy, Jayadev, and Tattwamasi Paltasingh. 2019. “CSR in India: A Journey from Compassion to
Commitment.” Asian Journal of Business Ethics 8(2):225–40.

Sharma, Sanjay, and Irene Henriques. 2005. “Stakeholder Influences on Sustainability Practices in the
Canadian Forest Products Industry.” Strategic Management Journal 26(2):159–80.
Shilongo, Genovefa Magano. 2023. “Evaluating the Implementation of Environmental, Social and
Governance Factors in the Mining Sector: A Case Study of Namibia.” PhD Thesis, Stellenbosch:
Stellenbosch University.

Song, Wenhao, Shengce Ren, and Jun Yu. 2019. “Bridging the Gap between Corporate Social
Responsibility and New Green Product Success: The Role of Green Organizational Identity.”
Business Strategy and the Environment 28(1):88–97.

Sun, Haibo, Zan Zhang, and Zhonglu Liu. 2022. “Does Air Pollution Collaborative Governance Promote
Green Technology Innovation? Evidence from China.” Environmental Science and Pollution
Research 1–14.

Sun, Xiaojun, Jing Tang, and Shilong Li. 2022. “Promote Green Innovation in Manufacturing Enterprises
in the Aspect of Government Subsidies in China.” International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health 19(13):7864.

Teece, David J. 2014. “The Foundations of Enterprise Performance: Dynamic and Ordinary Capabilities in
an (Economic) Theory of Firms.” Academy of Management Perspectives 28(4):328–52.

Teece, David J., Gary Pisano, and Amy Shuen. 1997. “Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management.”
Strategic Management Journal 18(7):509–33.

Turker, Duygu. 2009. “How Corporate Social Responsibility Influences Organizational Commitment.”
Journal of Business Ethics 89(2):189–204. doi: 10.1007/s10551-008-9993-8.

Verona, Gianmario, and Davide Ravasi. 2003. “Unbundling Dynamic Capabilities: An Exploratory Study of
Continuous Product Innovation.” Industrial and Corporate Change 12(3):577–606.

Wang, Kun Tracy, Fiki Kartika, Wanbin Walter Wang, and Guqiang Luo. 2021. “Corporate Social
Responsibility, Investor Protection, and the Cost of Equity: Evidence from East Asia.” Emerging
Markets Review 47:100801.

Wang, Peng, and Altanbulag Altanbulag. 2022. “A Concern for Eco-Social Sustainability: Background,
Concept, Values, and Perspectives of Eco-Social Work.” Cogent Social Sciences 8(1):2093035.

Wei, Li, Boqiang Lin, Ziwei Zheng, Wei Wu, and Yicheng Zhou. 2023. “Does Fiscal Expenditure Promote
Green Technological Innovation in China? Evidence from Chinese Cities.” Environmental Impact
Assessment Review 98:106945.

Wu, Qihan, Dong Yan, and Muhammad Umair. 2023. “Assessing the Role of Competitive Intelligence and
Practices of Dynamic Capabilities in Business Accommodation of SMEs.” Economic Analysis and
Policy 77:1103–14.

Wu, Yanqin, and Wenzhong Zhu. 2021. “The Role of CSR Engagement in Customer-Company
Identification and Behavioral Intention during the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Frontiers in Psychology
12:721410.
Xiaoxing, Huang, Hu Zhenpeng, Fu Chun, and Y. Dajin. 2015. “The Influence Mechanism of Green
Innovation Strategy on Enterprise Performance—Based on the Mediating Effect of Green
Dynamic Capability.” Science & Technology Progress and Policy 32(17):104–9.

Xie, Chunyan, Richard P. Bagozzi, and Kjell Grønhaug. 2019. “The Impact of Corporate Social
Responsibility on Consumer Brand Advocacy: The Role of Moral Emotions, Attitudes, and
Individual Differences.” Journal of Business Research 95:514–30.

Xie, Xuemei, Jiage Huo, and Hailiang Zou. 2019. “Green Process Innovation, Green Product Innovation,
and Corporate Financial Performance: A Content Analysis Method.” Journal of Business Research
101:697–706.

Xiong, Guobao, and Yuanda Luo. 2021. “Smog, Media Attention, and Corporate Social Responsibility—
Empirical Evidence from Chinese Polluting Listed Companies.” Environmental Science and
Pollution Research 28(34):46116–29.

Xu, Hong, Lei Qiu, Baozhen Liu, Bei Liu, Hui Wang, and Weifen Lin. 2021. “Does Regional Planning Policy
of Yangtze River Delta Improve Green Technology Innovation? Evidence from a Quasi-Natural
Experiment in China.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 28(44):62321–37.

Yang, Hailan, Xiangjiao Shi, and Shuo Wang. 2021. “Moderating Effect of Chief Executive Officer
Narcissism in the Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Green Technology
Innovation.” Frontiers in Psychology 12.

Yoo, Youngjin, Richard J. Boland, Kalle Lyytinen, and Ann Majchrzak. 2012. “Organizing for Innovation in
the Digitized World.” Organization Science 23(5):1398–1408. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1120.0771.

Yuan, Baolong, and Xueyun Cao. 2022. “Do Corporate Social Responsibility Practices Contribute to Green
Innovation? The Mediating Role of Green Dynamic Capability.” Technology in Society 68:101868.

Zhou, Fangzhao, Jichen Zhu, Yawei Qi, Jun Yang, and Yunbi An. 2021. “Multi-Dimensional Corporate
Social Responsibilities and Stock Price Crash Risk: Evidence from China.” International Review of
Financial Analysis 78:101928.
Table 1: Sample Characteristics

Characteristics Frequency Percentage (%)

Firm Age
Less than 5 Years 5 1.69%
5-10 Years 50 16.94%
10-15 Years 110 37%
More than 15 Years 130 44%
Type of Ownership
State-Owned 70 36%
Private 105 53.84%
Foreign 80 41.02%
Joint Ventures 40 20.51%
Enterprise Size
Less than 300 employees 75 38%
300-1000 employees 145 74.35%
1000-3000 employees 58 29.74%
More than 3000 employees 23 11.79%

Table 2: Variables and Measurement Items

Variables No of Items Sources

Corporate Social Responsibility 14 (Afsar et al. 2020; Yuan and Cao 2022)
Green Technological innovation 5 (Sun et al. 2022; Xu et al. 2021)
Resource Integration Capability 5 (Dangelico et al. 2017; Qiu et al. 2020)
Resource Reconfiguration Capability 6 (Dangelico et al. 2017; Qiu et al. 2020)
Environmental Insight capability 4 (Qiu et al. 2020; Xiaoxing et al. 2015)

Table 3: Model fitness

Model fit χ2/DF IFI NFI TLI CFI RMESA RFI PCFI
indicies
Structural 2.257 0.906 0.878 0.941 0.954 0.057 0.842 0.898
Model
Table 4: Results of reliability and validity

Construct Dimensions Factor loadings CR AVE Cronbach’s α

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
CSR1 0.748 0.814 0.625 0.834
CSR2 0.812
CSR3 0.839
CSR4 0.852
CSR CSR5 0.884
(Afsar et al. 2020; CSR6 0.845
Yuan and Cao 2022) CSR7 0.810
CSR8 0.831
CSR9 0.799
CSR10 0.789
CSR11 0.845
CSR12 0.794
CSR13 0.765
CSR14 0.853
Green Technological Innovation (GTI)

GTI1 0.609 0.848 0.752 0.854

GTI2 0.745
GTI GTI3 0.615
(Sun et al. 2022; Xu GTI4 0.635
et al. 2021) GTI5 0.746
Resource Integration Capability (RIC)
RIC1 0.627 0.939 0.760 0.930
RIC2 0.614
RIC3 0.702
RIC
(Dangelico et al. RIC4 0.623
2017; Qiu et al. 2020) RIC5 0.596
Resource Reconfiguration Capability (RRC)

RRC1 0.741 0.909 0.643 0.940

RRC2 0.745
RRC3 0.793
RRC
(Dangelico et al. RRC4 0.816
2017; Qiu et al. 2020) RRC5 0.835
RRC6 0.777
Environmental Insight Capability (EIC)
EIC EIC1 0.809 0.884 0.720 0.980
(Qiu et al. 2020; EIC2 0.840
 Xiaoxing et al. 2015) EIC3 0.798
EIC4 0.824

Table 5: Descriptive statistics

Variables CSR GTI RIC RRC EIC AGE OWN SIZE

CSR 1.000
GTI 0.059** 1.000
RIC 0.080* 0.056** 1.000
RRC 0.208 0.090* 0.205 1.000
EIC 0.003*** 0.068** 0.003*** 0.275 1.000
AGE 0.074** -0.04** 0.101* 0.084* 0.061** 1.000
OWN 0.014*** 0.034** 0.151 0.155 0.088* 0.076** 1.000
SIZE 0.040** 0.091* -0.049** 0.067** 0.638 0.270 0.980 1.000
Mean 4.506 4.260 4.765 4.287 4.876 3.245 0.197 3.089
SD 0.498 0.564 0.568 0.476 0.545 0.765 0.678 0.816
Note: *** shows P<0.000, ** shows P<0.05 and * shows p<0.10

Table 6: Results of linear regression

Variabl
es Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
- -
0.211**(0.033 0.191***(0.00 0.179***(0.00
AGE ) -0.118(0.309) 0.005(0.910) 0.004(0.924) 1) 2)
-
OWN -0.025(0.813) 0.109(0.200) 0.198*(0.096) -0.108(0.196) 0.188(0.138) 0.206(0.116)
0.246***(0.0 0.429***(0.0 0.427***(0.0 0.497***(0.0 0.065**(0.06
SIZE 00) 00) 0) 00) 1) -0.071(0.537)
0.357***(0.0 0.226***(0.0 0.349***(0.0 0.291***(0.0
CSR 00) 00) 00) 00)
 0.286***(0.0
RIC 00)
0.455***(0.0
RRC 00)
0.196***(0.0
EIC 20)
RIC*CS 0.365***(0.0
R 00)
RRC*C 0.460***(0.0
SR 00)
EIC*CS 0.530***(0.0
R 00)
R2 0.302 0.435 0.378 0.425 0.525 0.361
Adj. R2 0.317 0.443 0.354 0.413 0.546 0.382
12.678***(0. 15.456***(0 14.497***(0 11.792***(0 13.987***(0 11.508***(0
F-value 000) .000) .000) .000) .000) .000)
Note: Model 1 demonstrates the outcomes of CSR and green technical innovation. Model 2
demonstrates the outcomes of green dynamic capabilities and green technological innovation.
Model 3-5 show that CSR positively contributes to RIC, RRC and EIC respectively. While Model 6
present the results of Mediation. The p values are in parentheses. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p <
0.001.
Table 7: Structural Equation Model

Path Direction Hypothesis Co-efficient P-Value Result

Direct Effect
CSR RIC H1a 0.351*** 0.000 Supported
CSR RRC H1b 0.443*** 0.000 Supported
CSR EIC H1c 0.259*** 0.000 Supported
CSR GTC H2 0.362*** 0.000 Supported
RIC GTC H3a 0.318*** 0.000 Supported
RRC GTC H3b 0.256*** 0.000 Supported
EIC GTC H3c 0.345*** 0.000 Supported
Indirect Effect
CSR RIC GTI H4a 0.398*** 0.000 Supported
CSR RRC GTI H4b 0.459*** 0.000 Supported
CSR EIC GTI H4c 0.575*** 0.000 Supported
Note: *** shows P<0.000, ** shows P<0.05
Graphical Abstract

Biography

Dr. Qamar Uz Zaman: He is an Assistant Professor at COMSATS University Islamabad, Sahiwal, is a

finance researcher specializing in Islamic Corporate Finance, Corporate Social Responsibility, and
Financial Sustainability. With a Ph.D. in Management Sciences, he has authored 12 impactful
publications in SSCI and ESCI-indexed journals. His key interests revolve around Green Innovation,
Green Financing, Gender Diversity, Ethical Finance, Innovation, Sustainability and Green Finance.
Notably, Dr. Zaman has presented research at esteemed international conferences and supervised 12
Master's theses. His commitment to academic excellence is evident through active participation in
workshops and seminars focused on Islamic Banking & Finance and Economic Criminology.

Dr. Sadaf Ehsan: She is an Assistant Professor specializing in Finance at COMSATS University
Islamabad, Sahiwal. With a Ph.D. in Management Sciences and extensive experience in teaching for over
a decade, Dr. Tahir's expertise lies in Financial Sustainability, Corporate Governance, and Corporate
Social Responsibility. She has published in reputable journals, including the Journal of Asian Business
and Economic Studies and Resources, Environment and Sustainability, showcasing her research on
Corporate Governance Compliance and Financial Inclusion's impact on information asymmetries. Dr.
Tahir actively participates in academic workshops and seminars, demonstrating her dedication to
scholarly advancement in the field of finance. For more detailed information or references, please refer to
the contact details provided in the biography.
Dr. Anees Haider Zaidi: Syed Anees Haider completed his PhD in Mangement Science and Engineering
in 2020 from School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China, He
has been publishing impactful manuscripts in the fields of financial development, energy economics and
sustainable development since 2018. Currently, he is running a research project at University of Warsaw,
Poland as principal investigator. The title of project is "Effects of globalization and financial inclusion on
energy intensity" awarded by National Science Center (Poland), co-financed by the European
Commission (EC) and the National Science Centre (NCN) under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie COFUND
grant. Dr. Zaidi has also wide experience in finance as he has been working as Incharge Accounts &
Finance (Deputy Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer) at COMSATS University Islamabad, Pakistan since
2008.

Kinza Aish: Aish is a research associate and university teacher. She is an emerging researcher
with special interests in green innovation, technology forecasting and sustainability. She intends
to pursue her PhD studies in the area of sustainability and green technological innovation.
Certificate of Ethics
COMSATS University Islamabad, Sahiwal Campus
COMSATS Road, Off G.T. Road, Sahiwal
Ph: 040-4305001-7
___________________________________________________
Dated: 17-04-2024
Ref: No. CUI/ORIC/SWL/011/24

Exemption Certificate for Research Ethics Review

This document certifies that the research titled: “Nexus of environmental corporate social responsibility
(ECSR) and green dynamic capability and their role in green technological innovation ”.

Conducted by:

Kinza Aish, Research Scholar, Management Sciences, COMSATS University Islamabad, Sahiwal-Pakistan
Contact: +92-332-4147901, Email: kinzaaish611@gmail.com

Qamar Uz Zaman,(Corresponding Author) Assistant Professor, Management Sciences, COMSATS University

Islamabad, Sahiwal-Pakistan
Contact: +92-321-6301747, Email: qamar@cuisahiwal.edu.pk

Sadaf Ehsan, Assistant Professor, Management Sciences, COMSATS University Islamabad, Lahore-Pakistan,
Email: sadafehsan@cuilahore.edu.pk

Dr. Anees Haider Zaidi, Assistant Professor, University of Warsaw, Poland: aneeshaider5@gmail.com

Has been evaluated regarding ethical review requirements by: Office of Research, Innovation, and
Commercialization (ORIC) - CUI Sahiwal

The status of ethics review for this study is as follows: Ethics Review Not Required

Review and/or approval by an ethics committee was not required for this study due to the following
reason(s):
This research involved the collection of primary data through methods that did not involve
sensitive personal information or interventions that would require ethical oversight. All data were
collected following ethical standards to ensure confidentiality and voluntary participation.

This exemption certificate serves as formal documentation in compliance with the ethical standards
required by Sustainable Futures for research involving human participants.

Dr. Sabir Ali Shahzad

Associate Professor
Incharge ORIC
COMSATS University Islamabad, Sahiwal Campus
Official Email: sabirali@cuisahiwal.edu.pk
Declaration of Interest

I, Qamar Uz Zaman, the corresponding author and on behalf of co-authors of the manuscript
titled "Exploring the Nexus Between Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility (ECSR)
and Green Dynamic Capabilities: Implications for Green Technological Innovation" hereby
declare that we have no competing interests to disclose in relation to this work.

Additionally, we confirm that the research was conducted in the absence of any financial support
or funding from commercial entities, and we have no financial relationships or affiliations that
could be perceived as influencing the content of the manuscript.

If any conflicts of interest arise in the future or if any financial support is received, we commit to
promptly disclose this information to the journal.