Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business Venturing

Vol 4, Issue 1, 2024, PP. 241-256

Sustainable Entrepreneurship: The Impact of Corporate Size and Innovation on

the Integration of Environmental and Social Responsibility in Business Ventures

Muhammad Haseeb Shakil

Department of Management Sciences, Faculty of Business Administration,
COMSATS University, Lahore Campus, Pakistan.
Nurul Wahidah Binti Mahmud Zuhudi
School of Media and Communication Studies, Faculty of Social Science & Leisure Management,
Taylors University, Lakeside Campus, Subang Jaya, Malaysia.
nurulwahidah.mahmudzuhudi@taylors.edu.my
Rana Nadir Idrees
Department of Management Sciences, Faculty of Business Administration,
COMSATS University, Lahore Campus, Pakistan.
rananadir@cuilahore.edu.pk

Corresponding: malikhaseeb246@gmail.com
ARTICLE INFO
Article History:
Received: 12 Nov, 2023
Revised: 22 Dec, 2023
Accepted: 26 Feb, 2024
Available Online: 29 Feb, 2024
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56536/jebv.v4i1.100 while innovation capacity expects the job of a moderating variable because it helps
Keywords:
Sustainable Entrepreneurship,
Corporate Size, Innovation
Capacity, Corporate Reputation.
JEL Classification:
ABSTRACT
Sustainable entrepreneurship, portrayed by the combination of ecological and social
obligation in business exercises, has arisen as a groundbreaking power in the
contemporary business milieu. The review set out a thorough investigation of the
unique parts of maintainable business ventures, especially digging into the vital job
of environmental practices in forming corporate reputation. Corporate size is placed
as a mediating variable because it takes part in environmental practices and is also
directly proportional to the corporate reputation whether it’s negative or positive,
to make environment-friendly goods which help to enhance the corporate size.
Because of the heightening worldwide familiarity with natural and social worries,
organizations are constrained to reevaluate their systems, mirroring a detectable shift
towards sustainability. This change in perspective requires a nearer assessment of the
transaction between environmental practices, corporate size, innovation capability,
and corporate standing. Utilizing a cross-sectional review strategy inside a
quantitative exploration plan, the concentrate deliberately examines the many-sided
associations between these factors. The exact discoveries approve the hypothetical
establishment, offering observational help for a positive relationship between
environmental practices and both corporate reputation and size. Outstandingly,
corporate size arises as a middle person, revealing insight into the nuanced effect of
hierarchical size on the positive results of manageable drives. These insights not only
contribute significantly to academic discourse but also offer practical implications
for businesses, policymakers, and specialists. By unraveling the intricate elements
crucial to the pursuit of sustainability in the entrepreneurial landscape, this study
serves as a valuable resource for informed decision-making, practitioners, and
policymakers in the evolving business environment.
© 2024 The authors, under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial No-Derivatives 4.0.

INTRODUCTION
Sustainable entrepreneurship, portrayed by the integration of environmental and social
responsibility in business ventures, has arisen as an essential power molding the contemporary
business landscape (Smith et al., 2017). Chasing after sustainable development, organizations are
progressively perceiving the significance of embracing rehearses that improve their natural impression
as well as contribute positively to society. The current study seeks to delve into the multifaceted
241
Shakil at al., JEBV 4(1) 2024, 241-256

elements of sustainable entrepreneurship by focusing on the role of environmental practices in forming

corporate reputation, with corporate size as a mediating component and innovation capacity as a
moderating impact.
The basis for sustainable entrepreneurship is highlighted by the developing worldwide awareness
encompassing natural environmental and social issues. As consumers, financial backers, and different
partners become more sensitive to the effect of business procedures in the world and society,
organizations are constrained to reexamine their systems and practices. As shown by late writing
(Sreenivasan and Suresh., 2023; Smith et al., 2017), a discernible shift toward sustainability is taking
place in the business world, highlighting the need for a comprehensive evaluation of the connection
between environmental practices and corporate reputation. Natural practices, as the independent
variable in this review, exemplify how much associations merge eco-accommodating drives in their
exercises. This variable lines up with the greater perspective of feasible business ventures, integrating
rehearses like waste lessening, energy capability, and the gathering of green advances. Earlier studies
(Johnson and Wang, 2019; According to Brown and Johnson (2016), robust environmental practices
have a positive effect on a variety of organizational outcomes, laying the groundwork for an
investigation into how they affect a company's reputation.
Corporate size presents a nuanced part of this survey. The size of an association could probably go as
a middle person in the relationship between environmental practices and corporate reputation. Colossal
organizations from time to time have more vital assets and vulnerability, possibly influencing how
environmental initiatives are seen by accessories (Kalbuana et al., 2023). The extent to which an
organization's size affects its ability to comprehend the systems by which environmental practices
affect its standing is crucial. Bigger partnerships frequently have more assets, both regarding funds
and faculty, to put resources into economical and harmless ecosystem rehearses. They might have
committed offices or groups to address ecological worries and execute green drives (Wut et al., 2023).
Enormous companies normally have a more unmistakable public presence, and their activities are even
more firmly examined by the media and people in general. Taking on sustainable and environmentally
friendly practices can be a way for these organizations to upgrade their public picture and keep a
positive standing (Field et al., 2023). Enormous partnerships frequently have broad inventory chains.
Empowering or requiring harmless to the ecosystem rehearses inside the inventory network can
broadly affect sustainability, impacting a bigger number of providers and accomplices (Dzikriansyah
et al., 2023).
Likewise, innovation capacity sees the extraordinary idea of the contemporary business climate. As
per Ibidunni et al. 2022, innovation has been seen as a vital driver of reasonable business venture, and
its coordinating effect on the relationship between environmental practices and corporate reputation
warrants assessment (Schaltegger et al., 2018). Contingent upon the association's ability to utilize
novel techniques for supportability, the effect of natural practices might be expanded or diminished.
Greater associations could have the money-related resources and capacity to invest assets into more
noteworthy creative energy attempts. This allows them to make and execute innovative courses of
action that can generally influence natural practices (Kamal et al., 2023). Greater organizations as
242
Shakil at al., JEBV 4(1) 2024, 241-256

often as possible have an overall presence, and their regular practices can influence a greater
geographical locale. The size of their assignments could require imaginative ways of managing and
addressing environmental challenges across various regions (Kolbe et al., 2022).
This study adds to the existing literature on sustainable entrepreneurship by offering a thorough
examination of the connection between environmental practices, corporate size, innovation capacity,
and corporate reputation. The discoveries are expected to teach scientists, policymakers, and
organizations about the perplexing elements of the entrepreneurial landscape's pursuit of
sustainability.
Problem Statement
In contemporary business conditions, sustainable entrepreneurship has obtained perceptible quality as
associations logically see the meaning of planning ecological and social obligation into their exercises
(Shane, 2016; Schaltegger and Burritt, 2017). One imperative component of this perspective is the
evaluation of what environmental practices influence corporate reputation, a metric that in a general
sense influences accomplice bits of knowledge and, subsequently, hierarchical achievement (Fombrun
and Shanley, 2016; Ibidunni et al., 2022). The nuanced roles of corporate size as a mediating factor
and innovation capacity as a moderating factor remain unexplored, even though the positive
connection between environmental practices and corporate reputation is recognized in the current
writing.
Rationale of the Study
The rationale for this study is attached to the need to advance how we might interpret the intricate
connections among sustainable entrepreneurship, corporate size, innovation capacity, and corporate
reputation. While prior research highlights the positive relationship between environmental practices
and corporate reputation (Delmas and Burbano, 2015; Wu et al., 2016), there is a significant lack of
research on the moderating influence of innovation capacity and the mediating influence of corporate
size. Corporate size is set to act as a mediating variable, explaining what the size of an association
means for the strength and heading of the connection between environmental practices and corporate
reputation (Ibidunni et al., 2022). Besides, the moderating role of innovation capacity is imperative
for knowing the circumstances under which sustainable entrepreneurship applies the most significant
impact on corporate reputation (Schneider and Lichtenstein, 2016).
By investigating these interrelated parts, this study tries to contribute huge pieces of information to
both the academic local area and trained professionals. Organizations will want to determine
significant techniques for improving their natural and social obligation rehearses in a way that lines
up with corporate size and uses innovation capabilities, while scholastics will profit from a nuanced
comprehension of the components basic the sustainable entrepreneurship-corporate reputation nexus.
Both advantages will be gainful to the two players.

243
Shakil at al., JEBV 4(1) 2024, 241-256

Research Objectives
a. To Assess the Relationship Between Environmental Practices and Corporate Reputation
b. To Investigate the Mediating Role of Corporate Size
c. To Explore the Moderating Effect of Innovation Capacity
d. To Provide Insights for Sustainable Entrepreneurship Practices

LITERATURE REVIEW
The writing on the effect of environmental practices on corporate reputation has seen developing
consideration, mirroring a rising acknowledgment of the significant ramifications of manageability
drives in molding partners' discernments. Past examinations have investigated the immediate
connections between environmental practices and corporate reputation, featuring the positive
affiliations that earth-mindful activities can have on an organization's picture. Notwithstanding, a
nuanced comprehension of these elements requires an investigation of the intervening pretended by
corporate size and the directing impact of innovation capabilities. This writing survey dives into the
perplexing exchange between natural practices, corporate size, and advancement abilities, meaning to
disentangle the components through which these elements by and large add to and shape corporate
reputation. This review aims to provide a comprehensive and nuanced perspective on the intricate
relationships that support the reputation-building process in the context of sustainable business
practices by examining the mediation of corporate size and innovation capabilities.
Environmental Practices and Corporate Reputation
According to Watchman and Kramer (2019), environmental practices have a significant impact on the
corporate reputation of an organization. Associations that partake in maintainable drives and show
assurance of ecological obligation are seen significantly better by accomplices (Sreenivasan and
Suresh., 2023). Greenwashing happens when a company makes an environmental claim about
something the organization is doing that is intended to promote a sense of environmental impact that
doesn't exist (Santos et al., 2023). Greenwashing is the act of making false or misleading statements
about the environmental benefits of a product or practice (Zhang et al., 2023). As indicated by late
exploration, organizations embracing harmless ecosystem rehearses add to ecological sustainability as
well as appreciate upgraded corporate reputations (Smith and Johnson, 2017). Positive environmental
performance is frequently connected with a capable corporate way of behaving, encouraging a positive
picture according to purchasers and financial backers the same (Luo and Bhattacharya, 2019).
Adhering to environmental regulations and standards is not only a legal requirement but also
contributes to a positive corporate image. Companies that demonstrate a commitment to environmental
responsibility by going beyond the minimum regulatory requirements can differentiate themselves and
build trust with stakeholders (Xu et al., 2022). Failure to address environmental concerns can lead to
reputational risks. Environmental issues such as pollution, resource depletion, or habitat destruction
can result in legal challenges, fines, and damage to a company's reputation. Proactive natural practices
244
Shakil at al., JEBV 4(1) 2024, 241-256

assist with moderating these dangers and show a guarantee to supportable strategic policies (Tang et
al., 2022). Organizations that embrace harmless ecosystem practices might acquire an upper hand.
Customers and organizations progressively favor items and administrations from organizations that
show social and ecological obligation. Increased market share and customer loyalty can result from a
favorable corporate reputation in this regard (Zameer et al., 2022).
H1: Environmental practices are positively connected with corporate reputation.
Environmental Practices and Corporate Size
Research recommends that greater organizations habitually have the resources and abilities to execute
total environmental management systems (EMS) (Darnall, Ji, and Potoski, 2019). These frameworks
connect with organizations to screen, audit, and work on their natural execution. For instance, a
concentrate by Smith and Johnson, 2017 observed that bigger organizations are bound to take on
harmless to the ecosystem rehearses and put more in harmless to the ecosystem innovations. Further,
the relationship between corporate size and natural practices is kept up with by the chance of
economies of scale. Jones and Stevens (2016) state that as businesses expand, they may be able to take
advantage of economies of scale in environmental projects, allowing them to spread the costs of
sustainable initiatives across a wider income spectrum. This cash related benefit could work with the
get-together of harmless innocuous environment developments and practices. Larger corporations
often have more resources, both in terms of finances and personnel, to invest in sustainable and
environmentally friendly practices. They may have dedicated departments or teams to address
environmental concerns and implement green initiatives (Wut et al., 2023). Large corporations
typically have a more prominent public presence, and their actions are more closely scrutinized by the
media and the public. Adopting environmentally responsible practices can be a way for these
companies to enhance their public image and maintain a positive reputation (Arena et al., 2023). Large
corporations often have extensive supply chains. Encouraging or requiring environmentally friendly
practices within the supply chain can have a broader impact on sustainability, influencing a larger
number of suppliers and partners (Dzikriansyah et al., 2023; Saleem and Anjum, 2023).
H2: Environmental practices are positively connected with corporate size.
Corporate Size and Corporate Reputation
Bigger organizations might profit from economies of scale, permitting them to put more in corporate
social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, which emphatically add to their standing (Kalbuana et al.,
2023). As per Fombrun and Shanley (2017), greater partnerships frequently have more assets to
dispense toward building a positive picture through magnanimity, environmental sustainability, and
representative government assistance programs. Going against the norm, the sheer size of huge
partnerships might make them more vulnerable to public examination, prompting better standards
from partners and possibly more critical repercussions in the event of discussions (Lange et al., 2016).
Scientists like (Laaksonen et al., 2019) propose that super partnerships could confront difficulties in
keeping a positive corporate picture because of their intricacy and potential for regulatory
245
Shakil at al., JEBV 4(1) 2024, 241-256

shortcomings. The size of a corporation can influence its market presence. A company with a dominant
market position may have a stronger influence on industry standards and practices, impacting its
reputation in the process. Larger companies often have more resources, including financial, human,
and technological, which can be used to invest in corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives,
sustainability practices, and other reputation-building activities (Perez-Cornejo et al., 2023). These
efforts can enhance a company's reputation. The size of a corporation can affect the nature of its
relationships with customers (Aziz and Ahmed, 2023). Larger companies may face challenges in
maintaining personalized and intimate customer connections, potentially impacting customer
satisfaction and, consequently, corporate reputation (Le, 2023).
H3: Corporate size is positively connected with corporate reputation.
Mediation Role of Corporate Size
Previous research suggests that bigger companies will generally widely affect society because of the
size of activities (Jones, 2018). As highlighted by Smith et al., (2017), the size of an organization can
impacts its ability to put assets innocuous to harmless to environmentally friendly technologies, stick
to extreme viability standards, and take part in corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. These
components add to the, by and large, a show of the association, influencing its remaining inside the
business and among accomplices (Johnson and Lee, 2016). Larger corporations typically have more
resources, both in terms of finances and personnel, which can enable them to invest in and implement
comprehensive environmental initiatives. They may have dedicated departments or teams focused on
sustainability and corporate social responsibility (Akhter et al., 2023). Larger corporations may face
more stringent regulatory requirements due to their scale of operations. Compliance with
environmental regulations becomes crucial, and some large companies proactively adopt sustainable
practices to meet or exceed these standards (Almashhadani & Almashhadani, 2023). Larger
corporations often have a higher level of visibility in the public eye. Consequently, their actions,
including environmental practices, are more likely to be scrutinized. Positive environmental initiatives
can enhance the reputation of large corporations, while negative practices can attract greater criticism
(Uzliawati et al., 2023). Large corporations may have more complex operations, involving multiple
locations, supply chains, and stakeholders. Managing reputation becomes more challenging, and
negative incidents or controversies in any aspect of their business, including environmental issues, can
have a significant impact on their overall reputation (Sarstedt et al., 2023).
H4: Corporate size positively mediates the relationship between environmental practices and
corporate reputation.
Moderation Effects of Innovation Capacity
Innovation capacity, portrayed as the association's ability to make and complete novel thoughts and
innovations (Schumpeter, 2016), transforms into an essential estimation getting a handle on the
nuances of the relationship. Relationship with high development limits could use their creative
expertise to update the reasonableness of customary practices, independent of their size (Eisenhardt
246
Shakil at al., JEBV 4(1) 2024, 241-256

and Martin, 2019). This suggests that, in terms of the reception and impact of sustainable practices,
smaller businesses with strong innovation capabilities may be able to overcome any difficulties they
encounter with larger partners. Associations with solid advancement abilities can create and carry out
cutting-edge innovations that are more harmless to the ecosystem. This remembers advancements for
energy effectiveness, squander decrease, and reasonable creation processes (Borah et al., 2023).
Through innovation, businesses can develop environmentally friendly goods and services. For
instance, the advancement of eco-accommodating materials, energy-proficient gadgets, or manageable
bundling can be driven by development ability (González-Ramos et al., 2023). Bigger partnerships
might have the monetary assets and ability to put resources into greater innovative work endeavors.
This permits them to create and execute imaginative arrangements that can fundamentally affect
ecological practices (Kamal et al., 2023). Bigger partnerships frequently have a worldwide presence,
and their natural practices can impact a more extensive geographic region. The size of their tasks might
require creative ways to deal with address ecological difficulties across different areas (Kolbe et al.,
2022).
H5: Innovation capacity positively moderates the relationship between environmental practices and
corporate size.

Figure 01. Framework

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Sample and Data Collection
This study embraces a quantitative exploration plan to productively take a gander at the
associations between environmental practices, corporate size, innovation capacity, and corporate
reputation in sustainable business. A cross-sectional study approach was utilized to gather information
from different small and pollutant business ventures. Businesses in a variety of industries that have
actively engaged in sustainable entrepreneurship practices make up the target audience. To guarantee
that a variety of industries will be represented, a stratified random sampling method was used. The
example size will be resolved considering factual power computations, holding back nothing
examination (Creswell, 2014). For this research study, the quantitative method was used to get reliable
247
Shakil at al., JEBV 4(1) 2024, 241-256

findings. The quantitative research method was defined as “a research methodology that seeks to
quantify the data, and typically, applies some form of statistical analysis” (Malhotra & Krosnick,
2007). Data was analyzed using statistical software smart PLS-SEM. PLS-SEM is less delicate to
dissemination presumptions than conventional SEM. It is suitable for analyzing data that may not meet
the distributional assumptions of traditional SEM because it does not assume multivariate normality.
This adaptability settles on PLS-SEM as an ideal decision in non-typically dispersed or little example
situations (Hidayanto et al., 2020).
Measures
The environmental practices of organizations were evaluated through a modified 5-item scale taken
from Javalgi et al., (2016) and modified according to need. The corporate size was estimated utilizing
a 4-item scale, adapted from Chen et al., (2017). Innovation capacity was assessed through a 5-item
scale by Liao et al., (2018). The evaluation of corporate reputation included the use of a modified 4-
item scale got from crafted by Fombrun and Van Riel, (2017).
Reliability and Validity
Table 01 shows that all the constructs were internally consistent because the values of the variables
have CR values above 0.70. The composite reliability of environmental protection is 0.722, corporate
reputation is 0.824, corporate size is 0.761, and innovation capacity is 0.817. Thus, there is internal
consistency and reliability. Moreover, the table above demonstrates that all variables related to the
study's discussion had average variance extracted (AVE) values greater than 0.50. As a result, the
research variables exhibit convergent validity. They adhere to the convergent validity criterion as a
result. The item loadings are within the acceptable range from 0.50 to 0.80 and this is evident from
our AVEs (Hair et al., 2021).
Table 01: Reliability and Validity
Variable Items Loadings CR AVE
Environmental Protection (EP) EP1 0.768 0.722 0.519
EP2 0.737
EP3 0.765
EP4 0.741
EP5 0.759
Corporate Reputation (CoR) CoR1 0.828 0.824 0.603
CoR2 0.815
CoR3 0.806
CoR4 0.856
Corporate Size (CS) CS1 0.780 0.761 0.524
CS2 0.712
CS3 0.764
CS4 0.719
Innovation Capacity (IC) IC1 0.829 0.817 0.612
IC2 0.823
IC3 0.884
IC4 0.854
IC5 0.762

248
Shakil at al., JEBV 4(1) 2024, 241-256

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The researcher employed regression analysis to investigate the hypothesized relationship between
the independent and dependent variables. This analytical approach, often referred to as predictive
analysis, utilizes the widely used method of linear regression in research. The aim was to assess the
direct impact of the independent variable on the dependent variable through a simple linear regression
analysis. This analysis not only generates predictions about the dependent variable based on the
independent variable values but also aids in determining the degree of dependency between the two
variables. In the initial phase of this section, linear regression analysis was conducted to substantiate
the research hypothesis. Subsequently, in the second phase, mediation and moderation analyses were
conducted using Smart PLS-SEM. Table 02 reveals that the variable's significance level is .000,
indicating its statistical significance in predicting the outcome variable.
Table 02: Path Analysis

Hypothesis Relationship Beta SD t-value p-values Decision

H1 EP → CoR 0.130 0.019 6.768 0.000 Supported

H2 EP → CS 0.122 0.023 5.220 0.001 Supported
H3 CS → CoR 0.358 0.037 9.718 0.004 Supported
H4 EP → CS → CoR 0.128 0.030 4.223 0.001 Supported
H5 EP*IC → CS 0.207 0.047 4.356 0.005 Supported

The positive relationships observed in the statistical analysis provide significant support for the
hypothesized associations within the framework of sustainable entrepreneurship. Firstly, the positive
beta coefficient (β = 0.130, p < 0.001) between environmental practices (EP) and corporate reputation
(CoR) (H1) indicates that businesses with enhanced environmental practices tend to have a more
favorable corporate reputation. Similarly, the positive beta coefficient (β = 0.122, p = 0.001) in the
relationship between environmental practices (EP) and corporate size (CS) (H2) signifies that
companies engaging in environmentally responsible practices are more likely to exhibit larger
corporate sizes. The positive beta coefficient (β = 0.358, p < 0.001) between corporate size (CS) and
corporate reputation (CoR) (H3) highlights that bigger organizations will generally partake in a more
certain standing. Additionally, the positive beta coefficient (β = 0.128, p = 0.001) in the successive
relationship from environmental practices to corporate size to corporate reputation (H4) recommends
that the positive effect of environmental practices on corporate reputation is interceded by corporate
size. In conclusion, the positive beta coefficient (β = 0.207, p = 0.005) in the association term between
environmental practices and innovation capacity impacting corporate size (H5) demonstrates that the
impact of environmental practices and innovation capacity working closely together emphatically adds
to corporate size. In outline, these outcomes support that a promise to environmental practices is
positively connected with corporate reputation and size, and these connections are further nuanced by
the mediating role of corporate size and the moderating role of innovation capacity.

249
Shakil at al., JEBV 4(1) 2024, 241-256

The study's findings offer exact help for the hypothetical foundation laid out in previous studies by
adjusting intimately with the current writing on sustainable entrepreneurship. The positive association
between environmental practices (EP) and corporate reputation (CoR) (H1) resounds with the
literature underlining the essential job of environmentally dependable activities in embellishment
positive acumen among accomplices (Guard and Kramer, 2019; Jones et al., 2018). The study's
certification that associations with updated environmental practices and large participation in a better
corporate reputation adds quantitative assistance to the emotional encounters given by previous studies
(Smith and Johnson, 2017). In like manner, the positive relationship between environmental practices
(EP) and corporate size (CS) (H2) lines up with the likelihood that greater organizations have the
resources and abilities to do broad environmental management systems (EMS) (Darnall et al., 2019).
The findings broaden the literature by evaluating this relationship, showing that organizations that
participate in environmentally responsible practices are bound to display bigger corporate sizes.
The positive relationship between corporate size (CS) and corporate reputation (CoR) (H3) reaffirms
the idea that bigger companies, profiting from economies of scale, are more prepared to put resources
into corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, subsequently decidedly adding to their reputation
(Kalbuana et al., 2023; Fombrun and Shanley, 2017). However, the study recognizes the potential
difficulties looked by mega enterprises in keeping a positive picture because of their intricacy and
vulnerability to public examination, lining up with the mindfulness communicated by previous
research (Laaksonen et al., 2019). Besides, the mediating role of corporate size (CS) in the connection
between environmental practices (EP) and corporate reputation (CoR) (H4) is steady with the
possibility that the size of a company impacts its capacity to put resources into harmless to the
environmentally friendly technologies and participate in CSR initiatives (Smith et al., 2017). This
finding supports the idea that the positive effect of environmental practices on corporate reputation is,
to some extent, interceded by the company's size, adding to the more extensive comprehension of
these interconnections.
The study likewise addresses the moderating role of innovation capacity (IC) in the connection
between environmental practices (EP) and corporate size (CS) (H5), underlining the basic role of
technological aptitude in improving the viability of sustainable practices (Schumpeter, 2016). This
finding lines up with the literature recommending that organizations with high innovation capabilities
might overcome any barrier with bigger partners as far as taking on and influencing sustainable
practices (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2019).
The study's findings contribute meaningfully to the field of sustainable entrepreneurship by approving
and expanding the experiences given by earlier research. The outcomes confirm the positive
connections between environmental practices, corporate size, and corporate reputation, and feature the
nuanced job of corporate size as a mediator and innovation capacity as a moderator in these elements.

250
Shakil at al., JEBV 4(1) 2024, 241-256

CONCLUSION AND POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

The study's findings offer powerful empirical help for laying out a hypothetical foundation
inside the area of sustainable entrepreneurship. According to the existing literature, the observed
positive relationships between environmental practices and corporate reputation and size support the
idea that environmentally responsible actions play a crucial role in influencing stakeholders' positive
perceptions. The insights provided by previous researchers are given a quantitative dimension by the
quantification of these relationships. Furthermore, the positive relationship between corporate size and
corporate reputation highlights the upsides of bigger partnerships, yet the study recognizes the
potential difficulties faced by bigger companies in keeping a positive picture. The mediation role of
corporate size in the connection between environmental practices and corporate reputation adds to a
more profound comprehension of these elements, underlining the impact of corporate size on the
positive effect of sustainable initiatives. Moreover, the study's findings of the moderating effect of
innovation capacity feature the basic meaning of technical ability in improving the viability of
sustainable practices, proposing that organizations with high innovation capacity may successfully
rival bigger partners in embracing and affecting sustainable practices. By and large, these findings
make a considerable commitment to the field of sustainable entrepreneurship, giving observational
approval and broadening bits of knowledge from earlier research.
Policy Implementation
This study stresses key implications for organizations advancing sustainable entrepreneurship.
Incorporating environmentally responsible actions into systems decidedly corresponds with corporate
reputation, asking organizations to focus on and impart their obligation to improve their general
picture.
Bigger organizations feature benefits in environmental practices, giving motivation to more modest
organizations. However, mega-partnerships face difficulties in keeping a positive picture, forewarning
organizations to adjust size and public discernment.
The study highlights the mediating role of corporate size in the connection between environmental
practices and reputation, directing vital navigation. Also, innovation capacity is featured as pivotal,
proposing organizations put resources into innovative mastery to improve the viability of sustainable
initiatives, no matter what their size.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Regardless of the important commitments and alignment with existing literature, the study isn't
without its limitations. The cross-sectional nature of the study restricts the foundation of causal
connections, and future investigations utilizing longitudinal or exploratory design could give further
experiences into the elements over time. Besides, the study doesn't represent expected outside elements
or economic situations that could impact the noticed connections, and future research could investigate
the effect of context-oriented factors on sustainable entrepreneurship dynamics.

251
Shakil at al., JEBV 4(1) 2024, 241-256

The study opens roads for further exploration inside the space of sustainable entrepreneurship. Future
exploration could dig into the components through which environmental practices add to corporate
size, considering various elements of reputation and partner insights. Longitudinal investigations could
be directed to follow the advancement of sustainable practices and their consequences for corporate
results over time. Additionally, gaining a deeper comprehension of the observed relationships may be
made possible by investigating the moderating effects of specific industry characteristics or regulatory
environments. Lastly, future research should investigate how sustainable entrepreneurship affects
financial performance and market competitiveness. This would add to academic literature and provide
businesses and policymakers with useful insights.

252
Shakil at al., JEBV 4(1) 2024, 241-256

REFERENCES
Akhter, F., Hossain, M. R., Elrehail, H., Rehman, S. U., & Almansour, B. (2023). Environmental
disclosures and corporate attributes, from the lens of legitimacy theory: a longitudinal analysis
on a developing country. European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 32(3),
342-369.
Almashhadani, M., & Almashhadani, H. A. (2023). Corporate Governance and Environmental
Disclosure. International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 12(4), 112-117.
Arena, M., Azzone, G., Ratti, S., Urbano, V. M., & Vecchio, G. (2023). Sustainable development
goals and corporate reporting: An empirical investigation of the oil and gas industry.
Sustainable Development, 31(1), 12-25.
Aziz, M. A., & Ahmed, M. A. (2023). Consumer Brand Identification and Purchase Intentions: The
Mediating Role of Customer Brand Engagement. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business
Venturing, 3(1).
Borah, P. S., Dogbe, C. S. K., Pomegbe, W. W. K., Bamfo, B. A., & Hornuvo, L. K. (2023). Green
market orientation, green innovation capability, green knowledge acquisition and green brand
positioning as determinants of new product success. European Journal of Innovation
Management, 26(2), 364-385.
Brown, A., & Johnson, M. (2016). Environmental sustainability in business: A systematic review.
Sustainable Production and Consumption, 5, 53-64.
Chen, Y. S., Lai, S. B., & Wen, C. T. (2017). The Influence of Green Innovation Performance on
Corporate Advantage in Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(4), 331–339.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches.
Sage Publications.
Darnall, N., Ji, H., & Potoski, M. (2019). Environmental management systems and green innovation:
Evidence from ISO 14001 certifications. Business & Society, 58(3), 597-630.
Dzikriansyah, M. A., Masudin, I., Zulfikarijah, F., Jihadi, M., & Jatmiko, R. D. (2023). The role of
green supply chain management practices on environmental performance: A case of
Indonesian small and medium enterprises. Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain, 6, 100100.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2019). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic
Management Journal, 21(10-11), 1105-1121.
Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (2017). What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy.
Oxford University Press.
Fombrun, C., & Van Riel, C. (2017). Fame & Fortune: How Successful Companies Build Winning
Reputations. FT Press.

253
Shakil at al., JEBV 4(1) 2024, 241-256

González-Ramos, M. I., Guadamillas, F., & Donate, M. J. (2023). The relationship between
knowledge management strategies and corporate social responsibility: Effects on innovation
capabilities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 188, 122287.
Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021). Evaluation
of reflective measurement models. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-
SEM) Using R: A Workbook, 75-90.
Hidayanto, A. N., Anggorojati, B., Abidin, Z., & Phusavat, K. (2020). Data modeling positive security
behavior implementation among smart device users in Indonesia: A partial least squares
structural equation modeling approach (PLS-SEM). Data in Brief, 30, 105588.
Ibidunni, A. S., Ufua, D. E., & Opute, A. P. (2022). Linking disruptive innovation to sustainable
entrepreneurship within the context of small and medium firms: A focus on Nigeria. African
Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 14(6), 1591-1607.
Johnson, M. P., & Lee, S. Y. (2016). The effects of corporate social responsibility on customer
satisfaction and long-term loyalty: A study in the telecommunication sector. Sustainability,
8(6), 562.
Johnson, R., & Wang, Y. (2019). Going green: The impact of environmental practices on corporate
performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(2), 160-173.
Jones, D. A. (2017). The Economic Impact of Corporate Reputation. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 27(5), 635-641.
Jones, M., & Stevens, J. (2016). Corporate environmental management and shareholder wealth.
Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), 493-511.
Jones, P. (2018). Greening through IT: Information technology and the environment. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 27(5), 635-641.
Jones, P., & Levy, Y. (2018). Sustainable entrepreneurship: A research framework. Sustainable
Development, 26(6), 523-538.
Jones, P., Comfort, D., & Hillier, D. (2018). Sustainability in the Boardroom: Lessons from Intel's
Long-Term Strategies. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(1), 109–126. [DOI: 10.1007/s10551-
016-3215-2]
Kalbuana, N., Taqi, M., Uzliawati, L., & Ramdhani, D. (2023). CEO narcissism, corporate
governance, financial distress, and company size on corporate tax avoidance. Cogent Business
& Management, 10(1), 2167550.
Kamal, E. M., Lou, E. C., & Kamaruddeen, A. M. (2023). Effects of innovation capability on radical
and incremental innovations and business performance relationships. Journal of Engineering
and Technology Management, 67, 101726.

254
Shakil at al., JEBV 4(1) 2024, 241-256

Kolbe, D., Frasquet, M., & Calderon, H. (2022). The role of market orientation and innovation
capability in export performance of small and medium-sized enterprises: a Latin American
perspective. Multinational Business Review, 30(2), 289-312.
Krause, R. (2018). Small business and environmental sustainability: The role of stakeholders and
competitiveness. Journal of Business Ethics, 147(3), 521-533.
Laaksonen, S. M., Falco, A., Salminen, M., Aula, P., & Ravaja, N. (2019). Brand as a cognitive
mediator: investigating the effect of media brands as a structural feature of textual news
messages. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 28(1), 1-14
Lange, D., Lee, P. M., & Dai, Y. (2016). Organizational reputation: A review. Journal of Management,
42(1), 1–46.
Le, T. T. (2023). Corporate social responsibility and SMEs' performance: mediating role of corporate
image, corporate reputation and customer loyalty. International Journal of Emerging Markets,
18(10), 4565-4590.
Liao, S. H., Fei, W. C., & Chen, C. C. (2018). Knowledge sharing, absorptive capacity, and innovation
capability: An empirical study of Taiwan's knowledge-intensive industries. Journal of
Information Science, 34(6), 770–790.
Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2019). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and
market value. Management Science, 65(3), 1041–1057. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2017.2932
Malhotra, N., & Krosnick, J. A. (2007). The effect of survey mode and sampling on inferences about
political attitudes and behavior: Comparing the 2000 and 2004 ANES to Internet surveys with
nonprobability samples. Political Analysis, 15(3), 286-323.
Perez-Cornejo, C., de Quevedo-Puente, E., & Delgado-Garcia, J. B. (2023). The role of
national culture as a lens for stakeholder evaluation of corporate social performance and its
effect on corporate reputation. Business Research Quarterly, 26(4), 282-296.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2019). Creating shared value: A fundamental shift in
strategy. Harvard Business Review, 94(1), 62–77. doi: 10.11575/PRISM/31856
Santos, C., Coelho, A., & Marques, A. (2023). A systematic literature review on greenwashing and its
relationship to stakeholders: state of art and future research agenda. Management Review
Quarterly, 1-25.
Saleem, A., & Anjum, S. (2023). Effects of Supply Chain Management Practices on Technological
Innovation in Restaurant Industry of Pakistan: The Mediating Role of Guanxi. Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Business Venturing, 3(1).
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Iuklanov, D. (2023). Antecedents and consequences of corporate
reputation: A dataset. Data in Brief, 48, 109079.

255
Shakil at al., JEBV 4(1) 2024, 241-256

Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E. G., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2018). Business models for sustainability:
Origins, present research, and future avenues. Organization & Environment, 31(3), 233-257.
Smith, A. N., Kuratko, D. F., & Hornsby, J. S. (2017). Entrepreneurial orientation and corporate
reputation. Journal of Business Research, 70, 114-124.
Smith, A., & Johnson, B. (2017). Size and environmental performance in the UK industrial sector:
Evidence from annual reports and accounts 1995–2015. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 26(3), 377-391.
Smith, B. G., & Johnson, P. (2017). Managing reputational risks through corporate social
responsibility: A case study of the Arthur W. Page Society Principles. Journal of Business
Ethics, 141(1), 89–104. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2704-8
Smith, B. R., Gonin, M., & Besharov, M. L. (2017). Managing social-business tensions: A review and
research agenda for social enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(1), 107-137.
Sreenivasan, A., & Suresh, M. (2023). Exploring the contribution of sustainable entrepreneurship
towards sustainable development goals: A bibliometric analysis. Green Technologies and
Sustainability, 100038.
Schumpeter, J. A. (2016). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. In Democracy: A reader (pp. 259-
264).
Tang, Y. M., Chau, K. Y., Fatima, A., & Waqas, M. (2022). Industry 4.0 technology and circular
economy practices: business management strategies for environmental sustainability.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(33), 49752-49769.
Uzliawati, L., Kalbuana, N., Budyastuti, T., Budiharjo, R., Kusiyah, K., & Ahalik, A. (2023). The
power of sustainability, corporate governance, and millennial leadership: Exploring the impact
on company reputation. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 11(3), 1275-1288.
Wut, T. M., & Ng, P. M. L. (2023). Perceived CSR motives, perceived CSR authenticity, and pro-
environmental behavior intention: an internal stakeholder perspective. Social Responsibility
Journal, 19(5), 797-811.
Xu, Y., Li, S., Zhou, X., Shahzad, U., & Zhao, X. (2022). How environmental regulations affect the
development of green finance: Recent evidence from polluting firms in China. Renewable
Energy, 189, 917-926.
Zhang, K., Pan, Z., Janardhanan, M., & Patel, I. (2023). Relationship analysis between greenwashing
and environmental performance. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25(8), 7927-
7957.
Zameer, H., Wang, Y., Yasmeen, H., & Mubarak, S. (2022). Green innovation as a mediator in the
impact of business analytics and environmental orientation on green competitive advantage.
Management Decision, 60(2), 488-507.

256