A Scale Development Study on Green Marketing Mix Practice Culture in Small and Medium Enterprises

Abstract

Research concerning green marketing has predominantly focused on consumer behavior. However, aspects such as the extent to which Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) embrace green marketing values, their ability to implement the green marketing mix, and the integration of green marketing into their business culture are critically important. This research aims to provide the 4P (product, price, place, and promotion)-focused green marketing literature with a measurement tool to assess how SMEs implement green marketing practices. The study employed a descriptive design and possesses an exploratory nature. Scale development involved two stages: First, analyses were conducted on a pre-test sample of 159 individuals, revealing the initial scale structure. Second, these analyses were repeated on a larger group of 387 participants. The scale was finalized by confirming the consistency of results across both analyses. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 24 and Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS) version 24 were utilized for descriptive statistics and the scale development process. The final validated 12-item scale demonstrates a robust three-factor structure (“Environmental Promotion”, ”Green Packaging”, and ”Green Distribution”), explaining 62.6% of the total variance. The scale exhibits excellent psychometric properties, including high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.912), strong model fit from Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), and both convergent and discriminant validity, as indicated by an Average Variance Extracted (AVE) value of 0.605. The scale is deemed applicable to larger populations.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the concepts of sustainability and green marketing have gained significant traction in the business world. The broader paradigm of sustainability is often conceptualized through the “Triple Bottom Line” (TBL) framework, coined by Elkington [1], which comprises three interconnected dimensions: environmental (Planet), social (People), and economic (Profit) [2,3]. While this holistic approach is ideal, its practical implementation poses significant challenges, particularly for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) who must balance these three pillars with limited resources [4].

Therefore, while acknowledging the importance of the broader sustainability agenda, this study deliberately focuses on green marketing. This decision is justified because green marketing—defined as the integration of environmental factors into marketing activities [5]—represents the most tangible and actionable domain through which SMEs can begin to address the “Planet” dimension of the TBL. This approach allows us to develop a practical measurement tool directly relevant to the operational realities of SMEs.

To further enhance the practical relevance of our research, we concentrate specifically on the green marketing mix (4Ps). We posit that the marketing mix provides the most concrete and tactical toolkit for SMEs to operationalize their environmental goals. Rather than engaging with abstract corporate strategies, which is the focus of many existing scales [6], SMEs can use the 4Ps to make immediate, measurable changes. Tactical interventions such as “Green Packaging” (Product), “Green Distribution” (Place), and “Environmental Promotion” (Promotion)—the core dimensions of our scale—are direct levers that allow SMEs to manage their environmental footprint. These practices not only mitigate environmental impact (Planet) but can also lead to cost efficiencies (Profit) and meet the expectations of environmentally conscious stakeholders (People) [7,8]. This study adopts a targeted, tactical-level approach, focusing on concrete marketing mix practices rather than broader, more diffuse strategic orientations. This specific focus allows us to address a critical gap in the literature: the need for a measurement tool that is both practical and directly applicable for SMEs.

This study’s specific focus is on measuring the green marketing practices of SMEs. It is crucial to acknowledge, however, that these practices are not isolated; they primarily serve the environmental dimension of the broader sustainability framework. Ultimately, these actions can yield significant social and economic consequences. In other words, while the research focuses on the green transformations in the core marketing mix of SMEs, it acknowledges that these transformations are part of a broader sustainability ecosystem and have significant social implications.

Although numerous studies on green marketing exist in the literature, scale development efforts in this area have remained limited. Previous research has primarily focused on consumer responses to green appeals or measuring general green consumption values [9,10,11]. While scales developed by authors like Moravcikova et al. [12] help businesses evaluate their strategies, a significant portion of measurement tools has centered on the consumer side. Conversely, when examining the marketer or firm perspective, the literature reveals an increasing focus on specific green marketing practices within SMEs. For instance, studies have explored the implementation of green branding, eco-labelling, and environmental advertising in South Africa [7] and the mediating effect of green purchase behavior on the profitability of SMEs [13]. These applications highlight a shift from broad concepts to tangible actions. However, the instruments used to measure these practices often remain fragmented. While some scales focus on green marketing strategy [14] or audit criteria [15], others analyze performance impacts in specific sectors [16,17].

This landscape reveals a critical gap. Existing comprehensive scales, such as the Green Marketing Orientation (GMO) scale by Papadas et al. [6] or the Green Marketing Scale (GMaS) by Vilkaite-Vaitone et al. [18], offer robust frameworks but tend to measure broader strategic or internal marketing orientations. While theoretically sound, these scales may be less suitable for assessing the concrete, tactical-level practices of resource-constrained SMEs. This points to the absence of a psychometrically sound, practical instrument designed to specifically assess the implementation culture of the foundational green marketing mix elements at the operational level. This study aims to address this gap by developing and validating such a scale.

1.1. Gap in Literature and Purpose of Research

Although several scale development efforts exist in the green marketing literature to measure the practices of SMEs, these initiatives contain significant gaps. A comprehensive review by Vilkaite-Vaitone et al. [18] reveals that many existing scales either lack full psychometric validity and reliability analyses or focus on broad strategic dimensions that are distant from the practical applications of SMEs. For instance, the GMO scale developed by Papadas et al. [6] provides a comprehensive framework encompassing strategic, tactical, and internal dimensions. In contrast, the scale by Chahal et al. [17] addresses operational dimensions such as process greening and supply chain management. At this juncture, the absence of a practical, valid, and reliable measurement instrument that focuses on the core marketing mix (4P) practices, which SMEs can implement with their limited resources, emerges as a distinct research gap. While existing research often treats “green marketing” as a broad concept, there is no specific tool to measure how these practices constitute a “practice culture” at the SME level, particularly within their fundamental marketing mix activities. This study aims to fill precisely this gap. This study proposes the concept of “Green Marketing Mix Practice Culture” (GMMPC) to address the lack of measurement regarding how SMEs internalize green practices. We define GMMPC as “the embedded, shared norms and routines that guide the day-to-day implementation of a firm’s green marketing mix activities.” In marketing literature, culture is considered not just what is done but the underlying set of values that shapes why and how things are done [6]. For SMEs, this ”practice culture” is often more indicative of their true environmental commitment than formal strategic documents, as it reflects how green principles are integrated into their core operational habits [19]. Measuring this culture is therefore crucial to distinguish genuine green practices from superficial ”greenwashing”, especially in the context of SMEs. One of the main challenges for SMEs is the fear of being accused of greenwashing even when their sustainability efforts are sincere, often due to a lack of expertise [3]. An internalized practice culture demonstrates that a firm’s green marketing claims are not merely a marketing tactic but the result of an “environmental culture that saturates the whole organization” [20]. Therefore, unlike existing scales that measure abstract strategic orientations, this study fills a significant gap in the literature by developing an instrument that measures these internalized routines and daily practices.

This research aims to provide the 4P (Product, Price, Place, and Promotion)-focused green marketing literature with a measurement tool to assess how SMEs implement green marketing practices. This developed scale will provide academics with a tool to measure the tactical green marketing capabilities of SMEs and provide SME managers with a practical guide to evaluate their practices and identify areas for improvement. While the measurement of this culture was initially based on the traditional 4P marketing mix (product, price, place, and promotion), the final scope of the scale was narrowed based on theoretical and empirical grounds.

1.2. Limiting the Scope to 4Ps

Although marketing mix elements have been expanded to 7Ps in the literature, particularly in the contexts of service and experiential marketing, the initial and most tangible steps that SMEs take in transitioning to green marketing are generally focused on the fundamental 4Ps (product, price, place, and promotion). These four elements typically form the backbone of a green marketing strategy [21]. Due to the focused nature of scale development, encompassing all 7Ps (including People, Physical Evidence, and Process) in a single ”practice culture” scale could have increased conceptual complexity and administrative challenges (e.g., number of dimensions/items), potentially weakening its practicality and statistical power. Therefore, focusing initially on the fundamental 4Ps was preferred to maintain methodological robustness. Specifically, the “People” dimension, also referred to as “internal green marketing,” constitutes a multi-dimensional and complex construct. For instance, Qureshi and Mehraj [20] conceptualized internal green marketing as a distinct construct with sub-dimensions such as green communication, green skill development, and green rewards. They developed a separate scale for its measurement. Similarly, a study by Sathana et al. [22] demonstrated that green marketing strategies have a significant impact on “employee development”, but this represents a different structural dynamic than other marketing mix elements. Given the depth and distinct dynamics of the “People” dimension, it was excluded from the current scope to be addressed in a separate study. The current 4P-focused (and ultimately 3P-finalized) scale provides a foundational measurement instrument for green marketing literature. It is intended to serve as a basis and starting point for future research that will examine the extended mix elements (People, Physical Evidence, Process) or expand the scale.

1.3. The “People” Dimension as a Separate Field

The “People” dimension, one of the 7Ps of the marketing mix, has evolved into a distinct research area in the literature known as “Internal Green Marketing” (IGM). Qureshi and Mehraj [20] have demonstrated that IGM is a complex construct with multiple sub-dimensions, including green internal communication, skill development, and rewards. Given the depth and significance of this dimension, which warrants a separate scale development study, it has been excluded from the scope of this research.

1.4. Providing a Foundational Measurement Instrument

This study aims to address the gap in the literature for a tactical-level practice culture scale for SMEs. The developed 3P-focused scale can serve as a basis and a starting point for future, more comprehensive studies that may also include other elements such as “Price” and “People”.

The primary aim of this study is to develop a scale that enables SMEs to measure and evaluate their green marketing mix practices. This study presents an instrument for identifying and evaluating the GMMPC among SMEs operating in various industry sectors. Thus, it aims to contribute to filling such a gap identified in the literature. The developed scale may provide the following benefits:

• It can offer detailed information about the status of SMEs regarding their GMMPC and assist in making assessments; it can also provide data for determining businesses’ green marketing strategies.
• It can enable comparative analyses among firms of different sizes operating in various industry sectors across different regions.
• It can play a supportive role in evaluating the effectiveness of green marketing practices and providing a scientific basis for research.

In summary, this scale, developed to measure GMMPC in SMEs, can contribute to understanding the green transformation processes of SMEs by providing significant insights for research in this field.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. First, the green marketing mix and related concepts are discussed based on the literature. Subsequently, the methodology of the scale development study, including its two-stage analysis process (pre-test and final test), is detailed. Finally, the findings are discussed, and the theoretical and practical contributions of the study, along with suggestions for future research, are presented.

2. Theoretical Framework

This study is grounded in the Natural Resource-Based View (NRBV) developed by Hart [23]. As an extension of the classic Resource-Based View (RBV), which posits that a firm’s sustainable competitive advantage depends on its rare, valuable, inimitable, and non-substitutable resources and capabilities [24], the NRBV broadens this perspective to include the firm’s relationship with the natural environment. According to the NRBV, sustainable competitive advantage arises from resources that are valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable [25]. For SMEs, “green packaging” and “green distribution” practices transform from mere operational activities into strategic capabilities. For example, an SME’s ability to develop innovative, resource-efficient packaging (Product Stewardship) or to create a localized, low-emission distribution network (Pollution Prevention) constitutes a unique organizational routine. This capability is socially complex, causally ambiguous, and often built on tacit knowledge, making it difficult for larger, less agile competitors to imitate. Thus, these tactical practices become unique enterprise resources that directly influence performance by enhancing brand image, creating cost savings, and building customer loyalty, which is fully consistent with the principles of NRBV. According to this theory, capabilities such as pollution prevention, product stewardship, and sustainable development are strategic assets that enhance firm performance and differentiate it from competitors [26]. The NRBV provides a particularly suitable lens for analyzing the green marketing practices of SMEs. While SMEs often lack traditional resources such as large-scale, patented technologies, their competitive advantage frequently stems from more agile, community-embedded, and practical capabilities.

The theory proposes three core environmental strategies for firms to turn environmental challenges into opportunities: pollution prevention, product stewardship, and sustainable development. The NRBV provides a particularly suitable lens for analyzing the green marketing practices of SMEs, as their competitive advantage often arises from agile, community-embedded, and practical capabilities that are difficult to imitate. The GMMPC scale developed in this study is designed to measure how these three strategic tenets of the NRBV are operationalized by SMEs at the marketing mix level. Our “Green Packaging” and ”Green Distribution” dimensions directly correspond to the Product Stewardship strategy. This strategy aims to minimize a product’s environmental impact throughout its entire life cycle, and the items in our scale (e.g., use of recyclable materials, selection of cleaner transportation) represent the tactical applications of this life-cycle management [27]. Conceptually, our ”Environmental Promotion” dimension is an extension of the Pollution Prevention strategy. This principle involves not only reducing emissions from production but also preventing “information pollution” through transparent communication. The credibility of a firm’s environmental claims demonstrates its effort to avoid the pollution of “greenwashing” [7]. In this context, an SME’s ability to develop innovative green packaging or to build community trust through authentic environmental promotion constitutes a valuable, rare, and difficult-to-imitate competitive advantage of the kind defined by the NRBV [7,8]. Thus, by employing the NRBV, this study reveals how SMEs translate abstract environmental capabilities into tactical marketing practices, thereby influencing their performance.

2.1. Conceptualizing Green Marketing Mix Practice Culture

Although several scale development efforts exist in the green marketing literature, they are often ill-suited for assessing the concrete, tactical-level practices of resource-constrained SMEs. Existing scales typically focus on broader strategic orientations [6] or operational dimensions such as supply chain management [17], which, while theoretically robust, are distant from the foundational marketing mix elements. This reveals a critical gap in the literature: the absence of a psychometrically sound, practical instrument designed to measure the implementation culture of green marketing at the tactical level.

To address this gap, this study proposes and validates the concept of a GMMPC. We define GMMPC as “the embedded, shared, and routinized patterns of tactical marketing activities—and the ingrained norms that underpin them—which reflect a firm’s day-to-day commitment to environmental sustainability within its product, promotion, and distribution practices.” This concept is theoretically grounded at the intersection of Practice Theory and the RBV, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of how green principles are operationalized in daily business life.

First, from a Practice Theory perspective, GMMPC is conceptualized not as an abstract set of values but as a tangible collection of routinized “doings and sayings” [28]. This view shifts the analytical focus from what managers believe to what the organization collectively and repetitively does. These actions become ingrained in the organization’s daily life, creating stable and collective work patterns that function like the organization’s own habits [29]. Foundational work by Nelson and Winter [30] established that these routines embody a firm’s core operational capabilities. In the context of GMMPC, these are the day-to-day green marketing routines, such as using recyclable packaging, selecting cleaner transport, or ensuring promotional claims are verifiable. These observable micro-foundations [31] constitute the bedrock of a firm’s genuine green orientation.

Second, from the perspective of the RBV, this “practice culture” represents a unique and valuable organizational resource that can generate a sustained competitive advantage. Barney [32] famously argued that a culture can be a source of such advantage if it is valuable, rare, and imperfectly imitable. GMMPC fits this framework perfectly: it is valuable in a market that increasingly rewards sustainability; it is rare, as genuine and deeply embedded green practices are uncommon; and it is imperfectly imitable because it is socially complex and built over time through shared learning. This culture acts as a form of “institutional capital” [33] that creates a supportive internal environment for green initiatives and as a “knowledge resource” [34] that has a “multiplier effect” on the firm’s tactical practices [35].

Consequently, the GMMPC construct offers a more authentic assessment of an SME’s green transformation. By measuring these internalized, routine-based, and culturally supported daily practices, this study provides an instrument capable of distinguishing genuine commitment from superficial “greenwashing”, a primary challenge for sincere SMEs who fear being falsely accused [3]. An internalized practice culture demonstrates that a firm’s claims are not merely a marketing tactic but the result of an “environmental culture that saturates the whole organization” [20]. Therefore, unlike existing scales that measure abstract orientations, this instrument is developed to assess the tactical-level routines that are the true engine of an SME’s green transformation.

2.2. Green Marketing Orientation

Beyond the mere implementation of green marketing mix elements (the 4Ps), the concept of “GMO” has been developed in the literature to understand the extent to which firms adopt and integrate these practices into their corporate strategies. GMO is a holistic orientation that expresses the degree to which a firm integrates environmental considerations into its marketing strategies.

The multidimensional nature of GMO is a notable feature in the literature. Mishra et al. [36] bifurcate GMO into Strategic Green Marketing Orientation (SGMO) and Tactical Green Marketing Orientation (TGMO). While SGMO includes a firm’s long-term environmental goals, such as R&D investments and renewable energy sources, TGMO encompasses short-term, operational activities, including the use of recycled materials, preference for digital communication, and paperless policies. Similarly, Papadas et al. [6] conceptualize GMO in three core dimensions: (1) SGMO, concerning long-term, top-management-driven environmental strategies; (2) TGMO, involving short-term, operational activities that make the traditional marketing mix (product, price, distribution, promotion) greener; and (3) Internal Green Marketing Orientation (IGMO), which refers to the adoption of this green philosophy by employees within the organization. In the context of SMEs, Chahal et al. [17] examined GMO across five operational and strategic dimensions, including process greening, green supply chain management, green strategic policy initiatives, proactive energy conservation, and green innovation. Furthermore, a comprehensive meta-analysis by Oduro and Matarazzo [37] has demonstrated that these core elements of green marketing (green product, price, distribution, and promotion) significantly affect firm performance.

In this context, the GMMPC scale developed in our study aligns with this distinction in the literature by focusing on measuring the extent to which SMEs implement their TGMO. Considering this broad theoretical framework, our research aims to fill a specific gap in the GMO literature by measuring how SMEs translate green transformation into their most fundamental and visible marketing activities: product (packaging), distribution, and promotion.

2.3. Green Marketing Mix

Green marketing (also known as environmental, ecological, or sustainable marketing) involves the integration of environmental factors into marketing activities [38] and sustainability-oriented practices [27]. As a comprehensive approach, it aims to minimize long-term ecological impact while simultaneously achieving consumer satisfaction and organizational objectives [19] and promoting products/services with a lower environmental impact [39]. This approach encompasses activities aimed at creating a positive environmental image or mitigating the negative impacts of products/services [40], as well as the process of designing, implementing, and controlling marketing mix elements to minimize environmental harm, in alignment with customer and organizational goals [41]. Essentially, it represents a holistic approach that targets achieving customer satisfaction and organizational objectives while reducing the environmental impact of business operations. As mentioned in the introduction section of this study, only the initial 4Ps, which form the backbone of the marketing mix, are addressed and briefly explained below.

2.3.1. Green Product

Forming the foundation of the green marketing mix [42], green products hold critical importance for the overall strategy [43]. Inherently eco-friendly and sustainable [44], these products are designed, manufactured, and marketed to minimize environmental impact throughout their entire lifecycle [45,46]. Their aims include ensuring safety for use [47] and minimizing adverse effects on both the ecosystem and human health [44,48]. Green product strategies encompass eco-friendly packaging, the use of recyclable materials, and extending product lifespan, while also adopting a circular economy approach to preserve resource value [49].

Green product development favors safe raw materials and processes [42,48,50]. During manufacturing, principles of reducing energy/input consumption, waste, and pollution [45], conserving resources, and non-cruelty to animals are adopted. This approach requires a holistic perspective that covers the entire lifecycle from design to disposal [42,46,51] and often involves the adoption of the 5R principles (reuse, reconditioning, repair, remanufacture, recycling) [52,53]. Green products often exhibit characteristics such as recyclability, biodegradability, resource efficiency, reduced/eco-friendly packaging, non-toxicity, and natural/organic production [54]. Factors such as growing consumer awareness, activism, legal regulations, and the demand for sustainable options [48,55] drive businesses toward green product development and marketing [44]. This trend promotes environmental responsibility while also creating new market opportunities [56].

2.3.2. Green Price

Green pricing is a pricing strategy that reflects the environmental costs of a product or service and balances the cost of sustainable production practices with the consumer’s willingness to pay [6,49]. It holds the potential to incorporate the external environmental costs often disregarded by traditional prices [57], thereby potentially reducing overconsumption by fostering conscious consumption [58]. Rather than lowering prices for sales maximization, sustainable companies often invest in eco-friendly technologies that reduce long-term costs; their prices typically reflect the costs of production and marketing [59]. Eco-friendly pricing considers factors such as the product’s environmental impact, donations, green campaigns, lifecycle, carbon emissions, and competitive pricing [49,60].

Environmentally conscious consumers are often willing to pay a higher price [61]. Green product prices are often higher than those of conventional products due to their environmental/social benefits [51,62,63,64,65]. This price difference often stems from the additional costs businesses incur for greener processes, materials, waste management, or technology [51,66], and the price may also encompass non-monetary costs such as opportunity or energy costs [42]. Nevertheless, research indicates that a significant segment of consumers is willing to pay a premium price for products possessing positive environmental attributes [47,67,68,69,70]. This willingness may stem from heightened environmental concerns [71] or the perceived ethical value (leading to a willingness to incur an additional cost of 7–20%) [72,73]. Consumers who understand that environmental knowledge influences their purchasing decisions are also more likely to accept premium pricing [70].

Consequently, the green price serves as an indicator reflecting market behaviors [58] and is influenced by factors such as the product’s degree of greenness, its advertising [74], market demand, and consumer awareness [75]. Furthermore, it can promote sustainability through mechanisms such as subsidies or tax incentives [76]. However, it should also be noted that some green products (e.g., fuel-efficient vehicles) may prove more economical in the long term when lifecycle costs are considered [77].

2.3.3. Green Place/Distribution

Green place/distribution involves the strategic positioning and distribution of products in a manner that minimizes environmental impact and promotes sustainability [78,79]. This includes both physical distribution and the conceptual positioning of the brand as environmentally conscious (strengthening its image) [78], encompassing elements such as channels, transportation, location, and logistics [80]. A significant focus of the green place strategy is optimizing logistics and distribution channels [78] to reduce the carbon footprint [80]. This involves selecting routes with minimal environmental harm [56,81,82] and conducting a holistic assessment of the supply chain [83]. This approach can decrease emissions, energy usage [84], and transportation costs [80]. In terms of physical location, the green place incorporates responsible and sustainable design (e.g., recycled materials, energy efficiency, and green technology [85]), as well as operational practices (e.g., waste/resource reduction). Factors such as accessibility [86], proximity to local suppliers, and surrounding green infrastructure are considered in location selection. The inclusion of green products in retail supply chains and the availability of specialized points of sale are also associated with this concept [87,88].

In the context of distribution channels, the green place strategy requires that the physical or virtual places and methods through which environmentally friendly products are sold also embody environmental responsibility [89,90]. While online channels offer convenience and cost advantages [90], the environmentally friendly activities of distributors are important [91]. Since accessibility and convenience influence the adoption of green products [86], strategic positioning and availability are critical [91]. Designing a supply chain that ensures the efficient flow of materials and information for sustainability and determining the optimal location for facilities/centers/points of sale to minimize logistics impact are crucial [62]. Distribution is considered one of the mix elements with the highest potential for reducing environmental impact. Environmental impact within the process can be reduced through methods such as collaborating with eco-friendly partners, waste reduction, promoting reuse, product recycling, and lifecycle assessment (cradle-to-cradle) [59]. This may necessitate redesigning the distribution network and developing secondary markets [61].

Green distribution is a fundamental mix element focused on minimizing harmful environmental impacts [92]. Sustainable companies should oversee the ethical/ecological practices of their suppliers/distributors, the locality of products, and price fairness [59]. Green packaging is also important; it describes packaging that is environmentally sustainable, often natural, reusable/recyclable, biodegradable, and designed to minimize harm throughout its lifecycle [93,94]. Green packaging can influence consumer awareness [95] and purchasing behavior [96,97] and is sometimes considered a marketing mix element itself [64].

In summary, green place/distribution strategies aim to reduce environmental impact across a broad spectrum, including logistics, physical spaces, distribution channels, and packaging. Successful implementation creates an environmentally conscious image [84], facilitates access to green products, contributes to sustainability, and attracts relevant consumers [78].

2.3.4. Green Promotion

Green promotion refers to the strategies businesses employ to communicate their environmental benefits and sustainability commitments to target audiences [98,99,100]. Grounded in sustainability theory [101], its primary aim is to inform, persuade, and remind stakeholders (particularly consumers) about environmental efforts [56,102], while also providing accurate product information in a manner that respects both ethical and materialistic values [42]. Green promotion activities aim to enhance consumers’ knowledge regarding environmental issues, alter their perceptions of eco-friendly products/services, and educate them [51,73]. To this end, various communication techniques and channels, such as advertising and public relations, are utilized [102,103,104].

Effective green promotion activities can positively influence individuals’ attitudes towards advertising and their intentions towards environmentally conscious actions [105]. Consequently, businesses are inclined to gain a better brand reputation [106], attract environmentally conscious stakeholders (consumers, investors, talent), and achieve a competitive advantage [98,99]. Indeed, green promotion has been shown to have a significant impact on purchasing decisions [84,107]. Its effectiveness can be evaluated based on indicators such as the accuracy of advertising media, message delivery, contribution to brand image, informativeness, and its impact on consumer interest and loyalty [52]. The effectiveness of green promotion relies heavily on the company’s perceived credibility and the authenticity of its environmental claims [108,109]. Credibility, which is key to success, necessitates communication that is data-driven [70], non-exaggerated, and consistent [109]. Such credible and transparent communication facilitates consumers’ internalization of environmental information [110] and encourages purchasing behavior [111]. Green advertising, in particular, aims to persuade consumers by highlighting the product’s eco-friendly attributes [53,104] or a relevant environmental issue [42,105]. These advertisements serve functions such as establishing the product–environment connection, promoting a pro-environmental lifestyle, and showcasing the organization’s green identity [50,112].

Green promotion plays a critical role in enabling businesses to communicate their environmental sustainability efforts, build a green brand image, and persuade consumers of the benefits of environmental protection [62]. Promotional strategies can communicate environmental sponsorships, product modifications, and tangible actions [19]. Digital channels (social media, blogs, websites) enhance communication by facilitating direct dialogue about green products/services and educating consumers [113], which may necessitate a shift in communication strategies towards online media [49].

Green promotion messages should be tailored according to the expectations of environmentally conscious customers [43] and must effectively convey the business’s commitment to eco-friendliness [51]. As environmental attributes, which are often not immediately apparent, must be made visible [114], green labeling, certifications, and green packaging serve as important communication tools in this context. Green packaging, utilizing eco-friendly technology [115], can influence consumer awareness and the decision-making process [116].

3. Method

While the research is descriptive in nature, it also possesses exploratory characteristics. It describes the current state of SMEs actively operating in the Ankara Ostim Organized Industrial Zone (OIZ) concerning their existing green marketing practices. The data for this study were collected from a sample of SMEs operating within the Ankara Ostim OIZ, a region with a high concentration of firms in the manufacturing and industrial sectors.

This study involved an extensive literature review; additionally, informal, conversational interviews were conducted with relevant stakeholders in the field to capture idioms that could provide insights for formulating the item pool. Coşkun et al. [117] state that the foundation of an exploratory study consists of a comprehensive literature review and interviews with field experts. These methods allow for the development of new perspectives on the research topic. According to Burns and Bush [118], the most common purpose of exploratory research is to understand existing information more deeply and develop new hypotheses. Methods such as secondary data analysis and experience surveys are often preferred to achieve this purpose. Specifically, secondary data analysis forms the basis of exploratory research.

The GMMPC scale was developed through a rigorous, multi-stage psychometric process, adhering to established methodological guidelines to ensure a theoretically grounded and empirically robust instrument.

Before detailing the stages of scale development, it is crucial to first address a key methodological decision made during the initial conceptualization: the exclusion of the “Price” dimension. This decision was fundamental to shaping the final structure of the GMMPC scale.

During the scale development process, a deliberate methodological decision was made to exclude the ”Price” dimension from the final GMMPC instrument. This exclusion is justified by a confluence of empirical, practical, and psychometric reasons that emerged during our preliminary analyses and comprehensive literature review.

First, the empirical evidence on the impact of green pricing on SME performance is inconsistent and often statistically insignificant. For instance, a study by Mustapha et al. [21] revealed that green pricing has no significant effect on SME performance, and research by Nguyen-Viet [64] found a similar lack of significance regarding its effect on green brand trust. This empirical ambiguity is further underscored by a comprehensive meta-analysis from Oduro and Matarazzo [37], which concluded that green promotion and green product have a considerably stronger effect on firm performance than green pricing. This suggests that ”Price” is a less reliable and decisive indicator of a firm’s green marketing practice culture compared to other mix elements.

Second, from a practical standpoint, the strategic relevance of green pricing for most SMEs is minimal. Unlike large corporations that often act as price-setters, most SMEs operate as price-takers within their respective markets. Their capacity to implement premium pricing as a distinct “green” strategic lever is severely limited by competitive pressures and their market position. Consequently, it is a less relevant construction for a scale designed to measure the tangible, actionable practices within an SME’s direct control.

Finally, from a psychometric perspective, our preliminary factor analyses indicated that including the conceptually ambiguous and empirically weak ”Price” dimension compromised the overall statistical integrity of the scale. It introduced noise and weakened the model fit, validity, and reliability of the other, more robust dimensions. Therefore, its removal was a necessary methodological choice to ensure the final GMMPC scale is a parsimonious, valid, and reliable instrument focused on the most impactful green marketing practices for SMEs.

Rationale for exclusion of the “Price” dimension from the final scale is further explained below:

While our initial framework was based on the 4Ps, the “Price” dimension was deliberately excluded from the final GMMPC scale following a rigorous, method-driven process. This decision was primarily based on psychometric grounds, supported by empirical and strategic evidence.

During the pre-test phase, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) revealed that price-related items had poor psychometric properties, exhibiting weak factor loadings and high cross-loadings with other dimensions. This compromised the scale’s structural validity and reliability. Retaining this statistically weak dimension would have negatively impacted on the overall model fit and the integrity of the more robust constructions. This finding aligns with similar scale development studies, such as that by Vilkaite-Vaitone et al. [18], where the price dimension was also excluded for failing to form a coherent factor.

This statistical weakness is likely rooted in the practical reality that SMEs often act as price-takers, not price-setters, limiting their ability to use green pricing as a strategic lever. The empirical literature also shows inconsistent evidence for the impact of green pricing on SME performance [21,37]. Therefore, excluding the “Price” dimension was a necessary step to ensure the final GMMPC scale is a parsimonious, valid, and reliable instrument focused on the most tangible and actionable green marketing practices within the direct control of SMEs.

The process commenced with Stage 1: Item Pool Generation and Content Validity, where an extensive list of items was created from a comprehensive literature review based on the 4P marketing mix framework. This pool was then refined through expert panel reviews, involving both academic and industry professionals, to ensure the content and face validity of the items, a method similarly employed by Vilkaite-Vaitone et al. [18] to capture practical nuances.

This was followed by Stage 2: Scale Purification, during which a pre-test was conducted on an initial sample (n = 159). EFA was used to uncover the underlying factor structure and eliminate items with weak psychometric properties, such as low factor loadings or significant cross-loadings, resulting in a preliminary three-factor structure. The final phase, Stage 3: Scale Validation, involved administering the refined scale to a new, larger sample (n = 387). CFA was then utilized to rigorously test and confirm the three-factor model that emerged from the EFA. The scale’s reliability was assessed through Cronbach’s Alpha and CR. At the same time, convergent and discriminant validity were established using AVE and inter-construct correlations, following the criteria set by Fornell and Larcker [119]. This comprehensive, sequential validation process ensured that the final GMMPC scale is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring green marketing practices in SMEs.

The research population consisted of managers and/or officials of firms operating in Ankara Ostim OIZ. Over 6500 businesses are operating in 17 different sectors within Ostim OSB [120]. Yazıcıoğlu and Erdoğan [121] state that for a population of 5000 and above with a 0.05 margin of error, a sample size of 357 individuals is sufficient. Similarly, Sekeran [122] suggests 361 individuals for populations up to 6000, and Israel [123] indicates 375 individuals for populations of the same size. In this study, a sample of 387 individuals (managers and/or officials) from 360 businesses constituted the total sample size.

In this study, primary data were collected through a survey method using questionnaires as data collection tools. The Likert-type statements included in the questionnaire form are those remaining in the item pool after expert review. Accordingly, the questionnaire form consists of three sections in total. The first section comprises 62 statements related to determining the GMMPC. These statements are rated using a 5-point Likert-type scale. The second section covers general business information and consists of 15 questions in total, including “yes/no” and multiple-choice formats. The final section includes six multiple-choice questions to determine the participants’ demographic characteristics. Nominal and ordinal scales were used to measure the questions in the last two sections, generally involving discrete variables. The relevant literature for this study was obtained from secondary sources, including books, articles, theses, and websites.

With permission obtained from the managers of Ankara Ostim OIZ Directorate and Ostim İŞKUR Service Center, the questionnaire administration was conducted between 22 February 2024 and 8 July 2024. The Ankara Ostim OIZ Directorate and its Green Transformation and Sustainability Office made significant contributions to the study’s progress through their meetings and sensitivity in providing information on environmental issues, as well as their support in reaching out to firms. Of the 387 valid questionnaires included in the evaluation, 330 were administered face-to-face, 30 were obtained via Google Forms, and 27 were personally delivered to participants and retrieved the subsequent day. Participation in the questionnaire administration was notably higher during promotional events attended by middle- and senior-level company officials, including the “Business Positive Women Employment Promotion Fair”, “OSTİMTECH Promotion Days”, “Prosumer Renewable Energy e-Mobility Charging Fair”, “Green Transformation in Industry Summit”, and “Çevrefest, Solar Energy Solutions for Clean Production” programs. Firms visiting Ostim İŞKUR also showed high participation rates in the survey.

The validity and reliability of the scale used in the research were initially assessed using the SPSS version 24 statistical package program. Item analysis and the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient were determined to assess the scale’s internal consistency. The construct validity of the scale was examined using EFA, and the resulting factor structure was confirmed using CFA in the AMOS program.

The GMMPC scale was developed through a rigorous, multi-stage psychometric process, adhering to established methodological guidelines to ensure a theoretically grounded and empirically robust instrument. The final validated 12-item scale comprises three distinct but related dimensions: “Environmental Promotion” (5 items), focusing on how firms communicate their green initiatives; “Green Packaging” (3 items), assessing practices related to the use of sustainable materials and waste reduction in packaging; and “Green Distribution” (4 items), concerning the environmental aspects of logistics and transportation. The initial item pool was derived from a comprehensive review of foundational literature on green marketing. A summary of the dimensions and their primary literature sources is presented in

Table 1. Summary of GMMPC dimensions and primary literature ources.

Dimension	Representative Item (Translated from the Original Pool)	Primary Literature Sources for Item Generation
Environmental Promotion	“We emphasize the “eco-friendly business” image in our promotional activities.”	Grounded in the communication of environmental efforts and credibility. Key concepts were derived from the works on green advertising, brand image, and sponsorships [6,77,106,112].
Green Packaging	“The green packaging approach reduces our packaging waste.”	Based on the product-centric dimension of the green marketing mix, focusing on tangible actions like material reduction, recyclability, and dematerialization (lighter products) [21,27,97,124].
Green Distribution	“We select cleaner transportation systems to reduce our environmental impact.”	Stems from the “place” element of the marketing mix, focusing on logistics and supply chain. Items were inspired by literature on reducing the carbon footprint through cleaner transport, fuel efficiency, and emission monitoring [6,27,79].

.

4. Scale Development Study on Green Marketing Mix Practice Culture

In the scale development phase, the 10 steps defined by Carpenter [125] were followed. This involved two studies. The first concerned the scale structure emerging from analyses conducted on the pre-test sample of 159 individuals. Secondly, these analyses were replicated on a larger group of 387 individuals. Consequently, the scale was finalized after confirming the consistency of the results across both analyses. Carpenter’s [125] approach plays an important role in improving the quality and scientific value of scale development studies by providing a practical guide that is more structured, comprehensive, and reporting-oriented than other approaches. This approach is used by many authors in scale development studies [126,127,128]. Unlike previous studies that adapted or utilized broader scales such as the GMO scale [6], the current research develops and validates a new, targeted instrument. This new scale (GMMPC) specifically focuses on the tactical and operational marketing mix practices of SMEs.

4.1. Study 1

• Pre-test analysis
• Stages 1 & 2: Creation of the item pool and submission for expert review

The initial steps comprised several phases: Formulating appropriate conceptual statements from the literature (item pool generation), conducting qualitative research to establish dimensions and elements, submitting the generated pool for expert review, assessing the validity of the items within the pool, and determining the questionnaire structure and model. The responses given by 10 experts to the statements in the item pool are summarized in Appendix A. Only the statements deemed “necessary” by the experts were retained in the item pool. All experts were academic personnel specializing in the field of marketing, comprising six males and four females. All experts possessed a minimum of 10 years of professional experience.

• Stage 3: Calculation of Content Validity Ratios (CVR)

The statements in the item pool were evaluated by 10 experts. The CVR for each statement was calculated using the following formula [129]:

$$\mathrm{C}\mathrm{V}\mathrm{R}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{N}\mathrm{E}}{\left(\raisebox{1ex}{$\mathrm{N}$}\!\left/ \!\raisebox{-1ex}{$2$}\right.\right)}}-1$$

(1)

where

• NE = Number of experts rating the item as “Necessary”
• N = Total number of experts

According to

Table 2. CVR reference table.

Panel Size	Proportion Agreeing Essential	CVR Critical Exact Values	One-Sided p Value	N Critical (Min. No. of Experts Required to Agree Item Essential)	N Critically Calculated from the CRITBINOM Function
5	1	1.00	0.031	5	4
6	1	1.00	0.016	6	5
7	1	1.00	0.008	7	6
8	0.875	0.750	0.035	7	6
9	0.889	0.778	0.020	8	7
10	0.900	0.800	0.011	9	8
15	0.800	0.600	0.018	12	11
20	0.750	0.500	0.021	15	14
25	0.720	0.440	0.022	18	17
30	0.667	0.333	0.049	20	19

Source: developed by the authors based on Ayre and Scally [130].

, the minimum number of experts needed to rate an item as “Necessary” for it to be considered acceptable among the 10 experts is 9. The corresponding CVR value when 9 out of 10 experts agree is 0.80.

According to

Table 3. GMMPC item pool-CVR and comments.

Item No	NE	CVR	Comment	Item No	NE	CVR	Comment
1	9	0.80	Remained	42	9	0.80	Remained
2	1	−0.80	Eliminated	43	9	0.80	Remained
3	9	0.80	Remained	44	10	1.00	Remained
4	10	1.00	Remained	45	6	0.20	Eliminated
5	10	1.00	Remained	46	10	1.00	Remained
6	9	0.80	Remained	47	9	0.80	Remained
7	10	1.00	Remained	48	10	1.00	Remained
8	2	−0.60	Eliminated	49	9	0.80	Remained
9	10	1.00	Remained	50	8	0.60	Eliminated
10	9	0.80	Remained	51	9	0.80	Remained
11	9	0.80	Remained	52	10	1.00	Remained
12	7	0.40	Eliminated	53	9	0.80	Remained
13	10	1.00	Remained	54	10	1.00	Remained
14	10	1.00	Remained	55	4	−0.20	Eliminated
15	9	0.80	Remained	56	9	0.80	Remained
16	9	0.80	Remained	57	10	1.00	Remained
17	8	0.60	Eliminated	58	10	1.00	Remained
18	9	0.80	Remained	59	9	0.80	Remained
19	9	0.80	Remained	60	9	0.80	Remained
20	9	0.80	Remained	61	10	1.00	Remained
21	9	0.80	Remained	62	10	1.00	Remained
22	9	0.80	Remained	63	7	0.40	Eliminated
23	5	0,00	Eliminated	64	9	0.80	Remained
24	9	0.80	Remained	65	8	0.60	Eliminated
25	9	0.80	Remained	66	10	1.00	Remained
26	9	0.80	Remained	67	4	−0.20	Eliminated
27	8	0.60	Eliminated	68	10	1.00	Remained
28	9	0.80	Remained	69	9	0.80	Remained
29	9	0.80	Remained	70	5	0.00	Eliminated
30	8	0.60	Eliminated	71	10	1.00	Remained
31	7	0.40	Eliminated	72	5	0.00	Eliminated
32	10	1.00	Remained	73	9	0.80	Remained
33	9	0.80	Remained	74	10	1.00	Remained
34	9	0.80	Remained	75	6	0.20	Eliminated
35	10	1.00	Remained	76	9	0.80	Remained
36	9	0.80	Remained	77	2	−0.60	Eliminated
37	10	1.00	Remained	78	9	0.80	Remained
38	10	1.00	Remained	79	10	1.00	Remained
39	4	−0.20	Eliminated	80	7	0.40	Eliminated
40	10	1.00	Remained	81	9	0.80	Remained
41	10	1.00	Remained	82	9	0.80	Remained

, items with a CVR of 0.80 or higher were interpreted as “Remained”. Items with a CVR below 0.80 were interpreted as “Eliminated” and subsequently removed from the item pool. A total of 62 items, those having CVRs of 0.80 or above, remained in the item pool and were included in the questionnaire form designated for field application. The average of the CVRs for these retained items constitutes the Content Validity Index (CVI). The content validity of the scale is considered statistically significant if the CVI meets or exceeds the minimum acceptable CVR value. Of the 62 retained items, 36 had a CVR of 0.80, while the remaining 26 had a CVR of 1.00. Consequently, the mean CVR for all retained items was 0.90. Therefore, since 0.90 ≥ 0.80 (the minimum acceptable CVR for 10 experts), the content validity of the scale is statistically significant.

• Stage 4:

Step 1: Creation of the scale. After calculating the CVRs and CVIs of the statements in the item pool, the final version of the scale was developed, as presented in Appendix B, and the item numbers were re-marked.

Steps 2 and 3: Sample determination and pre-test administration.

The retained items (questions) from the scale were initially administered as a pre-test to a small group. It is emphasized in the literature that pre-tests should be conducted on a minimum of 100 participants [131,132,133]. In this study, a sample comprising 159 participants was obtained. This obtained sample size is deemed adequate [134,135]. Data regarding the demographic characteristics of the pre-test sample are presented in

Table 4. Demographic variables (n = 159).

Variable	Group	n	%	Variable	Group	n	%
Sex	Female	53	33.33	Experience	Less than 5 years	23	14.50
	Male	106	66.67		6–10 years	55	34.60
Age	30 and below	43	27.00		11–15 years	38	23.90
	31–40 years	37	23.30		16–20 years	22	13.80
	41–50 years	48	30.20		21 years and above	21	13.20
	51 and above	31	19.50	Position	Lower level manager	39	24.50
Marital Status	Married	92	57.90		Middle manager	61	38.40
	Single	67	42.10		Senior executive	45	28.30
Educational Level	High school and below	21	13.20		Boss (business owner)	14	9.80
	Associate degree	34	21.40
	Undergraduate	71	44.60
	Postgraduate	33	20.80

.

According to Table 4, 66.67% (106 individuals) of the subjects were male, and 33.33% (53 individuals) were female. More than half of the subjects were 40 years of age or younger and predominantly held undergraduate degrees. In addition to demographic characteristics, normality analysis was conducted to examine the distribution of other data.

For large datasets, numerous statistical tests requiring normally distributed data tend to be robust to violations of this assumption. Various methods exist to formally check for normality in a dataset, including the well-known Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests.

According to

Table 5. Normality analysis.

Scale	Kolmogorov–Smirnov			Central Tendency Measurements
	Statistic	df	Sig.	Mean	Median	Skewness	Kurtosis
GMMPC	0.101	159	0.000	3.417	3.583	−0.727	0.539

, the Skewness and Kurtosis values fall within the range of +1.96 to −1.96. Therefore, the sample can be considered normally distributed [136].

Step 4: Establishing the factor structure of the scale.

Within this stage, the correlation matrix was first examined. The correlation test determined that there were no items without significant correlations. Accordingly, EFA was performed. The pre-test sample size of 159 participants is considered adequate for conducting a preliminary EFA. While various rules of thumb exist, a sample size greater than 100 is often cited as a minimum threshold [137], and our sample exceeded this, providing a reasonable basis for the initial factor exploration. The robustness of the factor structure was subsequently confirmed with a much larger sample (n = 387) in the CFA stage. Based on the EFA, Bartlett’s test of sphericity yielded a chi-square value indicating significance (p ≤ 0.05), the KMO measure was ≥ 0.60, and factor loadings exceeded 0.50 [136]. EFA is important and widely used in scale development, refinement, and evaluation [138]. EFA is useful for data reduction and identifying latent relationships. Furthermore, EFA can provide significant flexibility to the model, offering insights to better explain the underlying structure and relationships, which can subsequently influence the inferences drawn from the analysis [139].

The values related to EFA and Parallel Analysis (PA) are presented in

Table 6. EFA and PA.

Statements	Factor Load Value (SPSS)	Cron. Alfa (α)	Parallel Analysis Results
			(Ncases: 159; Nvar: 12; Ndataset: 100; Percent: 95; Brian Oc)
			Raw Data	Means	Percently
Dimension 1		α = 0.869	6.147	1.473	1.584
% of Variance: 46.564; Eigenvalue: 6.147
GMMPC 52	0.730
GMMPC 53	0.760
GMMPC 54	0.820
GMMPC 57	0.645
GMMPC 60	0.601
Dimension 2		α = 0.854	1.419	1.352	1.419
% Of Variance: 8940; Eigenvalue: 1419
GMMPC 3	−0.666
GMMPC 4	−0.982
GMMPC 5	−0.704
Dimension 3		α = 0.842	1.347	1.254	1.320
% Of Variance: 5325; Eigenvalue: 1347
GMMPC 31	0.764
GMMPC 33	0.815
GMMPC 35	0.608
GMMPC 46	0.510

Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood (ML); Rotation Method: Direct Oblimin; KMO: 0.895; Bartlett’s sphericity test; (χ² = 1.033, 152; df = 66; p = 0.000).

. According to the analysis, KMO = 0.895 (KMO > 0.60), Bartlett’s test of sphericity = 0.000 (Bartlett’s < 0.05), and Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.913, which is above the 0.60 threshold [136,138,139]. Thus, the developed scale appears to meet the appropriate criteria. However, even if the analysis results meet the desired criteria, it is necessary to check the random distribution of items across the scale’s sub-dimensions using PA [125]. While the Kaiser–Guttman criterion (eigenvalue > 1) is a commonly referenced method for factor retention, its potential to be misleading is well-documented in the literature. Therefore, this study primarily adopted the more robust PA method, as recommended by Horn [140], to determine the optimal number of factors. Nevertheless, to ensure a comprehensive examination and to check for the random distribution of items across the scale’s sub-dimensions, an analysis based on the Kaiser–Guttman criterion was also conducted as a supplementary step. Despite its known critical aspects, this secondary analysis provided an additional layer of verification regarding the scale’s underlying structure. The initial unidimensionality of the scale was assessed using the Kaiser–Guttman criterion on the pre-test sample (n = 159). The analysis yielded three distinct factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, which were 6.147, 1.419, and 1.347. Collectively, these factors accounted for 60.7% of the total variance in the data. This result provided strong preliminary support for a multi-dimensional structure rather than a single-factor solution, aligning with the theoretical framework of “Environmental Promotion”, “Green Packaging”, and “Green Distribution”. Therefore, in this study, the decision on the number of factors was primarily based on the PA method, which was recommended by Horn [140] and produces more reliable results. The results of the Parallel Analysis (see Table 6 and Table 10) indicated that a three-factor structure was the most statistically significant and interpretable. Consequently, the final model was validated based on three factors.

Horn recommends comparing the eigenvalues obtained from a factor analysis with those derived from a random data set of the same dimensions [141]. This comparison is considered a crucial step in determining whether the factor structure reflects a genuine underlying structure or is merely due to chance. No random distribution was observed through PA.

Implementation of Steps 5–9.

In steps 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, the EFA results and the required factor loading values are explained in significant detail [125]. Within this framework, analyses were conducted using the Maximum Likelihood method. The factor loading threshold was set at 0.50. “Direct Oblimin” was chosen as the rotation method. During the scale creation phase, DFA was repeated five times, and EFA and PA were performed. As a result of these analyses, items with factor loadings below 0.50 were deleted. In line with common practice [142], items were evaluated based on several criteria for retention: a factor loading of at least 0.50 on a single factor, no significant cross-loadings, and a communality value exceeding 0.50.

The correlation relationships within the structure formed after item deletion are presented in

Table 7. Correlation table.

No		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
1	GMMPC 3	1
2	GMMPC 4	0.701 **	1
3	GMMPC 5	0.579 **	0.702 **	1
4	GMMPC 31	0.407 **	0.350 **	0.379 **	1
5	GMMPC 33	0.326 **	0.420 **	0.340 **	0.637 **	1
6	GMMPC 35	0.440 **	0.402 **	0.317 **	0.529 **	0.558 **	1
7	GMMPC 46	0.466 **	0.440 **	0.362 **	0.518 **	0.560 **	0.623 **	1
8	GMMPC 52	0.319 **	0.384 **	0.374 **	0.349 **	0.321 **	0.400 **	0.450 **	1
9	GMMPC 53	0.445 **	0.330 **	0.344 **	0.438 **	0.403 **	0.487 **	0.530 **	0.560 **	1
10	GMMPC 54	0.396 **	0.429 **	0.433 **	0.414 **	0.461 **	0.472 **	0.583 **	0.600 **	0.672 **	1
11	GMMPC 57	0.399 **	0.438 **	0.494 **	0.361 **	0.416 **	0.459 **	0.460 **	0.519 **	0.490 **	0.608 **	1
12	GMMPC 60	0.451 **	0.415 **	0.490 **	0.453 **	0.425 **	0.483 **	0.528 **	0.484 **	0.557 **	0.582 **	0.626 **	1
13	GMMPC 1st dimension	0.872 **	0.909 **	0.858 **	0.431 **	0.411 **	0.441 **	0.482 **	0.407 **	0.426 **	0.476 **	0.503 **	0.514 **	1
14	GMMPC 2nd dimension	0.499 **	0.489 **	0.424 **	0.812 **	0.830 **	0.827 **	0.824 **	0.463 **	0.566 **	0.587 **	0.516 **	0.575 **	0.537 **	1
15	GMMPC 3rd dimension	0.495 **	0.492 **	0.525 **	0.497 **	0.499 **	0.567 **	0.629 **	0.787 **	0.812 **	0.856 **	0.798 **	0.795 **	0.573 **	0.667 **	1
16	GMMPC	0.694 **	0.700 **	0.675 **	0.680 **	0.682 **	0.722 **	0.763 **	0.674 **	0.731 **	0.775 **	0.729 **	0.753 **	0.784 **	0.865 **	0.904 **

**: correlation values. It’s 99% meaningful (p < 0.01).

. The primary objective of conducting this analysis is to identify any potentially inconsistent scale items among the remaining variables. In this respect, items demonstrating a significant correlation of at least 0.50 with at least one other scale item are deemed appropriate.

Step 10: Application of CFA.

CFA is essentially utilized for conducting psychometric evaluations and confirming the structure of a scale. Furthermore, CFA can also be employed to assess method effects and factor invariance [143]. EFA is distinct from CFA, serving as a statistical method to simplify data. Its purpose is to examine the structure of correlation or covariance matrices, thereby reducing a large number of observable variables to a smaller set of underlying latent variables [144]. EFA is fundamentally data-driven. It is widely criticized on this point because its application does not require any pre-specified hypotheses regarding the scale’s factor structure [143]. In contrast, CFA is a statistical method used to test the validity of a theoretical model. Therefore, it holds a clear advantage over EFA [145]. The CFA was performed on the newly identified model, and its visual representation is provided below (Figure 1).

To test the suitability of the scales, CFA was applied using the AMOS 24 program. According to the analysis results, the required criteria are X²/df < 5, p < 0.05, RMSEA < 0.08, CFI > 0.90, GFI > 0.85, NFI > 0.90, SRMR < 0.08, AVE > 0.50, and CR > 0.70 [136,146,147]. The goodness-of-fit indices for the analysis are provided in

Table 8. Goodness-of-fit indices.

X2(df)	p	RMSEA	CFI	GFI	SRMR	AVE	CR
1.468	0.000	0.054	0.977	0.930	0.028	0.589	0.967

.

The measurement model for the pre-test data was validated through CFA. All 12 items demonstrated statistically significant loadings on their intended constructs (p < 0.001), with standardized factor loadings (β) ranging from 0.589 to 0.967, which is well above the acceptable threshold. The CR for the overall scale was 0.967, and the AVE was 0.589, confirming the model’s high internal consistency and convergent validity even at this preliminary stage. According to the measurement model, there were no items with a factor loading value below 0.50. The GMMPC scale was revealed to consist of three factors and 12 items. The analyses were limited by the participants’ ability to understand and respond to the questions. Therefore, the developed scale required further testing on a larger sample [148,149]. Within this context, the developed scale was re-tested on a new sample group (387 individuals). The analyses conducted in this scope are presented under the heading “Study 2”.

4.2. Study 2

The 3-factor, 12-item scale resulting from the pre-test regarding GMMPC was readministered to a group of 387 individuals. The analyses were again conducted following the relevant steps outlined by Carpenter [125] in his 10-step process. The demographic characteristics of the sample are briefly as follows: Most of the respondents are male. More than half of the respondents are 40 years old or younger, predominantly hold a bachelor’s degree and have more than 10 years of work experience. Respondents’ tenure in their firms is generally less than 5 years. General information about the firms can be briefly stated as follows: Firms have generally been operating for more than 10 years and employ more than 100 people. Firms are more likely to be active in the food and packaging products sector and in machinery and parts manufacturing. Most of the firms use digital marketing, and more than half of them understand the importance of digital marketing. More than half of the firms export, but none of them use carbon offsets. More than half of the firms have moderate to advanced knowledge of the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM); they also believe that CBAM will have a moderate to significant impact on their businesses. It is understood that most firms do not have reverse logistics systems, more than half of them use environmental signs or labels on their products, with “environmentally friendly” and “recycling” being the most used signs. According to the same table, most of the firms expect an increase in the number of staff to be employed for green jobs in the future and do not have ISO 14,001 certification.

Following the pre-test of the GMMPC scale, the items corresponding to the resulting sub-dimensions were re-administered via survey to a larger sample (387 individuals). The following notable findings were obtained: Respondents indicated that the green packaging approach reduces packaging waste ($\overline{{\rm X}}$ = 3.76) and results in less damage to materials (such as breakage, spoilage) ($\overline{{\rm X}}$ = 3.63). They also stated that they select cleaner transportation systems ($\overline{{\rm X}}$ = 3.60), utilize specific environmental criteria for their suppliers ($\overline{{\rm X}}$ = 3.58), participate in sponsorship activities related to environmental issues ($\overline{{\rm X}}$ = 3.53), and highlight that their products are green in their advertisements ($\overline{{\rm X}}$ = 3.49).

Descriptive analysis of the final sample (n = 387) revealed key characteristics of the data. The overall mean score for the 12-item GMMPC scale was 3.46, with a standard deviation of 0.883, indicating a moderate and relatively consistent adoption of green marketing practices among the surveyed SMEs. A normality test was conducted, yielding a Skewness value of −0.512 and a Kurtosis value of 0.026. As both values fall within the acceptable range of ±1.96, the data can be considered to be approximately normally distributed.

Normality analysis was conducted to examine the distribution of data beyond demographic variables.

According to

Table 9. Normality analysis.

Scale and Sub-Dimensions	Kolmogorov–Smirnov			Central Tendency Measurements
	Statistic	df	Sig.	Mean	Median	Skewness	Kurtosis
GMMPC	0.083	387	0.000	3.461	3.583	−0.512	0.026

, the Skewness and Kurtosis values fall within the range of +1.96 to −1.96. Therefore, the sample can be considered normally distributed [136]. Based on the item means for the sample and the normality results, EFA was re-applied to the resulting scale. According to the EFA, the item distribution within the scale is consistent with the previous analysis. PA was conducted on the sample to test for randomness. The results are presented in

Table 10. EFA and PA.

Items		Factor Load Value (SPSS)	Cron. Alfa (α)	PA Results
				(Ncases: 387; Nvar: 12; Ndataset: 100; Percent: 95; Brian Oc)
				Raw Data	Means	Percently
1st Dimension			α = 0.855	6.132	1.297	1.346
% of Variance: 47,755; Eigenvalue: 6132
GMMPC 52	We inform consumers about environmental management within our company.	0.819
GMMPC 53	We participate in sponsorship activities related to environmental issues.	0.726
GMMPC 54	We utilize specific environmental criteria for our suppliers.	0.847
GMMPC 57	We emphasize the “eco-friendly business” image in our promotional activities.	0.648
GMMPC 60	We highlight that our products are green in our advertisements.	0.491
2nd Dimension			α = 0.858	1.334	1.217	1.265
% Of Variance: 8450; Eigenvalue: 1334
GMMPC 3	Our materials sustain less damage (such as breakage, spoilage) due to our green packaging approach.	−0.793
GMMPC 4	The green packaging approach reduces our packaging waste.	−0.946
GMMPC 5	Green packaging practices make our products even lighter.	−0.690
3rd Dimension			α = 0.876	1.208	1.158	1.200
% Of Variance: 6437; Eigenvalue: 1208
GMMPC 31	We utilize green vehicles in our distribution channel.	0.863
GMMPC 33	We use less fuel thanks to green transportation.	0.847
GMMPC 35	We monitor emissions resulting from product distribution.	0.611
GMMPC 46	We select cleaner transportation systems.	0.543

Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood (ML); Rotation Method: Direct Oblimin; KMO: 0.905; Bartlett’s sphericity test; (χ² = 2.620, 395; df = 66; p = 0.000).

.

According to Table 10, KMO = 0.905 (KMO > 0.60), Bartlett’s test of sphericity = 0.000 (Bartlett’s < 0.05), Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.912, X²/df < 5, p < 0.05, AVE measuring convergent validity > 0.50, and CR > 0.70 [136,138,139]. Thus, the developed scale was again found to meet the appropriate criteria. The goodness-of-fit indices for this analysis are provided in

Table 11. Goodness-of-fit indices.

X2(df)	p	RMSEA	CFI	GFI	SRMR	AVE	CR
2.563	0.000	0.064	0.970	0.949	0.037	0.605	0.970

.

Although some values were observed to decrease and others to increase with the larger sample size, all results obtained remained within the acceptable threshold limits. The required criteria for the analysis results were RMSEA < 0.08, CFI > 0.90, GFI > 0.85, NFI > 0.90, SRMR < 0.08, AVE > 0.50, and CR > 0.70 [146,147]. Although the results of the analysis met the expected values, Kaiser–Guttman analysis was conducted again to retest the random distribution of the items to the sub-dimensions of the scale. According to this analysis, it was determined that the scale items were distributed to the correct sub-dimensions, and the values are as follows:

The factor structure of the scale was re-examined on the final sample (n = 387) using the Kaiser–Guttman criterion. The analysis again supported a three-factor solution, with eigenvalues of 6.132, 1.334, and 1.208. These three factors collectively explained 62.6% of the total variance, providing robust confirmation of the scale’s multidimensional structure as established in the pre-test phase.

The correlation relationships within the resulting structure are presented in

Table 12. Correlation table.

Items	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
GMMPC 3	1
GMMPC 4	0.743 **	1
GMMPC 5	0.603 **	0.641 **	1
GMMPC 31	0.390 **	0.324 **	0.346 **	1
GMMPC 33	0.352 **	0.367 **	0.297 **	0.704 **	1
GMMPC 35	0.419 **	0.358 **	0.291 **	0.589 **	0.573 **	1
GMMPC 46	0.426 **	0.372 **	0.327 **	0.562 **	0.586 **	0.601 **	1
GMMPC 52	0.369 **	0.384 **	0.343 **	0.326 **	0.339 **	0.406 **	0.463 **	1
GMMPC 53	0.468 **	0.375 **	0.339 **	0.455 **	0.442 **	0.503 **	0.547 **	0.599 **	1
GMMPC 54	0.464 **	0.436 **	0.427 **	0.394 **	0.395 **	0.431 **	0.509 **	0.641 **	0.682 **	1
GMMPC 57	0.430 **	0.420 **	0.434 **	0.408 **	0.412 **	0.432 **	0.413 **	0.599 **	0.530 **	0.635 **	1
GMMPC 60	0.463 **	0.378 **	0.431 **	0.468 **	0.433 **	0.494 **	0.529 **	0.493 **	0.585 **	0.540 **	0.551 **	1
GMMPC 1st dimension	0.894 **	0.903 **	0.844 **	0.402 **	0.385 **	0.406 **	0.427 **	0.415 **	0.449 **	0.503 **	0.486 **	0.482 **	1
GMMPC 2nd dimension	0.474 **	0.424 **	0.376 **	0.853 **	0.851 **	0.831 **	0.815 **	0.457 **	0.581 **	0.515 **	0.497 **	0.574 **	0.483 **	1
GMMPC 3rd. dimension	0.535 **	0.487 **	0.482 **	0.500 **	0.493 **	0.553 **	0.600 **	0.820 **	0.829 **	0.855 **	0.815 **	0.768 **	0.570 **	0.640 **	1
GMMPC	0.713 **	0.672 **	0.634 **	0.696 **	0.687 **	0.715 **	0.738 **	0.702 **	0.764 **	0.767 **	0.736 **	0.742 **	0.765 **	0.846 **	0.907 **

**: correlation values. It’s 99% meaningful (p < 0.01).

. The primary objective of conducting this analysis is to identify any potentially inconsistent scale items among the variables. In this regard, items demonstrating a significant correlation of at least 0.50 with at least one other scale item are deemed appropriate.

According to the EFA results, the values were found to meet the expected criteria. However, due to the advantages of CFA compared to EFA, it was necessary to apply CFA to the scale [145]. The visual representation of this analysis is provided in Figure 2.

The scale, comprising three factors and 12 items, was re-tested. The final measurement model was confirmed through CFA on the larger sample (n = 387), demonstrating excellent psychometric properties. According to the measurement model, no items were found with a factor loading value below 0.50. All 12 items loaded significantly onto their respective factors, with standardized factor loadings (β) ranging from 0.723 to 0.946. The overall scale achieved a CR of 0.970 and an AVE of 0.605. These values substantially exceed the recommended thresholds, confirming the high reliability and convergent validity of the final GMMPC scale. According to Shevlin et al. [150], the reliability of a measurement instrument is not, by itself, a sufficient condition for its validity. Indeed, in some cases, reliability coefficients may appear artificially inflated due to measurement errors. This situation can lead to misleading conclusions regarding the validity of the measurement instrument. Such issues are unlikely to be detected through EFA. Although EFA can be reported, CFA provides a statistically stronger foundation for validating a theoretical model [138,139,141,144].

Fundamentally, a scale development study should entail a thorough examination of the research methods employed and potential sources of error. The validity and reliability of a scale depend on a well-structured conceptual framework and a stable factor structure. In this context, scale items should demonstrate consistency with pre-defined conceptual definitions and yield similar results across different samples and applications [151]. Within this framework, measurement invariance analyses covering both samples were conducted.

According to

Table 13. Invariance analysis.

Model	χ2	df	χ2/df	SRMR	CFI	RMSEA	∆χ2	∆df	∆CFI	p-Value for ∆χ2
Group1	71.927	49	1.468	0.028	0.977	0.054	-	-	-
Group2	125.574	49	2.563	0.037	0.970	0.064	-	-	-
Model 1: Configural	197.501	98	2.015	0.037	0.972	0.043	-	-	-
Model 2: Weak (Metric)	202.34	107	1.891	0.036	0.973	0.04	4.839	9	0.001	0.024
Model 3: Scalar	204.106	113	1.806	0.036	0.975	0.038	1.766	6	0.002	0.009
Model 4: Strong	214.827	127	1.692	0.037	0.976	0.036	10.721	14	0.001	0.050
Model 5: Partial (GMMPC 3 − a1)	198.481	99	2.005	0.037	0.972	0.043	16.346	28	0.004	0.082

∆χ²: χ² change (|χ²ⁿ − χ²ⁿ⁻¹|); ∆df: df change (|dfn − dfn−1|); ∆χ²/df: χ²/df change (|χ²ⁿ/dfn − |χ²ⁿ⁻¹/dfn−1); ∆CFI: CFI change (|CFIn − CFIn−1|); ∆CFI < 0.01; p-value for ∆χ²: χ² significance value of change (p < 0.05).

, the ∆CFI value was found to be below 0.01 in both samples [152]. The developed scale demonstrates invariance and can therefore be considered applicable to larger populations.

As a result of the conducted analyses, the GMMPC scale was finalized, comprising a total of 12 items under three dimensions (factors). The naming of the factors was influenced by the items exhibiting the highest factor loadings and containing common thematic words. Finally, the items pertaining to the GMMPC scale are provided in

Table 14. GMMPC scale factors, items, and factor loadings.

Factors (Sub-Dimensions)	GMMPC Scale Items	Factor Loading
1st Dimension: Environmental Promotion	We inform consumers about the environmental management within our company.	0.819
	We participate in sponsorship activities related to environmental issues.	0.726
	We use specific environmental criteria for our suppliers.	0.847
	We emphasize the “eco-friendly business” image in our promotional activities.	0.648
	We highlight that our products are green in our advertisements.	0.491
2nd Dimension: Green Packaging	Our materials sustain less damage (such as breakage, spoilage) due to our green packaging approach.	0.793
	The green packaging approach reduces our packaging waste.	0.946
	Green packaging practices make our products even lighter.	0.690
3rd Dimension: Green Distribution	We utilize green vehicles in our distribution channel.	0.863
	We use less fuel thanks to green transportation.	0.847
	We monitor emissions resulting from product distribution.	0.611
	We select cleaner transportation systems.	0.543

.

In this scale, there are no items that require reverse coding, and items can be evaluated based on means. There is no need to evaluate the total score.

5. Discussion

The primary aim of this study was to develop a psychometrically sound instrument to measure the green marketing practices of SMEs. The resulting 12-item, three-dimensional Green Marketing Mix Practice Culture (GMMPC) scale, comprising “Environmental Promotion”, “Green Packaging”, and “Green Distribution”, successfully achieves this objective and offers significant theoretical and practical implications.

Our findings reveal that the most tangible aspects of an SME’s green marketing culture are concentrated at the tactical level, specifically within product packaging, distribution channels, and promotional activities. This supports broader research indicating a positive link between green marketing and SME performance [7,8] but provides a more granular understanding. It specifies that for resource-constrained SMEs, the path to green transformation is most effectively initiated through these concrete, operational domains, offering a clear roadmap for implementation. The high factor loadings for the “Green Packaging” dimension underscore its criticality as a visible and impactful green marketing practice for SMEs.

Our findings reveal a practical, tactical hierarchy that SMEs can follow. The “Green Packaging” and “Green Distribution” dimensions represent tangible, operational-level actions that firms can implement as a starting point. These actions often lead to direct cost savings and have a visible impact, making them easier to justify and implement with limited resources. “Environmental Promotion” logically follows as the communication layer, allowing firms to leverage their concrete achievements in packaging and distribution to build a credible green brand image. This structure provides a tactical roadmap for SMEs, moving from concrete operational changes to strategic communication, which is a key advantage of the GMMPC scale.

The GMMPC scale distinguishes itself significantly from existing instruments in the literature. While comprehensive Green Marketing Orientation (GMO) scales often measure broad strategic, internal, or operational dimensions [6,17,18], the GMMPC scale offers a unique contribution by providing a focused, concise, and tactical-level measurement tool. It isolates the core marketing mix elements that are most accessible and relevant to SMEs, thereby avoiding the conceptual complexity of broader constructs like “Strategy” or “Internal Marketing”. A key theoretical contribution of this study is the empirical validation of “Green Distribution” as a distinct factor, separate from the “Green Product” dimension under which it is often subsumed in other models [153,154]. This finding highlights that for SMEs, greening the logistics and distribution processes is a critical and independent area of practice, as vital as product and promotion. The GMMPC scale serves as a tactical-level measurement tool that complements broader, strategic frameworks like Green Marketing Orientation (GMO) [6]. While GMO captures the holistic strategic intent of a firm, the GMMPC operationalizes and measures the “on-the-ground” practice culture of its tactical marketing mix. From the perspective of the Natural Resource-Based View (NRBV), the GMMPC provides a mechanism to empirically measure the development of specific, valuable, and hard-to-imitate capabilities [23] in green packaging and distribution. In this way, our scale does not replace these existing frameworks but rather enriches them by providing a much-needed, granular tool for testing their tactical-level manifestations, especially within the SME context.

This focused approach, in contrast to studies that treat various green practices as independent constructs without yielding a single score [153] or those that use a one-dimensional construct [155], provides SME managers with a more practical and actionable self-assessment tool. It allows them to objectively evaluate their performance in tangible areas and develop sincere, evidence-based communication strategies, thus mitigating the prevalent fear of “greenwashing” often associated with a lack of expertise [3]. This finding resonates with existing research that identifies the “fear of greenwashing” [156] and a lack of specific expertise [157] as major obstacles for SMEs. Unlike broader GMO scales, our GMMPC scale offers a direct solution to this problem by providing managers with a tangible checklist of tactical actions, thus reducing ambiguity and providing a clear starting point for implementation. This both supports our findings and highlights the practical contribution of our scale.

Regarding the interpretation of the scale items, it is worth clarifying the dual meaning of the term “lighter” in the statement “green packaging practices make our products even lighter.” This term is intentionally used to capture two complementary benefits aligned with the ”reduce” principle of the Circular Economy [124]: (1) reducing the product’s environmental footprint through less material usage and (2) decreasing its physical weight to enhance logistical efficiency and lower carbon emissions. This item thereby holistically measures both the ecological and economic benefits achievable through packaging optimization.

5.1. Theoretical Implications

Despite previous studies aiming to measure green marketing from diverse perspectives, the need for the scale emerging from this study is apparent. This scale can offer academics a new instrument to deepen theoretical frameworks in the field of green marketing, while also assisting SME managers with practical applications, thereby contributing to green transformation efforts within the sector. By strengthening the theoretical framework in the field of green marketing, this scale can contribute to laying the groundwork for the development of new hypotheses and theories. Offering a robust methodological foundation supported by comprehensive validity and reliability studies, the GMMPC scale can enrich the theoretical framework in the field of green marketing. Consequently, this can facilitate an increase in both the quantity and quality of research conducted on green marketing in Turkey. For instance, it can enable a clearer definition and measurement of concepts such as “GMMPC”. In other words, this scale can facilitate the conduct of quantitative research in the green marketing field. Researchers can use these scales to conduct comparative studies across different sectors, countries, or companies and measure the effectiveness of green marketing practices. It is anticipated that the scale developed in this study will aid in better understanding the relationships among concepts such as green packaging, green distribution, consumer environmental consciousness, and green product cost. For instance, answers can be sought to questions such as the impact of “Environmental Promotion” on consumer environmental consciousness or the effect of “Green Packaging” on green product cost. Such scales can lead to the emergence of new research questions in the green marketing field. For example, answers to questions such as “How does GMMPC differ across various cultures?” can be explored using these scales.

5.2. Managerial Implications

Practical Applications for SMEs: One of the biggest obstacles faced by SMEs is the fear of “greenwashing” and a lack of expertise on how to proceed [3]. The GMMPC scale offers a direct solution to this problem. An SME manager can use this 12-item scale as a checklist to objectively assess their firm’s current standing. For example, a firm scoring low on the “Green Packaging” dimension can direct its resources towards sourcing recyclable materials or reducing packaging waste. For the “Environmental Promotion” dimension, the importance of not only participating in environmental sponsorships but also transparently communicating these activities to stakeholders via websites or social media is highlighted. In this way, they can develop a sincere and evidence-based communication strategy, avoiding accusations of greenwashing. This scale provides SMEs with a concrete and practical framework on “where to start” and “how to measure success”.

The most significant contribution of this study is that the developed scale serves as a tool for evaluating the green marketing practices of SMEs. As also stated by Moravcikova et al. [12], such scales enable firms to evaluate their own green marketing practices and identify their shortcomings. According to Moravcikova et al. [12], such scales are expected to offer businesses an important instrument for evaluating and improving the performance of their green marketing strategies. For instance, a company identifying shortcomings in ”Green Packaging” can implement improvements in this area.

An SME manager can use the 12-item GMMPC scale as a diagnostic tool. For example, if a company scores low on “Green Distribution” items like “We utilize green vehicles” and “We select cleaner transportation systems”, this provides a clear signal to prioritize a review of their logistics strategy, potentially exploring partnerships with greener courier services or optimizing delivery routes to reduce fuel consumption.

The scale can be adapted into a supplier evaluation checklist. When choosing a new packaging provider, a manager can use the ”Green Packaging” dimension items (e.g., “Our materials sustain less damage”, ”We use recycled materials”) to assess and compare the environmental credentials of potential suppliers, thus making the procurement process more aligned with their sustainability goals.

The “Environmental Promotion” dimension serves as a guide for credible marketing campaigns. Instead of making vague “eco-friendly” claims, a firm scoring high on this dimension can confidently highlight its specific actions, such as ‘”Participating in sponsorship activities related to environmental issues”, in its marketing materials, thereby building consumer trust and mitigating the risk of greenwashing.

Based on the results of these scales, firms can determine the environmental sensitivity level of their target audience and shape their marketing messages and products accordingly. By improving green marketing practices, companies can gain a competitive advantage. As the number of environmentally conscious consumers increases, the demand for green products and services will also rise. Through these scales, companies can reduce their environmental impacts and potentially increase their long-term profitability.

5.3. Limitations

As with any study, this research has some limitations that should be considered. This research may not encompass all relevant studies or the latest developments in sustainable marketing. The data for this study were collected solely from SMEs operating in the Ankara Ostim OIZ in Turkey. This geographical and sectoral focus represents a significant limitation on the generalizability of the findings. Findings from the Ankara Ostim OIZ may not be directly generalizable to SMEs in other regions of Turkey or in different cultural and economic contexts. Similarly, the prevalence of manufacturing firms could influence the results.

The success of sustainable marketing strategies can be influenced by regional differences in environmental awareness and customer preferences, which could affect the applicability of the research findings. Green marketing practices and consumer perceptions can vary significantly depending on the country’s cultural and economic context. For instance, the study by Nguyen-Viet [64] in Vietnam reveals different consumer dynamics in the Asian market, while the research by Eyadat et al. [16] focusing on the pharmaceutical sector in Jordan shows that sectoral differences can also influence the results. Therefore, it is necessary to test the developed GMMPC scale in different countries (both developed and developing) and various sectors (e.g., services, agriculture, technology) to examine its cross-cultural and cross-sectoral validity. Future studies could adopt a multinational and multi-sectoral sample design to address this limitation.

Given SMEs’ limited control over pricing and the statistical weakness of this dimension in measurement, the “Price” dimension was ultimately removed from the final scale to enhance its statistical power and practicality. This decision, based on the preliminary literature review and expert opinions, allowed the study to focus on the other three dimensions, which produce more consistent and meaningful results. A primary limitation of this study is its focus on the three-core tactical marketing mix elements (product, promotion, distribution), excluding other dimensions of the extended 7P mix such as “People”. As demonstrated in the literature (e.g., [3]), “Internal Green Marketing” is a complex and distinct construct that warrants its own dedicated scale development.

A limitation of this study is that while the GMMPC scale is designed for comparative purposes, we did not conduct a multi-group analysis across different sectors or firm sizes to empirically test this capability. This remains an important avenue for future validation.

Another limitation relates to the data collection method. A mixed-mode method was used in the data collection process, including face-to-face interviews, online surveys via Google Forms, and self-administered questionnaires. Different data collection methods have a potential impact on participants’ responses. For example, the risk of social desirability bias may be higher in face-to-face surveys compared to online surveys. The potential effect of this on the results cannot be controlled.

6. Conclusions

This study successfully addresses a significant void in the green marketing literature through the development and validation of a psychometrically sound instrument: the GMMPC scale. The research culminates in a robust 12-item, three-dimensional scale—encompassing ”Environmental Promotion”, ”Green Packaging”, and “Green Distribution”—which are identified as the most tangible and critical domains for green marketing implementation within the specific operational context of SMEs.

The principal theoretical contribution of this research is the provision of a foundational measurement instrument that enriches green marketing theory. By offering a valid and reliable scale, this study enables a clearer conceptualization and measurement of green marketing practice culture, thereby facilitating more nuanced and rigorous comparative research across different contexts (e.g., sector, region, firm size). Furthermore, the GMMPC scale offers a practical and actionable evaluation mechanism for SME managers and industry representatives. As a diagnostic tool, it empowers practitioners to objectively assess their firm’s performance, identify specific areas for improvement, and consciously shape their marketing strategies. Consequently, the scale serves as a catalyst for disseminating best practices and increasing awareness, providing SMEs with a concrete framework on “where to start” and “how to measure success” in their green transformation.

Ultimately, as SMEs increasingly face pressure to respond to environmental expectations and achieve sustainability goals, the accurate measurement and strategic development of their green marketing practice culture becomes a critical success factor. This research, therefore, represents a significant step in enhancing the body of knowledge in the field, bridging the gap between academic theory and practical application and contributing to a more sustainable future.

7. Directions for Future Research

Adapting the Scale to the Extended 7P Mix: This study, for methodological focus, limited its scope to the core elements of the marketing mix. However, the other elements of the 7Ps—People, Process, and Physical Evidence—are critically important, especially for SMEs in the service sector. Sathana et al. [22] demonstrated that green marketing strategies have a direct and significant impact on employee development. Building on this finding, future research could develop a “People” dimension for the GMMPC scale by adding items such as “We provide regular sustainability training to our employees” or “We consider the environmental awareness of candidates as a criterion in our recruitment processes.” Therefore, future research should aim to develop and validate scales for the other Ps to build a more comprehensive understanding of green marketing practice culture in SMEs. Similarly, new items could be derived for the “Process” and “Physical Evidence” dimensions to make the scale more comprehensive.

Further application and testing of the developed scale in a broader context are necessary. Therefore, future studies could apply the scale among other SME managers across Turkey using a more systematic sampling approach to enhance its validity. Utilizing the GMMPC scale, future research could better elucidate various aspects of green marketing essential for successfully managing sustainability issues in corporate settings, thereby strengthening environmentally and ethically acceptable manifestations of green marketing. This scale can help reveal more clearly the extent to which organizations have embraced green marketing cultures. Specifically, by conducting comparative studies on the green marketing practices of SMEs, opportunities for this segment to achieve sustainability goals can be better understood. Furthermore, comparing green marketing practices across different sectors can contribute to identifying the best cross-sector practices and accelerating green transformation. Through this, enhancing the body of knowledge in the field of green marketing can encourage efforts towards a more sustainable future in both academia and the business world. Scales developed in future studies could focus on measuring different dimensions of green marketing separately (e.g., product design, production processes, marketing strategies). This would enable the identification of areas where SMEs exhibit strengths or weaknesses.

Future research should apply the GMMPC scale in diverse contexts, such as comparing manufacturing versus service SMEs or contrasting SMEs in developed versus emerging economies. Such multi-group analyses would empirically validate the scale’s utility as a comparative tool and provide valuable insights into contextual differences in green marketing practices.

Future research is strongly encouraged to test the GMMPC scale’s validity and reliability across diverse industries (e.g., services, agriculture) and in different countries to establish its cross-cultural and cross-sectoral applicability.