ABSTRACT This paper explores how innovation and entrepreneurship can contribute to a sustainable future though the lens of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) theory. The central argument is that integrating CSR principles with innovative and entrepreneurial approaches enables businesses to achieve profitability while responding to environmental and social challenges. To enhance these processes, we examine sustainable innovations such as renewable energy and new waste management methods. These innovations not only benefit the environment but also improve business efficiency and adaptability. This study is grounded in secondary data analysis, utilizing a selection of relevant literature and documented case studies to build a conceptual framework to highlight the crucial role businesses can play in shaping a sustainable future through innovation and entrepreneurship, and demonstrates that CSR, innovation and entrepreneurship are three key elements to redefining business success. Sustainable entrepreneurship propels CSR, enhances innovation, meets regulatory requirements, and achieves sustained competitive advantage, all of which contribute to economically responsible businesses. However, they often face challenges such as limited access to capital and limited market opportunities. To address these challenges, we propose that small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) expand their sustainability initiatives through cooperation, government support, and access to green financial resources. This study proposes a theoretical framework that links all these elements and argues that sustainability needs to be embedded into organizational culture, and government incentives should be leveraged to encourage responsible business practices. Furthermore, this study highlights entrepreneurship as a catalyst for positive change: by establishing green businesses, entrepreneurs can transform markets and introduce new technologies to society.
Vojdanian et al. (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: