
==== Front
Heliyon
Heliyon
Heliyon
2405-8440
Elsevier

S2405-8440(24)12970-2
10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36939
e36939
Research Article
Green innovation imperative for natural resource-driven sustainable economic recovery: Linking rights Structure, corporate social responsibility, and renewable energy contracts
Xing Ke xk1891074@163.com
a
Wong Wing-Keung wong@asia.edu.tw
bgh
Chen Shang order_25@163.com
c⁎
Muda Iskandar iskandar1@usu.ac.id
d
Ismail Sayed M. a.ismail@psau.edu.sa
e
Akhtar Muhammad makhtarmath2017@gmail.com
f
a Department of finance Cardiff university Cardiff, CF10 3AT, Welsh, Britain, United Kingdom
b Chair Professor, Department of Finance, Fintech Center and Big Data Research Center, Asia University, Taichung 41354, Taiwan
c School of Management, Qufu Normal University, Rizhao, China
d Universitas Sumatera Utara, Medan, Indonesia
e Department of English Language and Literature College of Science and Humanities, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia
f Ghazi university Dera Ghazi khan, Pakistan
g Department of Medical Research, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung 40447, Taiwan
h Department of Economics and Finance, Hang Seng University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077, China
⁎ Corresponding author. order_25@163.com
29 8 2024
15 9 2024
29 8 2024
10 17 e3693912 2 2024
25 8 2024
25 8 2024
© 2024 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
2024

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
This study examines the complex relationships necessary for a sustainable economic recovery, focusing on the interplay between contracts for renewable energy, natural resource use, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and rights frameworks. Motivated by the increasing scrutiny of environmental practices, this research aims to highlight the need for sustainable business models during the transition to a more environmentally sensitive economy. The study area encompasses diverse sectors where CSR goals can be aligned with renewable energy project frameworks through natural resource utilization. Methodologies include a novel composite CSR evaluation indicator designed to complement industry rankings and a thorough analysis of CSR within the mining industry. Results demonstrate how aligning CSR with renewable energy initiatives can reshape profit models for stakeholders and emphasize the changing green product market as a catalyst for economic resurgence. Recommendations in the area of policies focus on the reasoned utilization of natural resources and the application of innovations following the principles of CSR. This research provides critical guidance to relevant authorities and institutions charged with ethical responsibility, ensuring the proper utilization and implementation of renewable energy sources to create a more ecological future based on green technology and sustainable resource management.

Keywords

Green innovation
Corporate social responsibility
Renewable energy
Economic growth
Economic recovery
Sustainable economic
Sustainable energy
Natural resource
Sustainable future
Business framework
==== Body
pmc1 Introduction

Human activities make environmental issues more pressing than ever; thus, green innovation becomes the need of the developing world. The varying ecological footprint that continues to affect our environment demonstrates why climate change effects might still manifest themselves even with increased awareness [1]. Moreover, constant pressure and activity is still called for and this is where businesses are decidedly preeminent drivers in creating economic stability as well as positive change. Through the implementation of CSR and lifting the viability of renewable energy sources they spearhead an environmental movement whose aim is to minimize impacts on the natural environment while seeking to facilitate sustainable economic recovery [2]. The essence of this movement is the rational use and the effective management of natural resources and this constitutes both a chance and a threat for the business culture and its need to take a set of measures for consonant changes to ensure the development of a sustainable model of resource economy and resource-saving [3].

There are a number of environmental concerns that have an impact with our society, economy and the resource that sustain it. Issues like lack of biological diversity and climate change can be considered as the urgent ones. In this unstable environment, companies and businesses act beyond mere profit, greatly contributing to economic development, emission, and protection of natural resources [4]. The evolution of mood of CSR from a speech to meaningful conviction is the result of sustainable energy, one of the fundamentals of sustainable development [5]. Nonetheless, there been far-reaching interests and commitments to engage CSR programs, corporate rights frameworks, and sustainable energy contracts, but albeit substantial knowledge gaps in comprehending their interconnection.

The information should be addressed as the world looks forward to developing a sustainable economy given the impacts of the pandemic. It is understood that this research will strive to provide a detailed examination of how CSR activities are linked to corporate rights frameworks as well as the sustainable energy section. Through the unabridged analysis of these matrices of interactions, we aim to realize the fullest of their standing in portraying the sustained economic growth. The author of this research hopes that this work shall be helpful in providing new ideas to assist firms in managing their environmental responsibility, ensuring recovery for policy makers by conveying an effective management of climates, and also for the renewable utilization sector so that they can establish profitable relationships with organizations who share financial and environmental aims.

To de-emphasize the complexities, we explain the next sections to explain some of the basic concepts, have a literature review, describe the methodological approach, and present the findings with the purpose of generating protracted discussions. Lastly, they will transfer their findings and suggestions to the academic world, entrepreneurs, and lawmakers so that they will work step in step to make a green world possible. The paper should be a wake-up call to countries and their organizations involved in the exploitation of natural resources, and the need to embrace and practice CSR in the development of their economy.

2 Literature review

Given the current global changes and perspectives, the shift from traditional to sustainable power sources is necessary and holds a vast potential to negatively impact the climate and enhance sustainable economic development [5]. This literature review discusses further how clean innovation intersects with contracts for sustainable energy, CSR, and rights frameworks on the background of underlining the importance of these concepts in sustainability discourse globally [6].In recent years, the extensive research framework essentially built on contracts, clean innovation, CSR, rights framework, and sustainable energy as a natural resource for the sustainable economic development has evolved [7]. This shifted to this paradigm addresses the very crucial element on how organizational strategies can address economic targets, social as well as ecological that calls for an appropriate exploitation of this invaluable natural resource [8]. In the long-run, echo-friendly innovation provides a historical perspective of encouraging other growth outcomes. For example, the amalgamation of environmental conservation measures within developmental undertakings around the New Deal period of the Great Depression greatly benefitted economic development. Consequently, it becomes rather common to see clean projects in the latest economic stimulus packages as they regard the utilization of clean energy as a natural resource for economic development [9]. Managed consumption of natural resources particularly energies also helps in fashioning a resources friendly world and ensuring co-ordination between eco-consciousness and the economic prosperity in the world [10].

CSR has now become a responsibility which is legally defending a moral standpoint to being a commercial imperative [11]. In recent years, many examples have been used to prove the correlation between the strategic outlook of the companies and the implementation of CSR measures. Activities like development of CSR schemes like, use of sustainable energy are slowly becoming an inevitable part of the business, organizations trying to achieve their financial goals as well as trying to fulfill their social responsibilities. This diversification has been complemented by Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), or contracts for sustainable energy, which have increased significantly in demand [12]. Companies and industries are now engaging themselves in such power purchase agreements for managing their carbon footprint and achieving a stable source of efficient and clean energy. The paper presents several examples that show how sustainable energy sources can be integrated and the extent of the positive economic impact as well as the benefits in terms of minimization of negative environmental impact [13].

An emerging concept in contract work when it comes to sustainable energy is the rights structure where responsibilities and benefits are shared between the users and creators of the energy including public bodies, businesses, and utilities [14]. The rights structures of these contracts can go a long way to influencing the actions and decisions of businesses, especially in terms of investment; therefore, there is much more room for research on and analysis of these contracts [15]. Some of the ways that they interact and their relation to clean innovation, green CSR, sustainable energy contracts, and rights structures are summarized in this literature review. The results show that the customized negotiators who appear to act more competent in creating sustainable energy contracts that enumerate rights arrangements undertake larger CSR actions and incorporate innovative solutions. This, in turn generates a virtuous cycle of enhanced sustainability and improved business returns [16].

Still, several questions have not been answered, primarily because although a vast number of publications has been devoted to this issue, systematic studying of the phenomenon was carried out relatively recently. Subsequent studies should consider cross-sectional, longitudinal, or other forms of comparative research on CSR performance and clean innovation under varying rights structures. Furthermore, it is important that academic research investigate further the manner with which these attributes are impacted upon by political intervention. Thus, in accordance with the findings of the identified literature, it is possible to emphasize the increased importance of sustainable energy contracts, companies’ CSR reports, and clean innovation for further sustainable economic development [17]. When learners complete degrees or presumptions about the environment for governments and organizations that are working towards a greener new future also a sustainable and economically more resilient future the only reality, they must come up with is the integration of all of these so that the reality of one does not undermine the reality of the other in the marketplace.

The distinct research subject and approach to raising multi-layered relations between clean innovation, CSR, renewable energy supply contracts, and rights frameworks are described in more detail in the subsequent section. Finally, it is important to note that this study aims at advancing the current knowledge on the basic principles of long-run economic growth by a significant extent. Flaws of supply links have been observed where power structures have transitioned from retailer-centered to producer-centric. Subordinate decisions occur due to these distinct power relations, hence, distinct decision-making habits. Understanding these factors is critical for more effective control of the supply link.

This literature review also recognizes the positive impact change brought through the lens of CSR in the global business environment. CSR is a major factor linked to business strategy and it plays a role in deciding processes surpassing a simple ethic imperative. Analysts have looked for CSR from various perspectives, in terms of its influence over pricing strategies, risk assessment, and supply link and contractual agreement. Supply link coordination is another decision-making criterion that is not easy to be done due to the fact that it has to involve teamwork and it implies complex contract structures. Scholars in prior studies have examined contracts and features of supply link and determined that particular contract types impacting contracts such as revenue-sharing agreements and other incentive systems increase the likelihood of achieving cooperation and coordination to both parties.

Procedures set forward by the government and financial policies forcing changes in supply link selections and it has paved way for organizations to learn how CSR provides competitive benefits (Diaz & Nguyen, 2023). CSR research with clients has provided evidence indicating the link between CSR and financial performance, quality of products and consumers’ buying decisions. It is worth emphasizing that factors include the choice of contract models and rights structures – significantly affect the decision-making plans, gross revenue, and performance quality of supply link decision-making. CSR can only be seen to delivers its potential benefits in business when the themes and goals of CSR strategies are in harmony with the economic goals of the organization as highlighted in the literature. This kind of change impacts the decision making in supply link due to the different power relations systems and the growing concern for the implementation of CSR. It serves to emphasize how CSR should be connected with business strategy and how supply chain initiatives should underpin the strengthening of cooperation to create a win-win environment for all supply link relations.

That way, this project's main goal to expand the knowledge base on power relations, CSR, and contract models influencing supply link decisions will be achieved. This exploration aims at discovering new ideas and views that can further improve the operation of the supply link in terms of sustainability and subsequent impact on the corporate world and the society at large.

3 Methodology

3.1 Theoretical background

This paper's theoretical foundation encompasses several interrelated ideas that help clarify the connections between contracts for renewable energy, the use of natural resources, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and sustainable economic recovery [18].1. Renewable Energy Contracts: With the growing concern about climate change and the need to move away from fossil fuels, renewable energy sources have received much attention. Power purchase agreements (PPAs) and feed-in tariffs are two examples of renewable energy contracts crucial for encouraging investment in renewable energy infrastructure [19]. These agreements, which frequently entail long-term obligations, are significant in determining how stakeholders in renewable energy structure their business plans.

2. Natural Resource-Driven Sustainable Economic Recovery: When it comes to sustainable development, natural resources are essential to economic recovery. The need to manage natural resources responsibly is covered in the article, focusing on renewable sources to lessen their impact on the environment and guarantee their long-term availability [20].

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is the term used to describe a business's dedication to upholding moral principles and making constructive contributions to the environment and society outside of the bounds of the law. This study investigates how, via responsible use of natural resources, CSR objectives might complement renewable energy projects. It might examine how CSR programs affect stakeholders, impact choices, and support environmentally friendly corporate operations.3. Rights Structure and CSR Alignment: In the context of renewable energy projects, the article investigates how various rights structures possibly related to resource ownership—affect CSR alignment. It might examine how different rights arrangements affect CSR programs and how sustainable business models are created.

4. Green innovation and economic revival: Green innovation is thought to be a stimulant for economic regeneration, fueled by the rising demand for ecologically friendly goods and services. The study may examine how sustainable practices such as renewable energy and CSR alignment can stimulate economic growth and innovation [21].

5. Ethical Conduct, Adoption of Sustainable Energy, and Regulation: The study will guide firms and regulators dedicated to CSR-driven innovation, ethical conduct, and sustainable energy adoption. It supports legislative frameworks that incentivize sustainable practices and conscientious natural resource management [22].

This theoretical framework intertwines economic, environmental, and social elements to demonstrate the connections between the adoption of renewable energy, corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities, the use of natural resources, and their consequences for sustainable economic recovery.

3.2 Description of problems and proposed Hypothesis

3.2.1 Problems discussion

The collaborative structure formed by different supply link participants is vulnerable to instability in cooperation. The pursuit of profit maximization frequently results in conflicts between the aims of other stakeholders, the larger system, and individual supply link participants. Contractual coordination in the supply link seeks to encourage deeper ties between stakeholders, improve overall performance, and direct each toward adopting efficient, focused, and all-encompassing collaboration in certain areas. Redistributing the benefits of CSR activities through fair and practical supply link contracts can help companies meet their CSR obligations by using sustainable energy as a renewable resource, increasing supply link participants' competitiveness and reducing conflict. Conventional profit-sharing and cost-sharing arrangements generally entail producers providing service suppliers with discounted wholesale rates or one party bearing some of the other party's expenses. The entire advantages within the supply link are ultimately redistributed based on a predetermined ratio after the predetermined time. Long-term sustainability needs to be improved by following typical contracts in the current context of sustainable energy as a renewable resource [23].

Consequently, this part combines a hybrid "profit-sharing-cost-sharing" contract with market power arrangements (producer-led, service-provider-led, and joint leadership). It examines how various CSR parties may continue to support clean finance and preserve the environmental integrity of sustainable energy products after the contract is put into effect. To maintain the environmentally friendly characteristics of sustainable energy products and the support of clean financing following contract adoption, this section looks at ways to maximize individual members' profits while improving the overall performance of the supply link.

3.2.2 Hypothesis research

Envision a supplementary sustainable energy supply link consisting of a lone producer and service supplier. To minimize these items' negative environmental effects, the producer's job is to design and produce sustainable energy products utilizing renewable resources and hydropower, for example. Furthermore, considering the substantial market demand for these sustainable energy products within the framework of the clean economic growth and the fact that many of them require the support of clean finance, the service provider must concurrently ensure the purchase of these sustainable energy services with a variety of environmentally conscious financing techniques. First, we establish the following hypotheses to ease the upcoming investigation.Hypothesis: 1 Although the producers fixed production costs for sustainable energy goods are very low, the producer must still spend money on clean R&D to advance technology in order to enhance the amount of renewable product. Saying that the producer's expenditure for clean R&D should be Cd=12zg2, where z > 0, is the R&D cost factor for clean economic growth using renewable technology as a renewable resource.

Hypothesis: 2 The demand for renewable products in the market is significantly influenced by customer awareness of consumption. Service suppliers create clean subsidy inputs to encourage consumers to buy renewable energy sources and raise their understanding of clean consumption. These inputs collectively form a clean, finance-supported incentive for a sustainable energy supply. Let service suppliers of sustainable energy products' clean financial input costs be Ca=12bv2, where the coefficient of clean economic input rate is b > 0.

Hypothesis: 3 Retail price, degree of sustainable energy, and the level of clean finance all affect market need for sustainable energy as a renewable supply for a clean financial renewal. Customers prefer to purchase goods with a high degree of sustainable energy, a top-tier of clean economics, and a cut-price. Supercilious that the product's market demand function is linear, the market need function can be calculated as q=a−p+k1g+k2v, where, a >0 indicates the possible market size for sustainable energy products; p indicates the product's retail price; g indicates the product's degree of sustainable energy; v indicates the service supplier's level of clean financial input to the renewable as a renewable resource for clean economic growth; k1 > 0 indicates the consumer's compassion index to the product's degree of sustainable energy; k2>0 indicates the consumer's sensitivity coefficient to the level of clean financial input.

Hypothesis: 4

According to this research, when manufacturers and service firm take a social responsibility attitude, they express their level of social responsibility (CSR) as an issue for surplus inventory. The difference between a product's actual price and the buyer's willingness to pay is known as consumer surplus. This difference is what makes a product purchase possible. φ represents the level of care for consumer surplus shared by both parties; a value of "0"<φ < 1 indicates a higher degree of corporate social responsibility (CSR) undertaken by both parties and, conversely, a lower feeling of social responsibility.

At the same time, the producer will pay a part of the retailer trade's expenses. In simpler terms, the agreement is reached by both sides a “revenue sharing - cost sharing” varied agreement (λ,μ), revenue sharing is practiced by the retailer. λpx, producer bears the retailer's costs 12(1−μ)bv2, (λ,μ)∈(0,1), Profits for the producer and service firm at this stage are.(1) π=m(λp+w)(a−p+k1g+k2v)−12zg2−12(1−μ)bv2

(2) π=r[(1−λ)p−w](a−p+k1g+k2v)−12μbv2

3.2.3 Symbols Description

In the notation, a retailer's participation in corporate social responsibility (CSR) is indicated by the superscript #, while the superscript # shows the producer's participation in CSR. Furthermore, the producer, the service supplier, and the complete supply link are denoted, respectively, by subscripts like m, r, and sc. Three different power structures within the game models are represented by the numbers 1, 2, and 3 in (Table 1).Table: 1 Presents the symbols used in this part.

Table: 1Symbol.	Descriptions.	Symbol.	Descriptions.	
wju	Prices at producer's wholesale
j=1,2,3,u=#,##	b	Factor of Clean Financial Input Impact	
pju	service suppliers' retail prices:
j=1,2,3,u=#,##	z	Clean Renewable Technology R&D Cost Factor: Impact of Financial Input	
gju	The product's degree of reproducibility. j=1,2,3,u=#,##	φ	Level of the producer's or service supplier's commitment to CSR	
vju	Product's level of clean financing, j=1,2,3,u=#,##	πiju	Revenue for every decision-maker,
i=m,r,sc, j=1,2,3,u=#,##	
k1	Sensitivity index for the repeatability level	Vsu	Commercial Use, s=m,r, u=#,##	
k2	Sensitivity coefficient of the amount of clean money invested	∏sju	Gain acceleration,
s=g,v,m,r,sc, j=1,2,3,u=#,##	
λ	Factor of revenue sharing contracts	μ	Contractual cost-sharing factor	

4 Coordination analysis of the supply link contract concept for sustainable energy

This section examines how various CSR contractors and various rights structures impact supply link members' equilibrium strategies in the setting of "profit-sharing-cost-sharing" combination contracts, with a focus on the coordination dynamics in supply link contracts for sustainable energy. The following recommendations are made in accordance with the concepts of profit-sharing and cost-sharing while organizing a supply chain contract.

Before beginning any contract coordination between two parties, a careful benefit-cost equilibrium analysis needs to be done. If one party's earnings drop, additional research is necessary for secondary optimization. By comparing the supply link's overall profitability to the pre-coordination scenario, this secondary assessment guarantees that the supply link achieves Pareto improvement, which benefits both sides. Second, as this paper explains, the core goals of traditional contracts namely, the creation of clean market infrastructure and the focus on clean product development should not be compromised by the introduction of coordination contracts. These fundamental objectives ought not to change. Producers are responsible for making sure that, across the supply link, the total product renewability level stays at least as high as it would be in the absence of a contract. Considering this, this part presents coordinated contract operations that use the product's degree of renewability as a renewable resource to promote clean financial levels and the recovery of the clean economy.

The producer and the service supplier are in charge of these initiatives; they work independently in non-coordinated contracts without communication or cooperation. The following coordination equation shows that the service supplier must keep the product's clean finance level at or above the level without a contract to achieve coordination equation (3).(3) gj*=gi#(j,i=1,2,3)vj*=vi*(j,i=1,2,3)

Two key suppositions are at play here: In the beginning, supply link contractual coordination produces a direct Pareto improvement if profits of each member remain unchanged following coordination. To establish supply link coordination, each party is obligated under a combination contract. Consequently, the analysis in this part is divided into two stages:

The first step involves verifying the viability of the "profit-sharing-cost-sharing" combination agreement, taking into account the unique features of the product's maker (who ensures its degree of renewability) and service supplier (who ensures its level of clean financial input).

Once the second stage confirms the combination contract's validity, each supply link participant's profitability increases. As a result, there is an increase in the supply link's total profit and Pareto improvement all the way around.

4.1 Service suppliers take on CSR

1 An analysis of producers' decisions on predetermined alignment and productivity

Proposition: 1 If the terms of a "profit-sharing-cost-sharing" combination agreement satisfy the following requirements, the contract's viability can be assured.

(4) 0<μ<12λ=bμ2−2k22μ+k22−μb2μ2+(2k24−4bk22)μ+2bk22−k24k22(1−μ)

In Equation (4) evidence suggests that the amount of product reproducibility within the contract's terms needs to match the level of product reproducibility without any contract in place for a "profit-sharing-cost-sharing" combination contract to be sustainable and improve source link coordination. This requires satisfaction of g1*=g1# (The calculation for g1* is omitted due to limited space.).(5) abk1μ2bμ2[2z(2−λ−φ)−k12]+k22z[(1−λ)2−μ(1−λ)(3−λ)]−abk12bz(2−φ)−(k12b+2k22z)=0

The reduction guarantees that the solution to the problem is inside the range. (λ,μ)∈(0,1).(6) ak1bz[(μ−1)k22λ2+2bμ2λ+2k22(1−2μ)λ+(−2μ2+3μ−1)k22][bμ22z(2−λ−φ)−bμ2k12+k22z(1−λ)2−k22zμ(1−λ)(3−λ)][2bz(2−φ)−(k12b+2k22z)]=0

Since the denominators.

bμ22z(2−λ−φ)−bμ2k12+k22z(1−λ)2−k22zμ(1−λ)(3−λ) And 2bz(2−φ)−(k12b+2k22z) are both bigger than 0, the formula just needs to have a solution.

(μ−1)k22λ2+2bμ2λ+2k22(1−2μ)λ+(−2μ2+3μ−1)k22=0 Inside the number.

Accounting for this gives.

When μ∈(0,12), and b < k22, at this moment, the answer to Equation is:λ2=bμ2−2k22μ+k22+μb2μ2+(2k24−4bk22)μ+2bk22−k24k22(1−μ)

Since g1*=abk12bz(2−φ)−(kb12+2k22z)>0, it follows that b > k22, last solution of the equation at this point is λ=bμ2−2k22μ+k22−μb2μ2+(2k24−4bk22)μ+2bk22−k24k22(1−μ) the proofis over.

A combination contract that incorporates cost-sharing and profit-sharing may be established when a service supplier embraces Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), according to Proposition 1. Under certain conditions about pertinent parameters, this combination contract can enable conditional coordination within the supply link. If no contract exists, the producer will ascertain an appropriate degree of product reproducibility corresponding to the product's current state.Proposition: 2 Under a combination contract that combines profit-sharing and cost-sharing, the producer can achieve a Pareto improvement and higher profitability. This can be accomplished if the contract limitations satisfy the succeeding requirements

0<μ<12bμ2−2k22μ+k22−μb2μ2+(2k24−4bk22)μ+2bk22−k24k22(1−μ)<λ<1

Proof In order for a mixed contract to re-escalate the producer's profits, the return on the producer's profits must exceed the producer's earnings in the absence of the contract. At this point, it is essential to satisfy πm1#>πm1*, Eq. 07

(7) Πm1#=a2bzμ22bμ2[2z(2−λ−φ)−k12]+2k22z[(1−λ)2−μ(1−λ)(3−λ)]−a2bz4bz(2−φ)−2(k12+2k22z)>0

For equation (8) to hold, the simplification is required.(8) a2bz2[(μ−1)k22λ2+2bμ2λ+2k22(1−2μ\\\\)λ+(−2μ2+3μ−1)k22][4bμ2z(2−λ−φ)−2bμ2k12+2k22z(1−λ)2−2k22zμ(1−λ)(3−λ)][4bz(2−φ)−2(k12b+2k22z)]>0

Then when μ∈(0,12), and b > k22.bμ2−2k22μ+k22−μb2μ2+(2k24−4bk22)μ+2bk22−k24k22(1−μ)<λ1<1

When ∈(0,12) , and b < k22.0<bμ2−2k22μ+k22+μb2μ2+(2k24−4bk22)μ+2bk22−k24k22(1−μ)<λ2

Similarly, since πm1*=a2bz4bz(2−φ)−2(k12b+2k22z)>0, and the range is bμ2−2k22μ+k22−μb2μ2+(2k24−4bk22)μ+2bk22−k24k22(1−μ)<λ<1.

Currently, levels of renewability:∏r1#=πr1#−πr1*=a2bz2μ3[bμ(2−2λ−φ)−k22(1−λ)2]2{bμ2[2z(2−λ−φ)−k12]+k22z[(1−λ)2−μ(1−λ)(3−λ)]}2−a2bz2(2b−bφ−k22)2[2bz(2−φ)−(k12b+2k22z)]2<0

For service suppliers right now.∏r1#=πr1#−πr1*=a2bz2μ3[bμ(2−2λ−φ)−k22(1−λ)2]2{bμ2[2z(2−λ−φ)−k12]+k22z[(1−λ)2−μ(1−λ)(3−λ)]}2−a2bz2(2b−bφ−k22)2[2bz(2−φ)−(k12b+2k22z)]2<0

Clean financing level:∏v1#=v1#−v1*=azk22μ(1−λ)bμ2[2z(2−λ−φ)−k12]+k22z[(1−λ)2−μ(1−λ)(3−λ)]−ak2z2bz(2−φ)−(k12b+2k22z)>0

For the supply link's overall profit:∏sc1#=πSC1#−πSC1*=(πm1#+πr1#)−(πm1*+πr1*)>0

The concept of the RS equilibrium state highlights that the equilibrium distribution serves as a stable framework to maintain contract participants' motivation and is the optimal method to maximize profit. The Equi-proportional distribution strategy, which is the foundation of this section, aims to increase the total profit of the supply link, manage secondary distribution within the chain, and distribute profits in a way that best serves each party's initial interests before entering into a contract. Through contractual coordination, each party can maximize and improve their earnings in this way. In particular, when there is no contract, the producer and the service supplier each make money according to a proportionate share of the higher total supply link earnings ∏sc1#, the producer's and service supplier's current profits are as follows:(9) πm1#=πm1*+πm1*πm1*+πr1*∏sc1#πr1#=πr1*+πr1*πm1*+πr1*∏sc1#

Since πm1*>0 In equation (9) a Pareto increase in profitability is attained by re-escalating the earnings of the service supplier and the producer. Proof is over.

Proposition 2 introduces a combination contract that combines profit-sharing and cost-sharing. Under specific conditions involving contract parameters and contract details. Profits can be distributed using a method that ensures an equivalent share of profits, resulting in increased total profits for the producer, service supplier, and the entire supply link while achieving a Pareto improvement. This encourages supply link members to embrace mixed contracts for their successful implementation.

Furthermore, producers can promote win-win cooperation within the supply link by adjusting the cost-sharing proportions, thereby facilitating the equitable distribution of benefits among supply link participants. In this point, overall profit for the producer, service supplier, and the entire supply link surpasses what is attainable without a contract, thus achieving a complete Pareto improvement. This illustrates that introducing a coordinated contract increases individual profits.(2) Aligning Service supplier Contracts and Analyzing Profit Decisions

Proposition: 3 A "profit-sharing-cost-sharing" combination compact is guaranteed to work if the conditions outlined below are satisfied.

(10) 0<λ<1μ=z(4−φ)−2k12z(2λ−φ+4)−2k12(1+λ)

It is necessary to demonstrate that the condition leads to a solvable equation, namely equation (5).

This is due to the requirement that the amount of clean financial inputs under the agreement and the no-contract conditions be equal.(11) −abk2z[zμ(2λ−φ+4)−2k12(1+λ)μ+2k12+z(φ−4)][bμz(2λ−φ+4)−2bμk12(1+λ)−k22z][bz(4−φ)−(2k12b+k22z)]=0

Since the denominators bμz(2λ−φ+4)−2bμk12(1+λ)−k22z and bz(4−φ)−(2k12b+k22z) are both bigger than zero, only the formula's numerator zμ(2λ−φ+4)−2k12(1+λ)μ+2k12+z(φ−4)=0 is necessary for a solution to exist.

Since z>k12, then when 0<λ<1, =−2k12+z(φ−4)z(2λ−φ+4)−2k12(1+λ) the proof is finished.

According to Proposal, conditional supply link coordination can be attained through a "profit-sharing-cost-sharing" combination agreement wherein the service supplier assumes Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and specific requirements are met among applicable limits.Proposition: 4 When the terms of the contract meet specific requirements, a "profit-sharing-cost-sharing" hybrid agreement might help service suppliers coordinate their supply links and increase profits.

(12) 0<λ<10<μ<k22z2bλ(z−k12)+k22z

Proof In order for the service supplier to experience profit re-escalation in a mixed contract, the service supplier's profit under the contract must exceed the service supplier's profit in the event that a contract is not entered into. Equation (7) states that πr2#>πr2* must be satisfied in order for this condition to be satisfied.

(13) ∏r2#=a2bμz2bμ[z(2λ−φ+4)−2k12(1+λ)]−2k22z−a2bz2[bz(4−φ)−(2k12b+k22z)>0

The range of solutions for problem (8) is guaranteed by the simplification.(14) −a2bz[2bλμ(z−k12)+k22μz−k22z]2[2bμz(2λ−φ+4)−4bμk12(1+λ)−2k22z][2bz(4−φ)−(2k12b+k22z)>0

Since the denominators 2bμz(2λ−φ+4)−4bμk12(1+λ)−2k22z and 2bz(4−φ)−(2k12b+k22z) are both more than 0, the formula is the only one that has to be used. 2bλμ(z−k12)+k22μz−k22z>0 in the numerator to be constant Equations (12)–(14).

Then, since z>k12, when 0<λ<1, 0<μ<k22z2bλ(z−k12)+k22z.

The current state of clean financing is as follows:(15) ∏v2#=v2#−v2*=ak2zbμ[z(2λ−φ+4)−2k12(1+λ)]−k22z−ak2zbz(4−φ)−(2k12b+k22z)>0

For producers:(16) ∏m2#=πm2#−πm2*=a2bz[bμ2(1+λ)(2z−k12λ−k12+k22z(μ−1)]2{bμ[z(2λ−φ+4)−2k12(1+λ)]−k22z}2−a2b2z(2z−k12)2[bz(4−φ)−(2k12b+k22z)]2>0

Product reproducibility level:(17) ∏g2#=g2#−g2*=abk1μ(1+λ)bμ[z(2λ−φ+4)−2k12(1+λ)]−k22z−abk1bz(4−φ)−(2k12b+k22z)>0

For total supply link profit:

∏sc2#=πSC2#−πSC2*=(πm2#+πr2#)−(πm2*+πr2*)>0Proof, finished.

Proposal 4, presents when a "profit-sharing-cost-sharing" combination contract is in existence, there is an increase in the quantity of clean finance and product renewability; also, the service supplier assumes CSR and certain requirements within the contract limits are met. As a result, the profit of the producer, the service supplier, and the supply link as a whole all increase. This not only facilitates supply link coordination but also Pareto improvement. In this instance, the results of supply link contractual coordination are in line with the objectives and guiding principles, obviating the necessity for a backup optimization technique.

4.2 The producer takes on CSR

Evaluating producers' decisions regarding contractual alignment and profitability.Proposition: 5 If the following conditions are met, supply link coordination may be achievable under a "profit-sharing-cost-sharing" combination contract.

0<μ<12λ=bμ2−2k22μ+k22−μb2μ2+(2k24−4bk22)μ+2bk22−k24k22(1−μ)

To prove supply link coordination is possible using a "profit-sharing-cost-sharing" combination contract, it is necessary to show that the equation g1**=g1## has a solution. This is due to the requirement that the degree of renewable clean under the contract, as a renewable resource for a clean economic growth, be equivalent to the degree of renewable clean under the no-contract scenario.(18) abk1μ2bμ2[z(4−2λ−φ)−k12]+k22z[(1−λ)2−μ(1−λ)(3−λ)]−abk1bz(4−φ)−(k12b+2k22z)=0

The reduction guarantees that the solution to equation (13) falls inside the range (λ,μ)∈(0,1).(19) abk1z[(μ−1)k22λ2+2bμ2λ+2k22(1−2μ)λ+(−2μ2+3μ−1)k22][bμ2z(4−2λ−φ)−bμ2k12+k22z(1−λ)2−k22zμ(1−λ)(3−λ)]bz(4−φ)−(k12b+2k22z)=0

The solution is obtained as(20) λ1=bμ2−2k22μ+k22−μb2μ2+(2k24−4bk22)μ+2bk22−k24k22(1−μ)

(21) λ2=bμ2−2k22μ+k22+μb2μ2+(2k24−4bk22)μ+2bk22−k24k22(1−μ)

Since b > k22 remains constant, the answer to Equation is:λ=bμ2−2k22μ+k22−μb2μ2+(2k24−4bk22)μ+2bk22−k24k22(1−μ)

In the context of a producer's participation in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Proposal 5 indicates that, under certain circumstances, a combination contract that incorporates components of profit-sharing and cost-sharing can result in thriving supply link coordination. These prerequisites include fulfilling specific requirements and guaranteeing that the producer's assessment of the product's repeatability corresponds with the circumstances seen in a no-contract situation.Proposition: 6 If specific contract parameters meet the following requirements, the producer can modify its profits through a combination contract that combines revenue-sharing and cost-sharing.

(22) 0<μ<12bμ2−2k22μ+k22−μb2μ2+(2k24−4bk22)μ+2bk22−k24k22(1−μ)<λ<1

It is crucial to provide evidence that the producer's earnings can rise under a hybrid agreement when they engage in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in order to support this. This will happen when the producer's profits under the terms of the agreement are more than their profits in the absence of the covenant. This need, shown as (22), needs to be fulfilled.(23) ∏m1##=a2bμ2z2bμ[z(4−2λ−φ)−k12]+2k22z[(1−λ)2−μ(1−λ)(3−λ)]−a2bz2bz(4−φ)−2(k12b+2k22z)>0

To make sure that equation (24) holds, the simplification is required.(24) a2bz2[(μ−1)k22λ2+2bμ2λ+2k22(1−2μ)λ+(−2μ2+3μ−1)k22][2bμ2z(4−2λ−φ)−2bμ2k12+2k22z(1−λ)2−2k22μ(1−λ)(3−λ)][2bz(4−φ)−2(k12b+2k22z)]>0

Since the denominator.

[2bμ2z(4−2λ−φ)−2bμ2k12+2k22z(1−λ)2−2k22μ(1−λ)(3−λ)][2bz(4−φ)−2(k12b+2k22z)] is more than 0, it's enough that the equation.

(μ−1)k22λ2+2bμ2λ+2k22(1−2μ)λ+(−2μ2+3μ−1)k22>0 Constant in the numerator.

Currently, levels of renewability equation (24):(25) ∏g1##=g1##−g1**=abk1μ(1+λ)bμ2[z(4−2λ−φ)−k12]+k22z[(1−λ)2−μ(1−λ)(3−π)]−abk1bz(4−φ)−(k12b+2k22z)>0

Now, about service suppliers:(26) ∏r1##=πr1##−πr1**=a2bμ3z2(1−λ)[2bμ+k22(λ−1)]2{bμ2[z(4−2λ−φ)−k12]+k22z[(1−λ)2−μ(1−λ)(3−λ)]}2−a2bz2(2b−k22)2[bz(4−φ)−(k12b+2k22z)]2

Product Clean Finance Level:(27) ∏v1##=v1##−v1**=(1−λ)azk2μbμ2[z(4−2λ−φ)−k12]+k22z[(1−λ)2−μ(1−λ)(3−λ)−ak2zbz(4−φ)−(k12b+2k22z)>0

Regarding overall supply link earnings:∏sc1##=πSC1##−πSC1**=(πm1##+πr1##)−(πm1**+πr1**)>0

The aforementioned computation indicates that when a producer engages in corporate social responsibility, their profit margin rises but the service supplier's profit falls, resulting in a net benefit of Πsc1## for the entire supply link. The supply link's increased profit, Πsc1##, is then divided equally among all participants. Accordingly, the producer and the service supplier split the additional profit of the entire supply link, Πsc1##, equally based on the gains from the no-contract situation in equations (25), (26), (27).

Providers are as πm1##=πm1**+πm1**πm1**+πr1**∏sc1##πr1##=πr1**+πr1**πm1**+πr1**∏sc1##.

Higher earnings for the producer and service supplier result in a Pareto improvement in total profitability. This brings the proofto an end.

To improve product renewability and clean finance, Proposition 6 proposes a combination contract that combines "profit-sharing" and "cost-sharing." Under this agreement, the producer agrees to engage in corporate social responsibility (CSR) upon fulfilling certain contractual requirements. This strategy makes it possible for profits to be distributed fairly. In contrast to a contractual setting, the profit-sharing model increases profitability for the producer, the service supplier, and the supply link. This illustrates how the "profit-sharing-cost-sharing" combination contract encourages members to adopt supply link cooperation.(2) Analyzing Profitability Decision-Making and Retailer Covenant Alignment

Proposition: 7 If certain conditions are met, supply link coordination can occur when revenue-sharing and sharing costs are combined in a combination contract.

(28) 0<λ<1μ=z(2−φ)−k12z(λ−φ+2)−k12(1+λ)]

Specifically, we need to show that the equation v2**=v2## has a solution, as given in equation (28), must determine that, in the event that the producer undertakes Corporate Social In order to accomplish supply link coordination for a "profit-sharing-cost-sharing" combo contract, the quantity of clean funding for the product under the agreement must match amount under no-contract condition. This is known as responsibility (CSR) Equation (29).(29) ak2z2bμ[z(λ−φ+2)−k12(1+λ)]−k22z−ak2z2bz(2−φ)−(2k12b+k22z)=0

The simplification guarantees that there is a solution to equation (29)(30) 2abk2z[μ(φ−λ−2)+k12(1+λ)μ−k12+z(2−φ)][2bμz(λ−φ+2)−2bμk12(1+λ)−k22z][2bz(2−φ)−(2k12b+k22z)]=0

Since the denominator.

[2bμz(λ−φ+2)−2bμk12(1+λ)−k22z][2bz(2−φ)−(2k12b+k22z)] is more than 0, it is merely required that the equation μ(φ−λ−2)+k12(1+λ)μ−k12+z(2−φ)=0.

Solution for: μ=z(2−φ)−k12z(λ−φ+2)−k12(1+λ).Proposition: 8 If the contract terms are met, the service supplier can earn extra money again by entering into a hybrid agreement that includes revenue and cost-sharing.

0<λ<10<μ<k22z2bλ(z−k12)+k22z

Evidence suggests that the profit of the service supplier must surpass the retailer's profit in the absence of the contract in order for it to be reintensified under the combination contract assuming that the service supplier is a CSR Producer. This condition is written as π πr2##>πr2**, which indicates that equation (30) is valid.(31) ∏r2##=a2bμz4bμ[z(λ−φ+2)−k12(1+λ)]−2k22z−a2bz2[2bz(2−φ)−(2k12b+k22z)>0

equation (31) has a solution because of the simplification.(32) 2a2bz[2bλμ(k12−z)−k22zu+k22z]2[4bμz(λ−φ+2)−4bμk12(1+λ)−2k22z][4bz(2−φ)−2(2k12b+k22z)>0

Since the denominator.

[4bμz(λ−φ+2)−4bμk12(1+λ)−2k22z][4bz(2−φ)−2(2k12b+k22z) is greater than 0, the numerator's formula merely has to remain constant.

Since z>k12, then when 0<λ<1.

Current state of clean finance:(33) ∏v2##=v2##−v2**=ak2z2bμ[z(λ−φ+2)−k12(1+λ)]−k22z−ak2z2bz(2−φ)−(2k12b+k22z)>0

For producers:(34) ∏m2##=πm2##−πm2**=abk1μ(1+λ)2{2bμ[z(λ−φ+2)−k12(1+λ)]−k22z}2−a2b2z(2z−k12−zφ)2[2bz(2−φ)−(2k12b+k22z)]2>0

Level of product reproducibility:(35) ∏g2##=g2##−g2**=abk1μ(1+λ)2bμ[z(λ−φ+2)−k12(1+λ)]−k22z−abk12bz(2−φ)−(2k12b+k22z)>0

Regarding overall supply link earnings:(36) ∏sc2##=πSC2##−πSC2**=(πm2##+πr2##)−(πm2**+πr2**)>0

Proposition 8 suggests a hybrid agreement based on "profit-sharing-cost-sharing" to raise the standard of environmentally friendly financing and product sustainability. The producer abides by the conditions stated in the contract and engages in corporate social responsibility, or CSR, under this arrangement. In addition to achieving Pareto improvement, this encourages supply link alignment by raising profitability for the producer, the service supplier, and the entire supply link equations (33), (34), (35).

4.3 Simulations analysis

This part utilized statistical replication to evaluate the model and the logic behind the "profit-sharing-cost-sharing" amalgam contract management mechanism. It also clarifies the implications of the suggestion the following list of the critical factors for sustainable energy items is described in the relevant literature. Since different products have different features, it is acceptable to adjust the pertinent values to fit the needs of certain things and combine them with facts.a=200,b=20,z=20,k1=1,k2=1,φ=0.5

(1) The effect of the combination agreement ratio (λ, μ) for revenue-sharing-cost-sharing on the earnings of producers πm#.

(Fig. 1) present CSR rank for service supplier/producer under three different power constructions: if μ is stable, the producer's profit πm# rises with the rise of profits distribution factor λ; when λ is fixed, πm# rises with rise in the cost-distribution coefficient μ; and for the producer, as the service provider parts more profit to the producer and accepts low clean finance costs, its general profit is raised. It is also easy to discover that a producer has more negotiating leverage when it controls a large portion of the market. The producer's income is larger when the service supplier involves in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in producer-led and co-led markets than when the producer engages in CSR. However, when the service supplier takes on CSR compared to when producer does, the producer's profit is reduced in the service supplier-led market (Table 2).(2) The effect of “revenue-sharing-cost-sharing” combination agreement proportion coefficients (λ,μ) on sellers' profits πr.

Fig. 1 CSR status under each of the three entitlement schemes.

Fig. 1

Table: 2 Provide the producer's or service supplier's CSR status under each of the three entitlement schemes.

Table: 2Entitlement Structure	Producer's Profit (π_m^#)	
Fixed μ, varying λ	Increases with increasing λ	
Fixed λ, varying μ	Increases with increasing μ	
Different market domination	Producer > Both > Service supplier	
Producer-led CSR	Higher when Producer undertakes CSR	
Co-led CSR	Higher when Producer undertakes CSR	
Service supplier-led CSR	Lower when Service supplier assumes CSR	

Their profit sharing is appropriate in a producer-dominated market when λ is fixed, and this can lead to an increase in their profit. In markets where service suppliers dominate or where both parties jointly dominate, this situation does not occur. In a market led by producers, service supplier will decide to reduce wholesale price when it is fixed in order to grow market and boost its profit. Nonetheless, overall profit increases in tandem with the service supplier's clean finance expenses. Likewise, this phenomenon is absent from markets that are jointly dominated by both parties or that are dominated by a service supplier. The total profit for the service supplier decreases as the cost of clean finance increases. Finding that a market led by a service supplier has more rights and, thus, bigger earnings is likewise not difficult. A market led by two parties is followed by a market led by producers. When both business group equally lead the market and the service supplier dominates it, π_r# declines as λ rises. In a similar vein, under conditions where the producer controls the market and μ is constant, the service supplier's profit (π_r#) rises in tandem with the cost-sharing coefficient (μ). When μ is fixed, the profit margin of the service supplier rises and falls in the producer-dominated market as the cost-sharing factor rises. Various rights frameworks have varied effects on service suppliers. When a service supplier adopts CSR, their profit margin will be smaller than that of the producer under a fixed right structure. Furthermore, the mixed "revenue sharing - cost-sharing" contract ratio factor (λ, μ) has a significant impact on the service supplier's profit when it assumes CSR (Fig. 2) (Table 3)(3) Three different rights structures are used to analyze the effect of the combination contract ratio coefficients (λ, μ) in the "profit-sharing-cost-sharing" model on the renewability of the product (represented as g).

Fig. 2 contract ratio coefficients (λ, μ) in the "profit-sharing-cost-sharing.

Fig. 2

Table: 3 Three different rights structures are used to analyze the effect of the combination contract ratio coefficients (λ, μ) in the "profit-sharing-cost-sharing.

Table: 3Market Dominance	Impact on Profit Sharing	Impact on Clean Finance Costs	Impact on Profit	
Producer-Dominated	Optimal sharing ratio for service suppliers	Clean finance cost rise leads to profit increase	Profit increases with λ; Profit increases with μ	
Service supplier-Dominated	No optimal sharing ratio for profit sharing	Clean finance cost rise leads to profit decrease	Profit decreases with λ; Profit decreases with μ	
Joint Dominance by Both Parties	No optimal sharing ratio for profit sharing	Clean finance cost rise leads to profit decrease	Profit decreases with λ; Profit decreases with μ	
Different Rights Structures	Lower profit than producer with CSR	Impact of (λ,μ) on profit	Profit decreases with λ; Profit decreases with μ	

The situation of producers or service suppliers about Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) under three different rights frameworks is depicted in (Fig. 3). One essential component of a clean economic growth is the renewable resource. With a constant revenue-sharing coefficient (λ), the product's degree (g) rises proportionately to the growth in λ.Fig. 3 CSR status under each of the three rights structures.

Fig. 3

As the proportion of the service provider's revenue attributed to them increases, the producer becomes increasingly motivated to engage in research and development (R&D) while adopting sustainable energy as a renewable source for manufacturing environmentally friendly products. As a result, more clean finance is available for products, which grows the product market and boosts revenues. On the other hand, the market contracts, the service supplier's earnings drop, and efforts to fund the product cleanly diminish when market dominance is shared by one or both parties. In these situations, the producer needs more incentive to make products with sustainable energy, which lowers the product's renewability (Table 4).Table: 4 Display the producer's or service supplier's CSR status under each of the three rights structures.

Table: 4Market Dominance	Impact on CSR Status	Impact on Product Renewability	Impact on Profit Growth	
Producer-Dominated	Increase with g and λ	Increase with μ	Increase with producer's share of revenue	
Service supplier-Dominated	Decrease with g	Decrease with μ	Decrease in profits and clean finance efforts	
Joint Dominance by Both Parties	Decrease with g	Decrease with μ	Decrease in profits and clean finance efforts	
Product Renewability	Highest under producer dominance, followed by joint dominance	N/A	N/A	

However, a producer with a sizable market share gains from a stronger market position and more purchasing power, which raises customer willingness to pay and increases the product's renewability. This product market expansion guarantees increased profits. As a result, joint control by both parties and producer dominance in the market yield the highest degree of product renewability. Ultimately, the service supplier has the lion's share of the market.

When the market is dominated by producers and the service supplier takes on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), as opposed to when the producer takes on CSR duties, product repetition is higher, according to case comparisons within the same structural framework. On the other hand, when a service supplier acquires CSR as opposed to a producer, the product's repeatability is reduced in a market where service suppliers are more prominent. Regardless of the CSR practitioner, the level of product recyclability in a jointly dominated market is constant.(4) The effect of “profit-sharing-cost-sharing” combination contract proportion coefficients (λ,μ) on product clean finance ν.

The choice of the service provider to distribute earnings can serve as additional evidence supporting the requirement for an ideal sharing ratio coefficient that aims to maximize total profits. Because businesses incur greater fixed clean finance expenses regardless of power structure, retailers may reduce their clean finance initiatives in such instances in order to protect profits. As a result, service provider-dominated markets have the highest degree of clean product financing, followed by producer-dominated markets and markets where both parties are equally dominant. The manufacturer and service provider's Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) status is depicted in (Fig. 4).Fig. 4 (CSR) in the producer and service supplier.

Fig. 4

An increase in at a constant causes the level of product clean finance (v) to rise and then fall in a market where producers dominate. On the other hand, when both parties jointly lead a market or when a service provider dominates it, a rise in results in a fall in earnings. In the meantime, as λ increases, the product clean finance (v) declines under fixed λ and three different power architectures. Under the same structural conditions, the product's clean finance input in a producer-led market is greater when both the producer and the service provider participate in CSR. On the other hand, when the service provider takes on CSR as opposed to the producer, the product's clean finance is reduced in a market that is subjugated by service providers. In a co-led market, the product's financial contribution doesn't change depending on who participates in corporate social responsibility (Table 5).Table: 5 Present the status of (CSR) in the producer and service supplier.

Table: 5Market Dominance	Relationship between Clean Finance and λ	Relationship between Profit Share and Market Dominance	
Producer-Dominated	v increases, then decreases with λ	Profit share increases when clean finance investment increases	
Service supplier-Dominated	p decreases with λ	Profit share within a reasonable range increases clean finance investment	
Jointly Dominated	v decreases with λ	No significant change in clean finance investment with CSR	

5 Conclusions and suggestions

This article examines settlement and collaboration for using sustainable energy as a renewable natural resource to support clean economic growth. This is carried out by the terms of a combination contract that includes cost- and benefit-sharing components. Within this framework, the study also focuses on advancing economic growth. Three supply link coordination models are developed to comprehend the effects of various rights structures on the best choices made by supply link participants when producers or service providers pursue Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) on their own. The study also looks at how different rights structures affect the best choices made by supply chain participants if a producer or service entity independently embraces Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) within a shared rights framework.

The study's findings indicate that, within a specific range, contract terms play a significant role in promoting productive cooperation among supply chain actors. This improved efficiency includes less harmful environmental effects, equitable benefit distribution, and more effective utilization of natural resources. All of these findings contribute to the development of a sustainable clean economy that increases firm operational efficiency, enhances supply link coordination, and increases the profitability of supply link members. These findings support the rationale and importance of using coordination contracts.

Key findings

1. The ownership and rights arrangements of producers and suppliers dictate the implications of the "profit-sharing-cost-sharing" combo contract. This makes the case that companies must select market dominance by the current legal frameworks to achieve their strategic goals of corporate efficiency and economic expansion.

2. A corporation must ascertain the producer-dominated market structure to enhance productivity and foster economic recovery. If a service provider wants to reap similar benefits, they should choose the market structure in which they are dominant.

3. The wholesale cost of sustainable energy, a natural resource that is renewable and necessary to resurrect the clean economy, is frequently more significant in producer-driven markets than it is in markets headed by service providers. There is a pricing difference since producers must bear the financial burden of increasing sustainable energy. Producers use wholesale prices to grow their market share to offset these costs.

4. Supply chain operators are required to choose the suitable rights structure market carefully by analyzing the rights structured market inside the context of the "benefit-sharing-cost-sharing" combo contract. It doesn't matter who is ultimately in charge of corporate social responsibility (CSR) the service provider or the producer making this strategic decision is crucial to fostering more fruitful cooperation.

5. When the producer controls the market through secondary distribution, the service supplier can still achieve Pareto improvement even if it gives up certain benefits to boost the producer's bottom line and the overall profitability of the supply link. This encourages better cooperation between the two sides.

6. The combination contract promotes clean financing, economic growth, and improved product renewability, all of which support the long-term viability of a robust, effective, and ecologically friendly supply chain. Therefore, the industry leader in source link management must modify their strategic goals to promote more fruitful and cordial cooperation amongst all stakeholders.

Policy suggestions

1. The profit potential of every link in the supply link is determined by its power dynamics. When members hold a dominant position, their interests are usually far higher than when they don't. This could lead to a struggle for interests and an uneven power distribution. Supply links should prioritize long-term cohesion and the creation of a dependable, active, and lawfully binding coordination contract.

2. Rather than undermining the existence or interests of any one party, the primary objective of coordination is to bring all parties' limits into line within a framework of integration and commonality. This aims to maximize the overall profitability and quality of the supply link. All parties involved should cooperate and collaborate to develop a solid supply link with a stable, productive contractual connection and a favorable power structure relationship.

3. Active participation in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) improves every link in the supply link by improving customer welfare, solving the issue of high input costs and low income, and encouraging market demand for sustainable energy products. By its very nature, the sustainable energy supply link is ecologically conscious and progressive.

4. By actively pursuing CSR, each member contributes to the modernization and enhancement of the manufacturing sector, shaping the macroeconomic environment through clean development. The development of a clean manufacturing system can be patterned after the supply link for sustainable energy, concentrating on the coordination and cooperation of supply link node companies.

5. The dedication to corporate social responsibility (CSR), which takes a leading position in the supply link and fosters internal ties toward resource conservation and eco-friendliness, finally ignites a market-wide clean revolution.

6. In marketplaces where producers or suppliers predominate, supply link participants who enter into hybrid "profit-sharing-cost-sharing" contracts stand to gain more benefits. Members that collaborate and exchange knowledge have made this excellent outcome possible. Cooperation and communication between supply chain participants, suppliers, and distributors alike need to be improved in order to promote win-win situations and cooperative efforts involving several parties. They can create a beneficial and advantageous network that eventually increases benefits for all stakeholders by working together effectively.

Limitations and future scope

The study has several limitations. It relies heavily on secondary data sources and industry rankings, which may not fully capture the latest developments in CSR practices and renewable energy initiatives. This could lead to an incomplete or skewed understanding of the current landscape. Additionally, while the study covers diverse sectors, the primary focus is on the mining industry. This sector-specific emphasis might limit the generalizability of the findings to other industries with different CSR dynamics and renewable energy adoption patterns. The research primarily considers data from specific regions, which might not represent global trends comprehensively. Regional differences in policy, economic conditions, and environmental priorities could influence the applicability of the results. The rapidly evolving nature of CSR frameworks and renewable energy policies means that the study's findings may quickly become outdated. Continuous changes in regulations and market conditions necessitate ongoing research to keep the insights relevant. The novel composite CSR evaluation indicator, while innovative, may have inherent biases or limitations in its design and application. The robustness and reliability of this indicator need further validation through empirical testing in varied contexts.

Future research should extend the analysis to include a broader range of industries beyond mining. This will help in understanding how different sectors integrate CSR with renewable energy initiatives and how these practices influence their economic and environmental outcomes. Conducting longitudinal studies will provide deeper insights into the long-term impacts of CSR initiatives and renewable energy contracts on sustainable economic recovery. Tracking changes over time will help identify trends and causal relationships more accurately. Expanding the geographical scope to include a more diverse set of regions will enhance the global relevance of the findings. Comparative studies across different countries and economic contexts can uncover best practices and policy implications that are universally applicable. Implementing in-depth case studies of specific companies or projects that have successfully integrated CSR and renewable energy contracts can provide detailed insights and practical examples. These case studies can serve as benchmarks for other organizations aiming to achieve similar goals. Future research should include a thorough analysis of the impact of different policy frameworks on the effectiveness of CSR and renewable energy initiatives. Understanding how various regulatory environments facilitate or hinder these efforts will inform better policy-making. Investigating the role of emerging technologies in enhancing CSR and renewable energy practices can open new avenues for sustainable development. Technologies such as blockchain for transparent supply chains and AI for optimizing resource use could significantly transform the landscape. Including the perspectives of various stakeholders, such as consumers, investors, and community members, will provide a holistic understanding of the social and economic impacts of CSR and renewable energy initiatives. Stakeholder feedback can guide more inclusive and effective strategies.

Data availability Statement

No prevoiusly published data associated with this study.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Ke Xing: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Supervision, Project administration, Methodology, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Wing-Keung Wong: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Formal analysis, Data curation. Shang Chen: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Iskandar Muda: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Investigation, Data curation, Conceptualization. Sayed M. Ismail: Supervision, Project administration, Methodology, Formal analysis. Muhammad Akhtar: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Methodology, Formal analysis.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgment

This study is supported via funding from Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University Project Number (PSAU 2024/R/1445 ).
==== Refs
References

1 Deng M. China economic performance and natural resources commodity prices volatility: evidence from China in COVID-19 Resour. Policy 75 Mar 2022 10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102525
2 Li L. Ma S. Zheng Y. Ma X. Duan K. Do regional integration policies matter? Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment on heterogeneous green innovation Energy Econ. 116 Dec. 2022 10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106426
3 H. Sun, Z. Shen, Z. Shen, H. Sun, N. Iqbal, and M. Mohsin, “Resources Policy Unlocking Market Dynamics : the Impact of Carbon Taxation on Digital Strategies and Energy Efficiency in Natural Resource Management under Digital Government”.
4 Solangi Y.A. Jianguo D. Examining challenges and solutions for environmental and natural resource management with a focus on mineral resources Resour. Policy 86 2023 104085 10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104085
5 Ma Y. Fan Y. Razzaq A. Influence of technical efficiency and globalization on sustainable resources management: evidence from South Asian countries Resour. Policy 81 2023 10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.103281
6 Kuang H. Liang Y. Zhao W. Cai J. Impact of natural resources and technology on economic development and sustainable environment–Analysis of resources-energy-growth-environment linkages in BRICS Resour. Policy 85 2023 103865
7 Chen F. Towards achieving eco-efficiency in top 10 polluted countries: the role of green technology and natural resource rents Gondwana Res. 110 Oct. 2022 114 127 10.1016/J.GR.2022.06.010
8 Shen Y. Su Z.W. Malik M.Y. Umar M. Khan Z. Khan M. Does green investment, financial development and natural resources rent limit carbon emissions? A provincial panel analysis of China Sci. Total Environ. 755 Feb 2021 10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2020.142538
9 Feng S. Li J. Nawi H.M. Alhamdi F.M. Shamansurova Z. Assessing the nexus between fintech, natural resources, government effectiveness, and environmental pollution in China: a QARDL study Resour. Policy 88 2024 104433 10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104433
10 Zhang J. Chen Z. Altuntaş M. Tracing volatility in natural resources, green finance and investment in energy resources: fresh evidence from China Resour. Policy 79 2022 10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102946
11 Cui X. Wang P. Sensoy A. Nguyen D.K. Pan Y. Green credit policy and corporate productivity: evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 177 Apr 2022 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121516
12 Münch C. Benz L.A. Hartmann E. Exploring the circular economy paradigm: a natural resource-based view on supplier selection criteria J. Purch. Supply Manag. 28 4 2022 100793 10.1016/j.pursup.2022.100793
13 Shen Y. Su Z.W. Malik M.Y. Umar M. Khan Z. Khan M. Does green investment, financial development and natural resources rent limit carbon emissions? A provincial panel analysis of China Sci. Total Environ. 755 Feb. 2021 142538 10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2020.142538
14 Zheng C. Wu S. Teng Y. Wu S. Wang Z. Natural resources, tourism resources and economic growth: a new direction to natural resources perspective and investment Resour. Policy 86 2023 10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104134
15 Hoa P.X. Xuan V.N. Thu N.T.P. Huong L.M. Nexus of innovation, foreign direct investment, economic growth and renewable energy: new insights from 60 countries Energy Rep. 11 2024 1834 1845 10.1016/j.egyr.2024.01.050
16 Appiah-Otoo I. Chen X. Ampah J.D. Exploring the moderating role of foreign direct investment in the renewable energy and economic growth nexus: evidence from West Africa Energy 281 2023 128346 10.1016/j.energy.2023.128346
17 Usman M. Kousar R. Makhdum M.S.A. Yaseen M.R. Nadeem A.M. Do financial development, economic growth, energy consumption, and trade openness contribute to increase carbon emission in Pakistan? An insight based on ARDL bound testing approach Environ. Dev. Sustain. 25 1 2023 444 473 10.1007/s10668-021-02062-z
18 Yi C. chao Ma H. Zhao K. Impacts of digital economic transformation and green growth on trade flows of mineral resources Resour. Policy 90 Mar 2024 10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.104664
19 Bi M. Impact of COVID-19 on environmental regulation and economic growth in China: a Way forward for green economic recovery Econ. Anal. Policy 77 2023 1001 1015 10.1016/J.EAP.2022.12.015 36590107
20 Wang Q. Guo J. Li R. Jiang X. Exploring the role of nuclear energy in the energy transition: a comparative perspective of the effects of coal, oil, natural gas, renewable energy, and nuclear power on economic growth and carbon emissions Environ. Res. 221 2023 115290 10.1016/j.envres.2023.115290
21 Wang J. Zhang S. Zhang Q. The relationship of renewable energy consumption to financial development and economic growth in China Renew. Energy 170 Jun. 2021 897 904 10.1016/J.RENENE.2021.02.038
22 Degbedji D.F. Akpa A.F. Chabossou A.F. Osabohien R. Institutional quality and green economic growth in West African economic and monetary union Innov. Green Dev. 3 1 Mar. 2024 100108 10.1016/J.IGD.2023.100108
23 Zhao L. Chau K.Y. Tran T.K. Sadiq M. Xuyen N.T.M. Phan T.T.H. Enhancing green economic recovery through green bonds financing and energy efficiency investments Econ. Anal. Policy 76 2022 488 501 10.1016/j.eap.2022.08.019
