Environmental analysis and impact on green business strategy and performance in SMEs post the Covid-19 pandemic

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research framework.

Table 1. Percentage Amount Sample.

No	Types of SMEs	Amount	Percentage (%)
1	Processing Food	36	35
2	Processing Skin	37	36
3	Furniture	30	29
Total		103	100

Table 2. Dimensions and Indicators of the Balanced ScoreCard.

Dimensions	Indicator	Source
Perspective Money	ROA	(Vieira et al., 2024)
	Sales Growth
	Cash Flow
Perspective Customer	Satisfaction Customer
	Market Share
	Retention Customer
Internal Business Process Perspective	Operation Process
	Innovation
Perspective Learning and Growth	Capability Employee
	Climate Organization

Table 3. Dimensions and indicators of green business strategy.

Dimensions	Indicator	Source
Green HRM	Green Recruitment	(Yasir et al., 2020)
	Green Selection
	Green Training and Development
Green Financing	Reach Superiority Industry	(Porzionato et al., 2020)
	Development Investment
Green Marketing	Green Price	(Yasir et al., 2020).
	Green Promotion
	Green Distribution
Green Production	Green Materials
	Waste Reduction
Green R&D	Green Product Development
	Green Technology Innovation
Green Purchasing	Purchase Environmentally Friendly Raw Materials
	Green Supplier Selection

Table 4. Dimensions and indicators of environmental orientation.

Dimensions	Indicator	Source
Internal Environmental Orientation	Company Commitment	(O’Brien et al., 2018; Yasir et al., 2020).
	Protection Value Environment
External Environmental Orientation	Connection with Stakeholders
	Understanding Demands Stekholder

Table 5. Environmental performance dimensions and indicators.

Dimensions	Indicator	Source
Resource Usage	Source Power Financial	(Zhang et al., 2024)
	Source Power Physique
	Source Power Man
Regulatory Compliance	Specification	(Fitriyani et al., 2020)
	Standard
Stakeholder Interaction	Each other Dependency	(Barboza et al., 2024)
	Harmony Objective
	Trust	(Apip et al., 2020)
Productivity	Efficiency	(Snapp et al., 2018).
	Quality

Table 6. Top management environmental awareness dimensions and indicators.

Dimensions	Indicator	Source
General Awareness	Knowledge	(Sugiarto & Gabriella, 2020)
	Action
Cost Benefit Awareness	Cost Prevention Environment	(Bibri et al., 2024)
	Cost Detection Environment
Environmental Attitude	Connectedness to Nature	(Mohammadi et al., 2024)

Table 7. Likert Scale.

Answer	Mark	Source
Absolutely No Agree	1	(Memmedova & Ertuna, 2024)
No Agree	2
Neutral	3
Agree	4
Strongly Agree	5

Table 8. Likert Scale.

Answer	Mark	Source
Absolutely No Agree	1	(Memmedova & Ertuna, 2024)
No Agree	2
Neutral	3
Agree	4
Strongly Agree	5

Table 9. Confirmatory factor analysis validity test.

Variable	Item	Factor loading
Environmental Orientation	EO1	0.812
	EO2	0.850
	EO3	0.831
	EO4	0.834
	EO5	0.872
	EO6	0.853
Green Business Strategy	GBS1	0.763
	GBS2	0.850
	GBS3	0.848
	GBS4	0.887
	GBS5	0.845
	GBS6	0.759
	GBS7	0.853
	GBS8	0.885
	GBS9	0.872
	GBS10	0.881
	GBS11	0.864
	GBS12	0.845
	GBS13	0.880
	GBS14	0.863
	GBS15	0.876
	GBS16	0.857
	GBS17	0.874
	GBS18	0.888
SME Performance	KI1	0.855
	KI2	0.861
	KI3	0.855
	KI4	0.857
	KI5	0.914
	KI6	0.904
	KI7	0.851
	KI8	0.873
	KI9	0.880
	KI10	0.841
	KI11	0.917
	KI12	0.883
Environmental Performance	EP1	0.860
	EP2	0.841
	EP3	0.839
	EP4	0.859
	EP5	0.876
	EP6	0.864
	EP7	0.853
	EP8	0.865
	EP9	0.855
	EP10	0.874
	EP11	0.874
	EP12	0.852
Top Management Environmental Performance	TMEA1	0.837
	TMEA2	0.851
	TMEA3	0.823
	TMEA4	0.889
	TMEA5	0.880
	TMEA6	0.881
	TMEA7	0.899
	TMEA8	0.872
	TMEA9	0.806

Table 10. Construct reliability.

Variable	Item	Factor loading	Construct reliability	Variance extracted
Environmental Orientation	EO1	0.812	0.9360	0.7093
	EO2	0.850
	EO3	0.831
	EO4	0.834
	EO5	0.872
	EO6	0.853
Green Business Strategy	GBS1	0.763	0.9800	0.7323
	GBS2	0.850
	GBS3	0.848
	GBS4	0.887
	GBS5	0.845
	GBS6	0.759
	GBS7	0.853
	GBS8	0.885
	GBS9	0.872
	GBS10	0.881
	GBS11	0.864
	GBS12	0.845
	GBS13	0.880
	GBS14	0.863
	GBS15	0.876
	GBS16	0.857
	GBS17	0.874
	GBS18	0.888
SME Performance	KI1	0.855	0.9750	0.7649
	KI2	0.861
	KI3	0.855
	KI4	0.857
	KI5	0.914
	KI6	0.904
	KI7	0.851
	KI8	0.873
	KI9	0.880
	KI10	0.841
	KI11	0.917
	KI12	0.883
Environmental Performance	EP1	0.860	0.9713	0.7385
	EP2	0.841
	EP3	0.839
	EP4	0.859
	EP5	0.876
	EP6	0.864
	EP7	0.853
	EP8	0.865
	EP9	0.855
	EP10	0.874
	EP11	0.874
	EP12	0.852
Top Management Environmental Awareness	TMEA1	0.837	0.9624	0.7401
	TMEA2	0.851
	TMEA3	0.823
	TMEA4	0.889
	TMEA5	0.880
	TMEA6	0.881
	TMEA7	0.899
	TMEA8	0.872
	TMEA9	0.806

Table 11. Data normality evaluation.

Variable	Min	Max	Skew	c.r	Kurtosis	c.r
TMEA9	2.000	5.000	−.384	−1.591	−.578	−1.197
TMEA8	1.000	5.000	−.560	−2.320	−.506	−1.049
TMEA7	1.000	5.000	−.716	−2.966	−.229	−.475
TMEA6	1.000	5.000	−.606	−2.509	−.101	−.209
TMEA5	2.000	5.000	−.416	−1.722	−.765	−1.584
TMEA4	1.000	5.000	−.750	−3.107	−.295	−.612
TMEA3	1.000	5.000	−.427	−1.769	−.470	−.975
TMEA2	2.000	5.000	−.358	−1.482	−.965	−1.998
TMEA1	1.000	5.000	−.560	−2.322	−.207	−.429
EP12	2.000	5.000	−.329	−1.364	−.792	−1.640
EP11	1.000	5.000	−.509	−2.110	.173	.358
EP10	1.000	5.000	−.722	−2.991	−.039	−.081
EP9	2.000	5.000	−.444	−1.840	−.516	−1.070
EP8	1.000	5.000	−.406	−1.683	−.103	−.214
EP7	1.000	5.000	−.655	−2.712	.167	.346
EP6	1.000	5.000	−.550	−2.279	.055	.115
EP5	1.000	5.000	−.560	−2.322	.049	.101
EP4	1.000	5.000	−.784	−3.249	.870	1.802
EP3	1.000	5.000	−.398	−1.649	−.244	−.505
EP2	1.000	5.000	−.513	−2.125	−.370	−.766
EP1	1.000	5.000	−.485	−2.011	−.461	−.954
KI12	1.000	5.000	−.728	−3.015	.161	.334
KI11	1.000	5.000	−.620	−2.568	−.405	−.838
KI10	2.000	5.000	−.360	−1.491	−.662	−1.372
KI9	1.000	5.000	−.527	−2.182	−.350	−.726
KI8	1.000	5.000	−.491	−2.034	−.201	−.417
KI7	1.000	5.000	−.498	−2.064	.084	.174
KI6	1.000	5.000	−.664	−2.749	.059	.123
KI5	2.000	5.000	−.554	−2.295	−.675	−1.399
KI4	1.000	5.000	−.523	−2.168	.085	.175
KI3	2.000	5.000	−.307	−1.270	−.859	−1.780
KI2	1.000	5.000	−.688	−2.850	−.083	−.172
KI1	2.000	5.000	−.462	−1.916	−.678	−1.404
GBS18	1.000	5.000	−.603	−2.499	−.070	−.146
GBS17	2.000	5.000	−.249	−1.030	−.840	−1.741
GBS16	1.000	5.000	−.740	−3.068	.161	.334
GBS15	1.000	5.000	−.676	−2.802	.005	.010
GBS14	2.000	5.000	−.500	−2.071	−.463	−.960
GBS13	2.000	5.000	−.612	−2.535	−.480	−.993
GBS12	1.000	5.000	−.570	−2.361	.047	.098
GBS11	2.000	5.000	−.435	−1.801	−.832	−1.724
GBS10	1.000	5.000	−.633	−2.623	−.268	−.555
GBS9	1.000	5.000	−.582	−2.409	−.166	−.344
GBS8	1.000	5.000	−.497	−2.061	−.405	−.838
GBS7	1.000	5.000	−.500	−2.071	−.101	−.210
GBS6	1.000	5.000	−.566	−2.345	.262	.542
GBS5	1.000	5.000	−.561	−2.325	−.181	−.376
GBS4	1.000	5.000	−.634	−2.627	.070	.145
GBS3	1.000	5.000	−.553	−2.291	−.507	−1.051
GBS2	2.000	5.000	−.404	−1.676	−.481	−.997
GBS1	1.000	5.000	−.537	−2.223	−.112	−.232
EO6	1.000	5.000	−.573	−2.375	.094	.195
EO5	1.000	5.000	−.476	−1.973	−.261	−.540
EO4	2.000	5.000	−.355	−1.472	−.630	−1.306
EO3	1.000	5.000	−.505	−2.093	−.200	−.415
EO2	1.000	5.000	−.698	−2.892	.243	.504
EO1	1.000	5.000	−.728	−3.016	.273	.566
Multivariate					7.906	.489

Table 12. Output Mahalanobis distance.

Observation number	Mahalanobis d-squared	p1	p2
38	76.073	.047	.993
56	73.360	.071	.996
83	73.145	.073	.984
57	71.807	.090	.985
8	70.332	.110	.991
49	69.662	.121	.989
24	69.546	.123	.976
76	68.375	.144	.986
67	68.360	.144	.970
34	67.536	.160	.976

Table 13. Goodness of fit index.

Goodness of fit index	Cut-off value	Research model	Model
Chi Square Statistics		2020,739
Probability	≥0.05	0.000 _	Marginal Fit
RMSEA	≤0.08	0.056	Good Fit
GFI	≥0.90	0.629	Marginal Fit
AGFI	≥0.90	0.600	Marginal Fit
CMIN/DF	≤2.0	1.319	Good Fit
TLI	≥0.90	0.931	Good Fit
CFI	≥0.90	0.928	Good Fit

Figure 2. Full model structural equation modeling.

Table 14. Testing influence direct.

			Estimates	S.E	CR	p	Label
TMEA	<—	E.O	.883	.102	8.650	***	par_56
GBS	<—	E.O	.328	.126	2.595	.009	par_53
EP	<—	E.O	.968	.105	9.193	***	par_55
GBS	<—	TMEA	.432	.126	3.421	***	par_58
KI	<—	E.O	.484	.135	3.575	***	par_54
KI	<—	GBS	.273	.088	3.107	.002	par_57
KI	<—	EP	.295	.103	2.863	.004	par_59

Significance level 1% (***), 5%(**), 10%(*).

Table 15. Testing influence no direct.

		Path			t-Statistics	Std. Error	p-Value
GBS	<—	TMEA	<—	E.O	3,187	0.119	0.001
P	<—	EP	<—	E.O	2,735	0.104	0.006

Vieira, G. B., Oliveira, H. S., de Almeida, J. A., & Belderrain, M. C. N. (2024). Project Portfolio Selection considering interdependencies: A review of terminology and approaches. Project Leadership and Society, 5, 100115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plas.2023.100115

 Google Scholar

Yasir, M., Majid, A., Yasir, M., & Qudratullah, H. (2020). Promoting environmental performance in manufacturing industry of developing countries through environmental orientation and green business strategies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 275, 123003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Porzionato, A., Emmi, A., Barbon, S., Boscolo‐Berto, R., Stecco, C., Stocco, E., Macchi, V., & De Caro, R. (2020). Sympathetic activation: A potential link between comorbidities and COVID‐19. The FEBS Journal, 287(17), 3681–3688. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.15481

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

O’Brien, S. M., Feng, L., He, X., Xian, Y., Jacobs, J. P., Badhwar, V., Kurlansky, P. A., Furnary, A. P., Cleveland, J. C., Lobdell, K. W., Vassileva, C., Wyler von Ballmoos, M. C., Thourani, V. H., Rankin, J. S., Edgerton, J. R., D'Agostino, R. S., Desai, N. D., Edwards, F. H., & Shahian, D. M. (2018). The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2018 adult cardiac surgery risk models: Part 2—Statistical methods and results. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 105(5), 1419–1428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.03.003

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhang, Y., Zheng, K., Xia, F., & Cheng, Z. (2024). Fintech, natural resource rents, renewable energy consumption and environmental quality: A perspective of green economic recovery from BRICS economies. Resources Policy, 89, 104604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104604

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fitriyani, G. D. K., Rahmayanti, H., & Sigit, D. V. (2020). Environmental leadership models, cultural values, and work motivation on environmentally friendly community performance in Kebon Manggis Village, Matraman East Jakarta, 2019 [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the International Conference on Education, Language and Society (ICELS 2019) (pp. 651–659).

 Google Scholar

Barboza, A., Macusi, E. D., Borazon, E. Q., Santos, M. D., Muallil, R. N., & Nallos, I. M. (2024). Small-scale fisheries (SSF) management and conservation schemes and their application in the Philippines. Marine Policy, 161, 106018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106018

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Apip, M., Sukomo, S., & Faridah, E. (2020). Pengaruh environmental performance dan environmental disclosure terhadap economic performance. Jurnal Wawasan Dan Riset Akuntansi, 7(2).

 Google Scholar

Snapp, S. S., Grabowski, P., Chikowo, R., Smith, A., Anders, E., Sirrine, D., Chimonyo, V., & Bekunda, M. (2018). Maize yield and profitability tradeoffs with social, human and environmental performance: Is sustainable intensification feasible? Agricultural Systems, 162, 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.01.012

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sugiarto, A., & Gabriella, D. A. (2020). Kesadaran dan perilaku ramah lingkungan mahasiswa di kampus. Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Dan Humaniora, 9(2), 260–275. https://doi.org/10.23887/jish-undiksha.v9i2.21061

 Google Scholar

Bibri, S. E., Krogstie, J., Kaboli, A., & Alahi, A. (2024). Smarter eco-cities and their leading-edge artificial intelligence of things solutions for environmental sustainability: A comprehensive systematic review. Environmental Science and Ecotechnology, 19, 100330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ese.2023.100330

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Mohammadi, M., Bijani, M., Naeimi, A., Valizadeh, N., & Setti, A. (2024). Extracting indicators of connectedness to nature to improve water conservation behavior in agriculture. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 22, 100338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2024.100338

 Google Scholar

Memmedova, K., & Ertuna, B. (2024). Development of a fuzzy Likert scales to measure variables in social sciences. Information Sciences, 654, 119792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2023.119792

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The study did not involve any data sets and the articles collected were sourced from https://www.scopus.com/ home.uri, accessed on 2022 and https://scholar.google.com/, accessed on 2022.