Journal of Cleaner Production 401 (2023) 136667

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Green business process management for business sustainability: A case

study of manufacturing small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)
from Germany
Theresa Marie Sohns a, Banu Aysolmaz b, *, Lukas Figge a, Anant Joshi a
a
School of Business and Economics, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands
b
Information Systems Group, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Dr. Govindan Kannan Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have an important position in global sustainability since they are a
prominent contributor to global pollution. It is challenging for SMEs to assess their level of business sustainability
Keywords: and identify actions to diminish environmental impact. Sustainability assessment models have been developed
Sustainability for this purpose, but a process focus is missing. Green business process management (Green BPM) aims at
Green business process management
reducing the negative environmental impact of organizations through business processes rather than only
Small and medium-sized enterprises
considering final products and services. Combining literature from business sustainability and Green BPM, our
Maturity model
study conceptualizes a Green BPM maturity model and, through multiple case study research, uses it to assess the
Green BPM practices of ten manufacturing SMEs. The results reveal the level of business sustainability of SMEs
based on six Green BPM factors: green attitude, strategy, governance, modeling, monitoring, and optimization.
We further identify relevant benefits, pressures, and barriers that can drive or hinder Green BPM practices. Based
on the findings, we make recommendations on how SMEs can accelerate their transition towards higher levels of
business sustainability.

1. Introduction
Global warming has already reached a level of 1.2 ◦ C, and given the
current trajectory, recent predictions expect an increase of 2.7–3.2◦ by
the end of this century (IPCC Working Group III, 2022; Stockwell et al.,
2021). This increase is much higher than the 1.5◦ that the Paris Agree­
ment aimed for, to keep humanity and the planet within a safe operating
space. Research studies acknowledge the importance of business sus­
tainability efforts for sustainable global development (e.g., Belas et al.,
2021; Muff and Dyllick, 2014) and, particularly, green business process
management (Green BPM) (Couckuyt and Van Looy, 2020; González
et al., 2019; Hoesch-Klohe et al., 2010; Stolze et al., 2012). Companies
have been increasingly engaging in sustainability programs; however,
global sustainability indicators have not been improving (United Na­
tions, 2022). There remains a “big disconnect” between micro-level
action on the business level and macro-level environmental outcomes
(Dyllick and Muff, 2016), which requires governments, businesses, and
researchers to respond with extensive sustainability actions (Vásquez
et al., 2021).
Much academic and public attention is given to sustainability ini­
tiatives for large corporations since those, individually, have much
greater emissions and public exposure than small and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs)F1 (Al-Hakimi et al., 2022; Cantele and Zardini,
2019). Collectively, however, SMEs are the most common form of
business in Europe, accounting for 56.4% of value-added in the Euro­
pean Union (Caldera et al., 2018; European Comission, 2019), while
contributing significantly to global pollution, for example, by generating
more than half of the greenhouse gas emissions (Calogirou et al., 2010;
Parker et al., 2009). SMEs have increasingly initiated sustainability ac­
tivities, but it is not well understood how processes and sustainability
outcomes are related in SMEs (Zhang et al., 2021). Therefore, more
research is required on the sustainability of processes in SMEs (Belas

* Corresponding author. Information Systems Group IE&IS, Eindhoven University of Technology, Atlas, 5.323 De Rondom 70, 5612 AP, Eindhoven, the
Netherlands.
E-mail address: b.e.aysolmaz@tue.nl (B. Aysolmaz).
1
The European Commission (EC) defines SMEs as companies with up to 250 employees and an annual turnover of less than € 50 million (European Commission,
2020)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136667
Received 4 August 2022; Received in revised form 29 January 2023; Accepted 2 March 2023
Available online 8 March 2023
0959-6526/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
T.M. Sohns et al.
et al., 2021; Moyeen and Courvisanos, 2012; Munoz-Torres et al., 2009;
Quintás et al., 2018; Testa et al., 2016; Thompson, 2014).
Green business process management (Green BPM) is a new class of
extended BPM practices for process design, execution, and monitoring,
driven by the carbon footprint of business processes (Ghose et al., 2010).
Green BPM is defined as “[…] the sum of all Information system-supported
management activities that help monitor and reduce the environmental
impact of business processes in their design, improvement, implementation or
operation stages […]” (Opitz, Krüp, and Kolbe, 2014a, 3812). The focus
of Green BPM is on the optimization of business processes with respect
to sustainability aspects. To achieve this, Green BPM recognizes the
salience of processes in resource consumption and carbon footprint
generation and provides a process lens to guide companies in their
implementation of sustainability actions (Ghose et al., 2010). Opitz et al.
(2014b) suggest a readiness model, which defines a set of factors that
influence Green BPM initiatives in organizations. However, there has
not been sufficient research to guide organizations in evaluating and
improving the green maturity of their business processes (Gohar and
Indulska, 2020).
It is challenging for SMEs to assess their sustainability efforts and
identify directions to improve business sustainability (Mitchell,
O’Dowd, and Dimache, 2020). Despite the established need for sus­
tainability assessment tools, few researchers have developed frame­
works to classify and manage business sustainability efforts (Bhatnagar
et al., 2022; Vásquez et al., 2021). In particular, the Business Sustain­
ability Typology (BST) by Dyllick and Muff (2016) has been used for
classifying the concerns, the value created as well as the organizational
perspective on sustainability on a spectrum of four business sustain­
ability stages (Hermelingmeier and von Wirth, 2021). However, a major
limitation of BST is that it does not provide an inclusive and clear pro­
cess perspective. That is, it mainly refers to high-level ‘organizational
perspectives’ about how a business handles sustainability facilitated
through business processes. To address this shortcoming, we see an
opportunity to integrate the BST with Green BPM.
The environmental cost of the manufacturing sector is particularly
high since production processes are more resource intensive and have a
greater carbon footprint than in other sectors (Boiral et al., 2014;
Heimes et al., 2017; Moyeen and Courvisanos, 2012). In Germany and
its 16 regions, SMEs are the backbone of the economy, which is depicted
by the special name, ‘Mittelstand’, used for uniquely successful SMEs.
Particularly in the rural Eifel-Mosel region of Rhineland-Palatine, SMEs
constituted 99,5% of businesses and generated 42% of economic value
added in 2017 (Böckmann et al., 2019; IHK Trier, 2020). In this region,
the manufacturing sector is the second largest industry (IHK Trier,
2020). These reasons motivate our selection of manufacturing SMEs in
the Eifel-Mosel region as the focus of analysis in this study.
To shed light on the process sustainability efforts in manufacturing
SMEs and support them in their Green BPM initiatives, the key objective
of this study is to assess the Green BPM practices in manufacturing SMEs.
To address this objective, we first conceptualize a Green BPM maturity
model by integrating the Green BPM readiness model with the four
stages of the BST by Dyllick and Muff (2016). We use this model to assess
the current maturity state of a set of ten manufacturing SMEs, identified
with purposive sampling, with respect to their Green BPM practices
using multiple case study research. The case study approach for a spe­
cific geographic region is a prevalent research method to study SMEs
(Helmdach and Röttgers, 2020; Moyeen and Courvisanos, 2012;
Munoz-Torres et al., 2009; Quintás et al., 2018).
Our findings show a varying level of Green BPM maturity among the
examined SMEs. Specifically, we find that all studied SMEs have a well-
developed green attitude while most of them fail to develop and imple­
ment a fully-fledged green strategy and translate this into an effective
governance structure, in alignment with the findings from large-scale
business sustainability surveys for SMEs (e.g., Ipsos European Public
Affairs, 2022; Shibamoto, 2022). Our study contributes to the literature
in multiple ways. First, it combines the literature on Green BPM and
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 401 (2023) 136667
business sustainability through developing a Green BPM maturity model
for SMEs. The topic of business sustainability assessment has gained
traction, and maturity models have been developed (e.g., Barletta et al.,
2021; Shi et al., 2019; Vásquez et al., 2021); however, our model differs
with its process focus for SMEs on sustainability maturity. Second, the
case study results add to the literature by unveiling the status of business
sustainability and exhibiting the operationalization of six Green BPM
factors in manufacturing SMEs. Third, we identify dominant benefits,
pressures, and barriers as factors that can drive or hinder Green BPM in
SMEs with concrete examples of experiences and actions from the
investigated SMEs. The model and the case study results can provide
guidance, which is particularly required by SMEs (Mitchell, O’Dowd,
and Dimache, 2020), for developing plans to improve process sustain­
ability for various dimensions, such as green strategy, governance, or
monitoring. We identify seven directions for SMEs that can guide them
in their Green BPM practices, thus, improving business sustainability.
The reminder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents
the related literature on Green BPM and the developed Green BPM
maturity model. Section 3 explains the qualitative case study approach
and motivates the choice of ten SMEs in the Eifel-Mosel region. Section 4
presents the research findings from the multiple case study including the
results of the Green BPM maturity assessment and a structured analysis
of the benefits, pressures, and barriers for the analyzed firms. Section 5
discusses the theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and
avenues for future work. Lastly, we conclude the paper in Section 6.
2. Background and the green BPM maturity model
2.1. Green BPM
Virtually every organization, be it a multinational conglomerate or
an SME, owns and manages several business processes for the efficient
and timely delivery of services and products (Dumas et al., 2018). The
discipline that is concerned with the management of business processes
is business process management. In a typical BPM initiative, perfor­
mance measures to monitor and assess business processes are time,
quality, cost, and flexibility. Environmental impact is hardly considered
a dimension to assess the performance of processes (vom Brocke, Seidel,
and Recker 2012; van de Ven et al., 2022). Nonetheless, the extensive
consumption of resources like energy, electricity, or water in the myriad
activities of a business process has become an important target for
business initiatives and scholarly writings on corporate sustainability
(vom Brocke, Seidel, and Recker 2012; Couckuyt and Van Looy, 2020;
Gohar and Indulska, 2015; González et al., 2019; Maciel, 2017; Stolze
et al., 2012).
Ghose et al., (2010) put forward a new field called green business
process management by integrating BPM and business sustainability,
which has also been adopted and implemented in subsequent
sustainability-focused studies (e.g., Ahmed and Sundaram, 2012;
Couckuyt and Van Looy, 2020; González et al., 2019; Maciel, 2017;
Opitz, Krüp, and Kolbe, 2014b, 2014a). Green BPM is an approach to
managing processes by adding sustainability to the traditional perfor­
mance measures of time, cost, quality, and flexibility. The way business
processes are executed to produce products and services directly affects
business sustainability (van der Aalst et al., 2023). By implementing
Green BPM practices, companies can take a process-oriented approach
to corporate environmental sustainability rather than considering only
the sustainability of their final products and services (Rozman et al.,
2015). For example, consumable resources used in business processes
would be tracked, and data on the use of a capital good in a
manufacturing process would be collected to determine the end-of-life
decisions for the capital good (Blengini et al., 2012).
Prior studies on Green BPM have suggested methods, techniques,
models, and frameworks for managing business processes (González
et al., 2019). Thus far, research in this field has mostly been qualitative
and focused on the development of theoretical models (Houy et al.,
T.M. Sohns et al.
2011; Nowak et al., 2011; Opitz, Krüp, and Kolbe, 2014b; Rozman et al.,
2015). However, little research has been performed on the empirical
implementation and evaluation of the suggested artifacts. Moreover,
extant literature has mostly studied large companies (e.g., Asadi et al.,
2019; Couckuyt and Van Looy, 2021). However, separate Green BPM
approaches may be needed for SMEs since their structural characteristics
differ from larger companies (Vásquez et al., 2021). In SMEs, the orga­
nizational hierarchy is typically flat, and often, multiple responsibilities
are handled by one role (BMWI, 2022), which results in distinct
decision-making processes. Furthermore, they are mostly bound to the
environmental expectations in their value chain, especially in the exis­
tence of larger companies (Mitchell, O’Dowd, and Dimache, 2020).
These particularities warrant a study that investigates SMEs separately
from large enterprises.
While research on SMEs remains underdeveloped (Belas et al., 2021;
Moyeen and Courvisanos, 2012; Munoz-Torres et al., 2009; Quintás
et al., 2018; Testa et al., 2016), the insights from studies on the imple­
mentation of sustainability practices in all kinds of businesses are also
applicable to SMEs. A recurring finding is that SMEs face certain bene­
fits, pressures, and barriers in implementing sustainability activities
(Brammer et al., 2012; Jansson et al., 2017; Meath et al., 2016; Seidel
et al., 2010). One such barrier is the scarcity of their resources, such as
factors of production, information, knowledge, support, time, and tools
for approaching green practices (Kübler, 2020; Moyeen and Courvisa­
nos, 2012; Quintás et al., 2018; Yacob et al., 2019). Testa et al. (2016)
identified external pressures and the owners’/managers’ attitudes as the
most important predictors of a firm’s sustainability efforts. In addition,
the green attitude of the owners/managers has been confirmed as an
important predictor of green activities (Boiral et al., 2014;
González-Benito and González-Benito, 2006; Yacob et al., 2019). Simi­
larly, Manninen & Huiskonen (2022) identified the sustainability
orientation of top management to guide decisions. Additionally,
resource availability and stakeholder pressure have been found to affect
the environmental proactivity of firms (Boiral et al., 2014;
González-Benito and González-Benito, 2006). The most central benefits
identified in the literature are improvements of competitiveness, better
public relations, a polished firm image, and long-term cost savings
(Cantele and Zardini, 2019; Hrovatin et al., 2021; Salimzadeh and
Courvisanos, 2015). Even though the authors did not specifically con­
nect these forces to Green BPM initiatives, they nonetheless provide
explanations of the various influences on sustainability activities in
SMEs. Hence, existing research suggests that the benefits, pressures, and
barriers constitute essential driving or hindering forces in Green BPM
and, thus, are a crucial component to be added to a Green BPM model.
However, the benefits, pressures, and barriers for manufacturing SMEs
have been defined on a high-level by examining their relationship with
the presence of sustainability practices (Cantele and Zardini, 2019).
2.2. Developing the green BPM maturity model
Maturity models have found considerable use in guiding organiza­
tions to improve their business processes (Tarhan et al., 2016) and
managing sustainability efforts (Vásquez et al., 2021). In this view,
Bhatnagar et al. (2022) underscore the need for assessment tools of
sustainability performance to understand sustainability issues and
create improvement agendas. Barletta et al. (2021) developed a model
to assess the sustainability readiness of manufacturing organizations.
However, this study remains high-level and does not address business
processes. Despite the indicated need to manage and improve the
maturity of processes for sustainability, current BPM studies have not
considered sustainability as the focus of process maturity (Cleven et al.,
2012) or focused on a specific aspect of sustainability through processes
(Couckuyt and Van Looy, 2021). Thus, Green BPM literature so far has
not conceptualized sustainability stages or levels that would allow a
mapping of firms along a sustainability spectrum. Dyllick and Muff
(2016) suggest a typology for business sustainability, BST, which can be
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 401 (2023) 136667
used to classify firms according to their sustainability efforts along four
levels. This typology, however, relies on rather abstract constructs (such
as strategy, leadership, and culture) and considered a process perspec­
tive only from a risk management and organizational embedding of
sustainability (Dyllick and Muff, 2016).
To be able to assess the Green BPM maturity level of manufacturing
SMEs, in this study, we propose the Green BPM maturity model depicted
in Table 1. To develop this model, we have integrated the six factors of
Green BPM defined in the Green BPM readiness model (Opitz, Krüp, and
Kolbe, 2014b) with the four stages framework by Dyllick and Muff
(2016). For this, the criteria identified for each stage are adapted and
defined for every six factors of Green BPM initiatives in SMEs. The first
column in Table 1 was taken from the BST framework and adapted to the
case of Green BPM, creating four levels of Green BPM maturity. The
second column, Green BPM Initiatives, was also defined based on how
Dyllick and Muff (2016) described the distinct levels of business sus­
tainability. The definition of the six core factors of the Green BPM
readiness model (green attitude, green strategy, green governance,
green modeling, green monitoring, green optimization) was used to
develop and characterize the distinct Green BPM levels. The third col­
umn describes the necessary actions to transcend to a higher level, as
adopted from the key shifts in the BST framework. We add the fourth
column, the forces driving the shifts to a higher level of Green BPM,
which explains the benefits, pressures, and barriers as the driving (or
blocking) forces derived from Green BPM literature. This aspect allows
us to analyze why and how companies are at a particular level or shift
based on the identified decisive impact of benefits, pressures, and bar­
riers to the implementation of sustainability measures in SMEs (Bram­
mer et al., 2012; Jansson et al., 2017; Seidel et al., 2010) as discussed in
Section 2.1.
In our Green BPM maturity model, Green BPM initiatives are allo­
cated to four maturity levels of Green BPM in alignment with a typical
maturity model structure (Vásquez et al., 2021). This allows SMEs to
identify the necessary shift to get to the next stage. Each of the four
levels of Green BPM refers to a distinct Green BPM maturity of a firm.
Level 0 is tantamount to no Green BPM measures being implemented.
Firms in levels 1, 2, and 3 have Green BPM initiatives implemented to
varying degrees of detail and advancement. At level 1, the economic
motivation to engage in environmental sustainability is still the promi­
nent factor. Green BPM level 2 is characterized by a sound imple­
mentation of Green BPM and business processes creating value by
fulfilling defined key environmental indicators (KEIs). Moreover, envi­
ronmental objectives are realized as well as monitored and reported on,
and business processes are continuously optimized to reduce emissions.
In the highest level 3, a profound change in management takes place that
puts true business sustainability at the core of the business model, and
sustainability becomes the raison d’étre. Important to mention is that, to
transcend to the next highest level of Green BPM, a company needs to
undergo three fundamental shifts. In the first shift from Green BPM Level
0 to Green BPM level 1, the importance of business sustainability is
acknowledged, and a few first Green BPM initiatives are being imple­
mented. In the second shift, the SMEs start pursuing value creation for
their company by simultaneously reducing their environmental impact.
Green BPM becomes a company competence just like conventional
process management. The third shift is characterized by a change to an
outside-in perspective that aims at doing business in line with envi­
ronmental limitations compared to the predominant inside-out
perspective. The SMEs employ Green BPM to facilitate the creation of
a positive environmental impact through their business activities.
3. Research method
We used a case study approach to gain empirical insights into how
Green BPM is implemented at different levels of maturity in manufacturing
SMEs. Through the case study method, we aim to achieve the objective
of this research by revealing the business sustainability practices of
T.M. Sohns et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 401 (2023) 136667

Table 1
The Green BPM Maturity Model developed from the BST of Dyllick and Muff (2016) and the Green BPM readiness model of Opitz et al. (2014b).
Levels of Green Green BPM Indicators for Six Core Factors (Opitz, Necessary shift to the next level (Dyllick and Muff, 2016) Forces driving the shift(s)
BPM (Dyllick and Krüp, and Kolbe, 2014b) (Literature in Section 2.1)
Muff, 2016)

Green BPM Level No implementation of Green BPM From Green BPM Level 0 to Level 1: broadening the Benefits: improved competitiveness,
0 Green attitude: not present BPM performance indicators and implementation of Green public relations, firm image, and cost
Green strategy: not implemented; profit BPM initiatives reduction
maximization drives strategy, and it is the business Pressures: external and internal
imperative stakeholders, environmental regulations
Green governance: not pursued; the organizational Barriers: lack of resources and
structure not directed at Green BPM knowledge, lack of tools and methods,
Green modeling: not implemented high implementation costs, time
Green monitoring: not implemented
Green optimization: not implemented; solely
economic process performance dimensions/
traditional KPIs (time, cost, quality, flexibility) are
pursued
Green BPM Level Green BPM is a company goal; indications of Green From Level 1 to Level 2: value creation by reducing
1 BPM negative environmental impact; introduction of Green
Green attitude: present; owners show sincere BPM practices
awareness for sustainability
Green strategy: partly implemented; sustainability
goals are included in business strategy
Green governance: pursued tentatively; governance
structure incorporates sustainable activeness
Green modeling: partly implemented; some KEIs can
be found in process definitions
Green monitoring: partly implemented; KEIs are
monitored without dedication and continuity
Green optimization: partly implemented;
sustainability is somewhat considered in process
improvements
Green BPM Level Green BPM is a firm imperative From Level 2 to Level 3: outside-in perspective on
2 Green attitude: always present; owners realize and sustainability; fundamental philosophical change for SME;
act on their environmental responsibility Green BPM used to create positive environmental impact
Green strategy: fully implemented; separate
sustainability strategy exists
Green governance: fully implemented; the SME is
specifically organized to practice Green BPM
Green modeling: fully implemented; KEIs and
environmental impact are included in process
definitions
Green monitoring: fully implemented; processes are
monitored for their environmental impact
Green optimization: fully implemented; all processes
are optimized for better environmental performance
Green BPM Level Green BPM facilitates the proactive creation of
3 sustainability
Green attitude: in addition to Level 2, owners/
managers are solely focused on business
sustainability
Green strategy: in addition to Level 2, strategy
guides to make a positive environmental impact as a
business
Green governance: in addition to Level 2,
management and employees are fully dedicated to
their green strategy
Green modeling: in addition to Level 2, a significant
focus is on the KEIs
Green monitoring: in addition to Level 2, green
process monitoring supports continuous business
sustainability
Green optimization: in addition to Level 2,
processes are optimized to operate sustainably

SMEs in a certain region and identifying the benefits, pressures, and
barriers they encounter. In our multiple case study research, we used
semi-structured interviews to collect data on the Green BPM maturity
level of the selected SMEs. We used a qualitative case study approach for
several reasons. First, we assert that, to assess the maturity of Green BPM
in SMEs, a qualitative case study is most suitable as this activity requires
data on the subjective perceptions, experiences, and knowledge of
(Baxter and Jack, 2008). Second, due to lagging research on Green BPM
for SMEs, we acknowledge that semi-structured interviews are the
appropriate source of observations to articulate the phenomenon deeply
in practical settings.
3.1. Description of the cases and case study approach
Purposive sampling was used in selecting ten SMEs from the Eifel-
Mosel region of Germany in this case study to reach a sample of

4
T.M. Sohns et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 401 (2023) 136667

interest for the study (Etikan et al., 2016). Particularly in the Eifel-Mosel Table 2
region of Rhineland-Palatine, one of the 16 regions in Germany, the Characteristics of the sampled SMEs.
economy is dominated by private SMEs with a share of 99.5% and who SME Industry Sector Number of Years in Interviewee Length of
collectively accounted for 42% of value-added in 2017 (Böckmann et al., # Employees Business Role Interview
2019), and manufacturing sector is prominent. Hence, this region con­ 1 Sewage 125 63 Owner 51 min
stitutes a good source of manufacturing SMEs that can be studied for technology and
their Green BPM practices (TrierHandelskammer, 2013). The selection biogas plants
criterion was for SMEs to pursue environmental actions. The SMEs were 2 Photovoltaic 5 11 Owner 37 min
systems
identified through the consultation of the German commercial register 3 Industrial 160 120 Manager 36 min
for the Eifel-Mosel region and a brochure of the Chamber of Industry and pumps and
Commerce in Trier. Additionally, some SMEs were contacted upon machines
referral by the interviewees. While some of the selected SMEs openly 4 Thin sheet and 90 9 Manager 54 min
plastics
pursued environmental activities and won regional environmental
manufacturing
contests, some did not explicitly communicate their sustainability ac­ 5 Wood 75 60 Owner 44 min
tions. The study settled on ten SMEs as the themes, e.g., codes identified processing and
from the interviews, became saturated and to ensure that the amount of furniture
qualitative data was manageable (Shaw, 1999). Purposive sampling in 6 Primary plastics 108 52 Manager 45 min
packaging
this study for manufacturing SMEs in a certain area brings the benefit 7 Switching 29 32 Owner 35 min
that all units of analysis share the same characteristics (Rai and Thapa, devices
2015), such as environmental conditions and regulatory requirements. 8 Mechanical 50 32 Manager 53 min
The sampling, however, limits the representativeness of the findings to engineering
9 Industrial 48 35 Owner 40 min
this specific region, which we acknowledge as a limitation.
process
Table 2 shows the characteristics of the SMEs as well as information measuring and
on the interviewees and the conducted interviews. The SMEs one to six control
in Table 2 were observed to engage in environmental actions openly. 10 Industrial and 59 69 Owner 48 min
The SMEs seven to ten did not communicate their environmental ac­ personal
elevators
tivities but still engaged in or had an awareness of business
sustainability.
This research implements a multiple case study designed following interviews, the interview process proposed by Adams (2015) was
the three components of the case study method described by Yin (2009). employed. The interviews commenced with general questions to break
First, the research objectives were identified as presented in the Intro­ the ice and establish a comfortable atmosphere. The core part of the
duction. Second, the unit of analysis is specified as the micro-/firm level interview covered questions about the development of the six elements
of SMEs. Third, the approach for analyzing the findings is explained of Green BPM in the SMEs and the benefits, pressures, and barriers faced
below. As suggested by Yin (2009), semi-structured interviews were by the SMEs. The second- and third-tier questions aimed to elaborate on
chosen as the mode of data collection. The ten semi-structured in-depth the priority questions and were answered as time allowed.
interviews with the owners/managers of the SMEs provided the primary
data on the maturity of Green BPM and the perceived forces that may 3.3. Data analysis and coding
foster or prevent Green BPM initiatives. This primary information is
essential in making a sound assessment of the SMEs Green BPM maturity We conducted data analysis using the approach suggested by Elo and
level. The semi-structured design of the interviews allowed the in­ Kyngäs (2008). The audio data gathered was transcribed and then im­
terviewees to contribute information that may not have answered the ported into ATLAS.ti for open coding. An initial set of codes is identified
questions directly but still proved to be valuable findings. Owners and based on the Green BPM maturity model and relevant literature on
managers of the SMEs were selected as interviewees to ensure that they benefits, pressures, and barriers (identified in Table 1). They are
have an overall knowledge of the processes in the company. The in­ extended with the new codes that emerged during interviews. The initial
terviews were performed from 13 April to May 3, 2021. The interview set of codes and sub-codes and the codes that emerged during interviews
process and the interview guide are explained in the next section. The are reported in Table 3. The main codes were defined to assess the level
interviewees’ responses and findings are analyzed through open coding of Green BPM and identify the benefits. The first main code, level of
(Elo and Kyngäs, 2008; Yin, 2009). Coding facilitates the Green BPM, is assigned to responses that signal the maturity of the six
pattern-matching technique, essentially grouping similar interview re­ factors of Green BPM in SMEs. The second code summarizes responses
sponses to discern dominant patterns in the findings (Elo and Kyngäs, that could indicate a shift to a higher Green BPM level. The third, fourth,
2008). The exact approach is explained in more detail in Section 3.3 and fifth codes are matched with the respective benefits, pressures and
below. barriers to Green BPM mentioned by the SMEs. The responses were
matched to the codes. If new and relevant patterns surfaced in the data,
3.2. The interview process and the interview guide they were added as new sub-codes.

We developed a semi-structured interview guide, as provided in 4. Results

Appendix 1, to assess the level of Green BPM maturity for the selected
SMEs. We conducted interviews in German to ensure the owners/man­
agers could express their perspectives naturally in their mother tongue.
Subsequently, the responses were translated into English. The interview
process is based on the guidelines for focus groups and in-depth in­
terviews as set out in Ritchie et al. (2013). The interviews lasted between
35 and 60 min. They were conducted via phone or Zoom, and audio was
recorded with the permission of the interviewees. The company and the
owners/managers were kept anonymous to ensure the confidentiality of
the responses. For the ordered conduct of the ten semi-structured
This section reports the results of our multiple case study research.
We first describe the results of the Green BPM maturity level assessment
of the examined SMEs. Then, the status of the six core factors; green
attitude, green strategy, green governance, green modeling, green
monitoring, and green optimization; is assessed for the SMEs. Next, we
synthesize a list of the benefits, pressures, and barriers experienced by
SMEs in the implementation of Green BPM.

5
T.M. Sohns et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 401 (2023) 136667

4.1. Assessment of the green BPM maturity and identification of system, and this causes us to revise and optimize our processes […]. For most
indicators for green BPM factors of the questions, the owners responded, “our project will definitely result
in a green strategy […] currently we are still forming our green strategy”
As a result of the Green BPM maturity assessment through in­ (Interviewee 10). Consequently, SME 9 and 10 are currently in the
terviews, the SMEs are grouped into diverse Green BPM maturity levels, process of defining a green strategy and the approaches for green
as depicted in Fig. 1. On aggregate, the sampled SMEs were observed to modeling, optimization, and monitoring to implement the first Green
exhibit characteristics of Green BPM Level 0 and level 1, while some BPM measures.
were decided to not be on an exact level but on a shift between levels. The next group, SMEs that operate at Green BPM Level 1, include
The highest number of SMEs was positioned in Green BPM level 1. SME 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. The practices they perform to reach level 1 are
Below, we explain each group and report on the Green BPM practices related to diverse Green BPM factors. For green attitude, the owners/
they apply, which constitute the rationale for being placed in the managers realize their responsibility towards the environment and
respective maturity level. Table 4 summarizes the prevalent indicators future generations and, thus, have decided to engage in Green BPM
of Green BPM maturity based on the six core factors of Green BPM in the (SME 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7). SME 5 reports on its website that the environ­
ten SMEs. mental actions and motivation to produce with natural materials are
As the only exemplar among the ten SMEs, SME 8 exhibits strong clearly anchored in the company philosophy. SMEs 3 and 6 also clearly
characteristics of Green BPM Level 0. The owner is clear in his green communicate on their website that the reduction of emissions is integral
attitude and priorities for his company, “the focus is clearly not on sus­ to their operations. Hence, SME 3 and SME 6 have a certified environ­
tainability” (Interviewee 8). Measures that reduce emissions are also mental management system and environmental reporting, which is
primarily motivated by cost reduction and run under “[…] the disguise of indicative of business sustainability being anchored in the business
energy efficiency and we can sell the machines to the customers for a higher strategy. Furthermore, related to green governance, the responsibilities for
price […]” (Interviewee 8). The green strategy is such that electric and Green BPM are clearly defined, with the management being in charge
energy-efficient machines are purchased for mere compliance with in­ but with varying involvement of the employees among the SMEs. Only
ternational regulations, and environmental action is only taken if it makes SME 3 and SME 7 measure resource consumption in processes as an
economic sense for the business (Interviewee 8). indication of green monitoring, but there is no established procedure to
SMEs 9 and 10 were currently in a shift from Green BPM Level 0 to optimize the processes. Nonetheless, the traditional economic KPIs
level 1. At the time of the interviews, the two owners/managers were in related to processes take precedence in the green optimization and green
the process of preparing their company to implement the first Green modelling. Thus, green modeling, green optimization, and green monitoring
BPM initiatives (Interviewees 9 & 10). However, their approach to are only weakly developed in the five SMEs. Consequently, specific KEIs
implementing a green strategy and green governance were different. are not formulated or added as indicators in the process definitions.
Whereas Interviewee 9 takes the leading role in creating a green strategy Rather than being constantly monitored, the management merely keeps
for his firm, Interviewee 10 relies on an external consultancy firm. an eye on the water, energy, and electricity usage. Moreover, none of the
Interviewee 9 is currently “[…] in the process of introducing an ERP SMEs employ information systems to support green modeling and green
monitoring. All interviewees stated that they are continuously looking for
Table 3
new opportunities to make their business processes greener, but they
Overview of main codes and sub-codes. face certain limitations. For example, Interviewee 4 states, “[…] what we
can do, we are already doing”. Moreover, Interviewee 6 rather sees
Main Code Sub-Codes Informing sources for initial
sub-codes
physical limitations to making their business processes greener as they
are processing plastics. In summary, at this level, the firm’s economic
1. Level of green attitude, green strategy, (Opitz, Krüp, and Kolbe,
performance still took precedence and Green BPM is performed when it
Green BPM green governance, green 2014b)
modeling, green optimization, makes economic sense to do so.
green monitoring SME 1 and SME 2 are in the shift from Green BPM level 1 to 2. They
Emerged: inception, have sustainable business models that create economic value with so­
communication
lutions that foster sustainable development. The first SME develops and
2. Shift in Compliance, economic profit, (Dyllick and Muff, 2016)
Level of KPIs, reduction of negative
produces sewage technology and biogas plants, and the second SME
Green BPM impact, outside-in focus plans, produces, and installs solar plants. These products generate green
positive environmental (Gohar and Indulska, 2015) energy, and the wastewater system provides pure drinking water.
impact, common good, KEIs Hence, the green attitude and the green strategy are clearly on making a
3. Benefits Improved competitiveness, (Cantele and Zardini, 2019;
positive impact, which is a characteristic of Green BPM level 3. For
public relations, positive firm Salimzadeh and Courvisanos,
image, cost reduction 2015) example, Interviewee 1 defines that “we have our own patents on our
Emerged: good customer procedures […] like the removal of microplastics and micropollutants”.
relations, improved Nonetheless, pursuing an inherently sustainable business model does
profitability, higher employee not necessarily mean that the business processes are carbon neutral.
satisfaction, increased process
efficiency
Even though business processes facilitate the production of biogas and
4. Pressures internal stakeholder pressure, (Boiral et al., 2014; solar plants, they are currently not carbon neutral (Interviewees 1 & 2).
external stakeholder pressure, González-Benito and Although their green attitude and green strategy are in level 3 due to the
environmental regulations González-Benito, 2006) nature of the products they manufacture, SME 1 and SME 2 are overall
Emerged: retention of
positioned at the shift from level 1 to 2 since their green modeling, green
customers
5. Barriers lack of resources and (Kübler, 2020; Quintás et al., optimization, and green monitoring to support the business model are
knowledge, lack of tools and 2018) implemented but not fully developed. The reason for this positioning is
methods, high implementation that, from a managerial perspective, SME 1 and SME 2 treat a green
costs, lack of time attitude and green strategy as the business imperative, but the Green BPM
Emerged: bureaucracy, lack of
sustainable products
practices are not fully implemented.
6. Green IS Information systems (Couckuyt and Van Looy, In conclusion, four distinct groups of SMEs could be identified at
and Green Use of BPM methods 2020; Ghose et al., 2010; diverse Green BPM maturity levels. The group comprising most SMEs is
BPM Opitz, Krüp and Kolbe, 2014a, Green BPM level 1. In this group, two SMEs produce sustainable prod­
Methods 2014b)
ucts, but their business processes still have a negative environmental

6
T.M. Sohns et al.
Fig. 1. Categorization of the SMEs along the levels of Green BPM
Table 4
Summary of interview findings on the indicators related to the six core factors of
Green BPM.
Six Core Factors of Major indications of the factor derived from
Green BPM the interviews
1. Green Attitude - The sense of responsibility towards
external and internal stakeholders
- Having personal conviction and
perceiving role model function in
sustainability
- Green attitude manifested in the firm
philosophy
- The SME finds meaning in the reduction
of negative environmental impact
- Business opportunities in Green BPM
measures
- Economic viability is a priority
2. Green Strategy - Business sustainability embedded as part
of the business strategy
- The green strategy is part of the overall
business strategy
- Promoting sustainability is the
foundation of the business model
- Small-scale measures without a specific
green strategy
3. Green - Senior management gives general/
Governance unspecified instructions to employees to
avoid resource waste
- Delegation of sustainability measures to
every employee
- Collective definition of strategic goals
- Senior management responsible for Green
BPM
- The SME does have a position directed at
promoting sustainability
4. Green - Processes are defined in the form of texts
Modelling and/or models, but no inclusion of KEIs
- Business processes are not defined; they
are merely in the memory of employees
- There exists documentation for quality
management systems and modeling tools
(e.g., Microsoft Visio), but KEIs are not
documented
5. Green - Continuous process optimization but not
Optimization always to reduce process emissions
- Green optimization is a consideration in
process optimization; limited
optimization along KEIs
- Environmental performance of processes
often neglected
- Employee suggestions for greater
sustainability are considered
- Consultation of external advice
6. Green - the SME has access to and analyzes data
Monitoring on process execution and KPIs, but no
KEIs are monitored
- Resource use is checked only on demand
and irregularly
- Process emissions are not monitored
- No specific Information system is used to
assist or automate green monitoring,
merely generic ERP-systems
Journal of Cleaner Production 401 (2023) 136667
impact. Two SMEs were observed to be in a shift from level 0 to 1, and
two others from level 1 to 2. No SMEs in our multiple case study was
assessed to be in Green BPM Level 2 or 3. One SME was found to be at
Green BPM Level 0 with no Green BPM initiatives being implemented
SMEs
and the economic view of profit generation rather than an environ­
mental aspect being prevalent.
SME 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 7 & 9
SME 4, 5 & 7 4.2. Benefits, pressures, and barriers of green BPM initiatives
In this section, we report on the perceived benefits, pressures, and
SME 1, 3 & 5
barriers in developing Green BPM practices for manufacturing SMEs
SME 3, 4, 6, 8 identified from interviews. A summary of the dominant benefits, pres­
& 10 sures, and barriers, and SMEs experiencing those are presented in
SME 1, 4, 8, Table 5.
&9
SME 3, 4, 6, 8
& 10
4.2.1. Benefits of the green BPM initiatives
Cost reduction due to the optimization of the resource consumption
SME 1, 3, 4, 5
in the execution of the business processes is a benefit that all in­
&6
SME 3, 4, 5, terviewees mentioned. There are two sources of cost reduction: own
6, 7 & 9 generation of energy and electricity through, e.g., solar plants, and the
SME 1 & 2 savings in process inputs through more efficient activities (Interviewees
1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9). Interviewee 1 notes a number of “little effects like
SME 4, 5, 8,
9, & 10
water and energy savings”. Also, Interviewee 5 “[…] saves in the long run of
course also money.” For Interviewee 2, “[…] the CO2 savings through the
SME 2, 4, 5,
solar plant on our premises […]” is at the same time the greatest source of
6, 8 & 9
cost reductions. Another form of cost reduction is achieved through the
SME 2, 4, 5, generation of less waste and the subsequent reductions in waste disposal
6, 8 &9 costs (Interviewees 2, 4, 6, and 9). “The amount of waste continuously
SME 1, 2, 4 &
increases, and the waste disposal costs are high, and through waste reduction,
5
SME 4, 6, 8 &
money can again be saved” (Interviewee 2).
9 An important benefit that leads to cost reduction is increased process
SME 3 efficiency. This benefit emerges due to the removal of rework activities
in processes (Interviewee 2). Interviewee 4 has invested a lot of time and
SME 1, 4, 5, effort to reduce rework and minimize the excess production, which ul­
6, 7, 8 & 10 timately results in more efficient processes with resource saving, thus,
SME 2 & 9
bringing the benefit of reduced costs. Process efficiency also entails
SME 1, 4, 5, 6
using less materials in the production processes, e.g., replacing paper
& 10 through digitalization (Interviewee 9).
Aside from the number of SMEs who state they experience consid­
erable cost savings, Interviewee 3 specifies that “To be honest and from an
SME 1, 4, 5, economic perspective, the cost reduction is close to 0 […]”. Interviewee 7 is
6, 8, 9 & 10 also more pessimistic about cost reductions, “otherwise we do not expe­
SME 4, 6, 8, 9
rience any positive effects, aside from a reassurance of the conscious”.
& 10
Interviewee 4 is also straightforward, “cost reductions will not motivate me
SME 2, 4, 6, much because I do not think that there will be large cost reductions from
8, 9 & 10 sustainable process optimization […]”. Hence, the owners/managers
SME 1 & 10 decide on new measures based on the resources they have available and
not for the benefits they perceive (Interviewees 4 & 6). Consequently,
the benefits of Green BPM are still being subordinated to the SME’s
SME 1, 4, 5,
economic performance.
7, 8, 9 & 10
Another common benefit noted by the SMEs is the maintenance of
SME 2, 5 & 6 good customer relationships (Interviewees 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10). The
SMEs see sustainability as a force that attracts customers with a sus­
SME 1, 3, 4, 5 tainability awareness, and “the sustainability of our customers is, of course
&6
leading” (Interviewee 1). The customers themselves investigate how
SME 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 9 & resource conserving the production is, and, thus, they positively note the
10 Green BPM initiatives by the SMEs (Interviewees 3, 5, and 6). One owner
observes that “[…] we have a lot of customers who enquire on how and
7
T.M. Sohns et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 401 (2023) 136667

Table 5 varies among the SMEs. The greatest variation is in the noted cost re­
Dominant benefits, pressures, and barriers for Green BPM in manufacturing ductions. A dominant theme is that the benefits like cost reductions or
SMEs identified from interviews. better customer relations motivate the owners/managers to adopt
Forces driving/hindering Dominant Findings SMEs additional Green BPM measures (Interviewees 2, 5, 6, and 9). Inter­
Green BPM viewee 5 answers, “the subsequent investments become easier because we
Benefits Cost reduction SME 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, made good experiences […] for example, we started with one solar plant, and
8, 9 then we bought the second, and now we have a third […]”. Additionally, the
Increased process efficiency SME 2, 4, 9 SMEs note the benefits of new measures much quicker and more intense
Good customer relations SME 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
(Interviewees 5 and 9).
6, 10
Positive firm image SME 1, 3, 4, 5, 10
Improved profitability SME 1, 4, 6 4.2.2. Pressures for the green BPM initiatives
Improved competitiveness SME 1, 4, 6 Overall, the sampled SMEs reported experiencing few pressures from
Pressures Internal stakeholder pressure SME 2, 6, 8, 10 internal stakeholders like employees and external stakeholders like cus­
Retention of customers SME 2, 6, 8, 10 tomers, regulators, and society in general. Improved customer relations
Pressure from financial SME 8 were before mentioned as a benefit of making processes greener, but for
institutions
Interviewees 2, 6, 8, and 10, customers also exert pressure for the firms
Barriers High implementation costs SME 2, 3, 5, 7 to become more environmentally sustainable. According to Interviewee
Lack of time SME 2, 4, 7, 9, 10 10, the most pressing force to establish a green strategy is the retention
Lack of resources and SME 2, 3, 4, 5, 7,
knowledge 8
of customers, emphasized as “[…] mainly we hope to retain our customers
Lack of sustainable products SME 4, 5, 6 through sustainable measures, that was clearly communicated to us […]”
Bureaucracy SME 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, (Interviewee 10). This interviewee indicates that the customers would
10 remove the firm from the supplier list if they would not engage in
environmental activities. Consequently, these SMEs take Green BPM
measures “[…] to meet the expectations of our customers” (Interviewee
where the products are produced.” (Interviewee 5). Especially the largest
10). Interviewee 6 was directly approached by one of its biggest cus­
customers have the most impact on motivation, “[…] a big customer of
tomers, who enquired about the carbon footprint of their production
ours grants points […] and even awards that we have put up in the hallway”
processes as a major indication of this pressure.
(Interviewee 6). This shows the importance of being situated in a value
Interviewee 8 experienced pressure from financial institutions for
chain where an SME supplies products to large enterprises interested in
the conditional granting of loans: […] I had a bank coming in the other
increased sustainability. The owners/managers consider better
day, and they said that sustainability is a factor in the bank’s rating […], and
customer relations as a benefit as it ultimately means higher revenue.
they said that by 2040, they would solely be cooperating with sustainable
This supports the notion that economic interests prevail over environ­
businesses […]. Thus, four SMEs are predominantly driven by external
mental concerns.
stakeholders to engage in Green BPM and not from intrinsic motivation
Connected to better customer relations is the positive firm image
or a green attitude.
that not only addresses and attracts new customers but also new
Aside from these four SMEs, none of the other SMEs indicated that
personnel and talent that have environmental awareness (Interviewee 1,
they feel any pressure from third parties to become more active in Green
3, 4, 5, and 10). The effect is described by Interviewee 1 as “we definitely
BPM (Interviewees 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9). The owners/managers almost
profit from that […] also in the firm image for customer and skilled personnel
unanimously declared that the Green BPM measures only originate from
acquisition […]”, which relates to higher employee satisfaction. How­
intrinsic motivation (Interviewees 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9). “I would have to
ever, Interviewee 1 clarifies that the enhanced firm image cannot be
think, but I do not believe that we are taking any measures out of pressure.”
recognized immediately, “[…] this is a long way” (Interviewee 1). Most
(Interviewee 1). Interviewee 2 agrees, and they currently have “[…] no
interviewees indicated that they experienced some improvements but
restrictions and experience no pressure from outside”. Interviewee 4 simi­
not by much (Interviewees 2, 3, 6, and 10). Again, other SMEs specif­
larly states, “well, pressure, I have never heard that; it all comes from within
ically state that they do not experience a polished firm image (In­
[…] we want to become active”. Interviewee 5 is also very concise in
terviewees 4 & 8). Interviewee 7 receives its orders because of the firm’s
stating, “we have no pressure, and we also have no regulations that create
quality and competence and not for the environmental measures it
pressure […]”. Also, Interviewee 3 comments, “we do not feel pressure at
adopts.
this point, well it is all mere inquiries on how we are operating […]”.
Other notable positive effects are improved profitability and
Interviewee 3 concludes, “no company is much interested if we are investing
improved competitiveness (Interviewee 1, 4, 6). Interviewee 1 puts it
in sustainability or not […]”.
directly as “[…] we do economic and ecological sustainability with
A pressure found in literature, environmental regulations, was
increasing profitability.” (Interviewee 1). Also, Interviewee 6 notes
observed as an incentive rather than pressure by two SMEs. Interviewees
increased profitability while saving energy and electricity, and Inter­
1 and 7 advocated the creation of positive incentives by the regulators
viewee 4 sees an improved position vis-à-vis large competitors. None­
and politics at large instead of exerting pressure on SMEs to reduce their
theless, there are SMEs who cannot record increases in profitability but
carbon footprint. Politics “should create incentives and not exert pressure;
who initially only feel the weight of the investments in Green BPM
that is a strategy we are also pursuing internally […]” (Interviewee 1).
(Interviewee 3). Moreover, Interviewee 3 has a distinct experience and
In sum, there is almost an even divide between SMEs who do expe­
does not “sell more pumps just because we are trying to preserve the envi­
rience pull from internal or external stakeholders and those who are
ronment” and “no employee comes here because we are taking environmental
unaffected by any pressure and engage in Green BPM for their own
measures” (Interviewee 3). One benefit identified from the literature,
conviction and a green attitude. The customers are the main drivers and
public relations, was not explicitly mentioned during interviews.
either directly or indirectly impact the green business strategy. How­
To summarize, the major benefits of Green BPM initiatives perceived
ever, even those SMEs who perceive pull from external stakeholders are
by the sampled SMEs are cost reduction, good customer relations, pos­
not ultimately driven by such pressure. With regards to the key shifts,
itive firm image, and profitability. These benefits are of an economic
the pressures are not decisive in the decision on new and higher-level
nature and again underline the commercial interest in Green BPM
Green BPM measures (Interviewee 2, 4, 5, and 9). Hence, the shifts
compared to making a positive environmental impact. However, the
are not driven by pressure but rather by internal motivation.
degree to which the owners/managers experience these positive effects

8
T.M. Sohns et al.
4.2.3. Barriers to the green BPM initiatives
The previous two forces, benefits and pressures, result in the defi­
nition and implementation of Green BPM measures. This section reports
the barriers to the adoption of Green BPM measures perceived by the
interviewees. High implementation costs of the large investments
needed for process optimization are the most prominent deterring factor
mentioned by the interviewees. For Interviewee 3, the initial barrier was
“[…] financial obstacles; we were close to insolvency and also had to bear
this huge renovation damage”. Similarly, Interviewees 5 and 7 were
constricted by the financial means available to them and the share they
are willing to invest in Green BPM measures. An important observation
is that most SMEs do not perceive barriers but rather hurdles to taking
Green BPM measures that the firms can actually overcome (Interviewees
5, 6, and 7). “Costs are a hurdle, but nothing that keeps us from making these
investments […] we have hurdles, yes, but they are not insuperable”
(Interviewee 5). Additionally, Interviewee 2 mentions, “financial means
and time and manpower, that is the biggest problem, we cannot even manage
our workload as it is […]” (Interviewee 2). In sum, the interview re­
sponses indicate that financial means are missing and not merely the
willingness to invest available money.
With this, Interviewee 2 already points to the second most mentioned
hurdle to taking environmental action, lack of time. For these SMEs, the
implementation of Green BPM measures requires a lot of time invest­
ment that would risk daily business activities (Interviewees 2, 4, 7, 9,
and 10). “Especially the owners of SMEs are much involved in the daily
business […], and although they are willing to, we simply lack the time and a
little incentive” (Interviewee 7). The lack of prioritization also swings
with some interviewees’ responses. The owners of SME 2, 7, and 9 see
little opportunity for themselves to manage the time constraint. Inter­
viewee 9 asserts that the owners “cannot deal with the topic because they
are too involved in the daily business, which is, however, self-inflicted […]”.
Closely connected to time is also a lack of resources and knowl­
edge of what Green BPM measures to take and how (Interviewees 2, 3,
and 7). The firm size is again a much-referenced example of resource
limitation (Interviewees 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8). The SMEs are “certainly
willing to take measures, but we have to stay profitable […]” (Interviewee
3). Interviewee 7 needs “[…] a leading actor like a commercial or handi­
crafts chamber that guides the SMEs through instructions […]”. Several
SMEs also cite bureaucracy as a burden to applying for subsidies for
investments in the sustainability of BPs (Interviewee 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, and
10). “[…] the bureaucracy for grant applications keeps many SMEs from
implementing measures; this constitutes an obstacle […]” (Interviewee 2).
A further hurdle is the lack of sustainable products available as
input for the business processes (Interviewees 4 & 5). The SMEs are still
searching for appropriate alternatives to aluminum or plastics with
similar durability and quality. Interviewee 5 stated, “as soon as there is
something available that meets the standards, we can talk about employing it
in our production”. The introduction of products with novel components
not only requires prior market authorization, but existing customers
may be dependent on the product being produced in the old, possibly
less sustainable way (Interviewee 5). The potential of losing core cus­
tomers, in turn, jeopardizes the economic viability of SMEs. The SME of
Interviewee 6 produces spray casts; however, there is currently no
alternative to plastics as input, and his customers also have precise
quality requirements for the spray casts. A barrier from literature, lack of
tools and methods, was not explicitly mentioned by SMEs.
To summarize, the SMEs do perceive barriers to the adoption of
further measures and to increasing their Green BPM maturity. However,
the barriers are perceived as hurdles that SMEs can overcome in case
they want to adopt new environmental measures. However, in the end,
several owners/managers declared that the lack of knowledge and
expertise was the reason for the standstill. These intangible barriers
prevent the SMEs from making a shift to the next Green BPM level.
9
Journal of Cleaner Production 401 (2023) 136667
4.2.4. Overall results for benefits, pressures, and barriers of the green BPM
initiatives
SMEs in the analyzed sample indicated three of the four benefits
identified from the literature: improved competitiveness, positive firm
image, and cost reduction. They only did not indicate public relations
found in the literature. Additional benefits of Green BPM were identified
as good customer relations, improved profitability, higher employee
satisfaction, and increased process efficiency. Cost reduction is a benefit
indicated by most SMEs, while some SMEs indicate no cost reduction.
SMEs that indicate this benefit are positioned in diverse maturity levels.
Thus, the experience of this benefit is not related to maturity. Firm
image is revealed as a major benefit too, but it also includes contro­
versies. Some SMEs do not find it a recognizable benefit, even from firms
with a high Green BPM maturity level.
The pressures indicated by SMEs mostly match the pressures found in
the literature. However, diverse experiences exist among SMEs. Some
explicitly refer to pressure from internal and external stakeholders.
Others explicitly mention they do not feel any external stakeholder
pressure. A common pressure indicated in the literature, environmental
regulations, was not indicated by these SMEs. This can be related to the
country and the domain of the sample. Additionally, SMEs may be
subject to a different set of regulations than large enterprises. Those
SMEs that indicates no pressure are also in diverse levels of maturity.
Several barriers are especially found to be prominent for SMEs. The
time and resources that SMEs need to allocate to Green BPM incentives
particularly impact their daily business activities to a large extent. That
is why they have difficulty in undertaking these incentives, although
they are observed to have sufficient internal motivation. The lack of
sustainable products is a barrier that was not identified in the literature.
This may also be specific to SMEs since they may have less power to
reach different markets and impact their customers in the supply chain
to change their preferences on the end product. The lack of tools and
methods, a barrier identified from the literature, was not expressed by
the sampled SMEs.
5. Discussion
In this study, we developed a Green BPM maturity model to help
SMEs assess their Green BPM maturity levels and to guide them in
improving their maturity. Next, we established an in-depth under­
standing of the Green BPM maturity state of ten manufacturing SMEs in
Germany. We gained insights into their Green BPM practices through six
core factors of Green BPM and revealed the benefits, pressures, and
barriers they experience to Green BPM.
5.1. Theoretical contributions
Our study provides several theoretical contributions to the field of
business sustainability in SMEs and the emerging discipline of Green
BPM. First, the study combines the literature on business sustainability
and Green BPM through multiple case study research. Assessment of the
maturity of sustainability efforts in organizations has attracted major
research interest. Many scholars developed models for maturity assess­
ment of sustainability for a particular production type or technical as­
pects rather than business sustainability, such as smart manufacturing
systems development (Shi et al., 2019), sustainable product design
(Watz and Hallstedt, 2020), and remanufacturing operations (Golinska
and Kuebler, 2014). Barletta et al. (2021) developed a model for
assessing organizational capabilities specifically for manufacturing
practices, such as materials and assets used for manufacturing, without a
focus on the size of the company. Research asserts that SMEs need
specialized support to improve their sustainability practices (Mitchell,
O’Dowd, and Dimache, 2020). Accordingly, Vásquez et al. (2021)
developed a sustainability maturity model for SMEs on the factors of
environmental knowledge of the employees and implementation of
environmental strategies, practices, and related information systems.
T.M. Sohns et al.
This model considers the existence of processes for improving environ­
mental performance but not the management of business processes with
a sustainability perspective. To our knowledge, the current study is the
first on sustainability maturity with a process focus for SMEs.
Second, we argue that our Green BPM maturity model provides a
sound theoretical lens to assess Green BPM practices in organizations.
This model was created by unifying the BST framework by Dyllick and
Muff (2016) and the readiness model by Opitz et al. (2014b). The model
facilitates the categorization of companies along different maturity
stages of Green BPM. The model’s strength is the assessment of the level
of Green BPM maturity based on the core organizational factors (green
attitude, strategy, and governance) and the operational factors (green
modeling, optimization, and monitoring) of Green BPM. Additionally,
the model accounts for the shifts from one level of Green BPM to the
next, during which firms undergo a fundamental change in the organi­
zational and operational factors. Hence, this model extends the BST
framework and can be used to first assess the current level of Green BPM
in the SMEs, and then to identify the changes needed to transition to the
next higher Green BPM level. Thereby we enhance the comprehensive­
ness of the theoretical frameworks. Practically, such guidance is
particularly important for SMEs, which need more support in imple­
menting green practices than large enterprises (Mitchell, O’Dowd, and
Dimache, 2020).
Third, we exhibit the Green BPM maturity of ten manufacturing
SMEs in Germany through the application of the proposed maturity
model. Through in-depth interview analysis, our study extends the
literature by demonstrating concretely how the six core factors of Green
BPM are operationalized in manufacturing SMEs. The findings on the
Green BPM maturity levels of the SMEs are generally in line with the
previous findings on business sustainability maturity. In our sample,
most SMEs are placed in Green BPM maturity level 1 and none in levels 2
or 3. In the manufacturing sector, it is typical that most SMEs lie in a
mid-level maturity in terms of being aware of sustainability practices
and putting in place strategies, and the number of manufacturing SMEs
on top sustainability levels is limited (Vásquez et al., 2021). The results
of large surveys from Europe (Ipsos European Public Affairs, 2022) and
Japan (Shibamoto, 2022) suggest that SMEs are weak at practicing green
business, while their environmental awareness is relatively high. Simi­
larly, in our sample, for the SMEs that are in the maturity level of a shift
from 1 to 2, green attitude, which is the factor about Green BPM
awareness, was assessed to be in a higher maturity, level 3. To be ex­
pected due to the most common barrier for SMEs, financial constraints
(Meath et al., 2016), we did not observe the use of environmental in­
formation systems other than the use of ERP systems to apply certain
sustainability practices. SMEs would increase business sustainability
through improved green modeling and green monitoring by enhancing
their maturity of implementing information systems, particularly data
analytics (Korsten et al., 2022).
Fourth, we identify dominant benefits, pressures, and barriers, which
are the forces that promote or hamper Green BPM in SMEs. This addition
also makes the theoretical framework more comprehensive by intro­
ducing critical factors that illustrate how transitions to higher levels of
business sustainability are being shaped. Our findings confirm and
extend the benefits, pressures, and barriers identified in the SME case
studies (e.g., Boiral et al., 2014; Quintás et al., 2018; Testa et al., 2016;
Yacob et al., 2019). Through the in-depth data collected through in­
terviews, our study brings a deeper understanding of the forces identi­
fied in the literature for sustainability in SMEs in wider studies relying
on archival data (e.g., Meath et al., 2016; Mitchell, O’Dowd, and Dim­
ache, 2020) and provide concrete examples of experiences and actions of
manufacturing SMEs. For example, our findings set an example that a
major barrier for SMEs, the high implementation costs of large envi­
ronmental investments, can be overcome through gradual investments.
Likewise, although we confirm the pressure from internal stakeholders
as a common motivator for Green BPM, our findings depict that many
SMEs are just highly driven by an internal motivation to improve the
10
Journal of Cleaner Production 401 (2023) 136667
level of business sustainability. Additionally, we observe good customer
relationships as an additional benefit to the literature when the
ecosystem of the SME is already focused on improved sustainability.
Thus, the ecosystem in which the SME is situated seems to be a deter­
mining factor for the forces that the SME experiences.
5.2. Practical implications
Our study findings suggest several managerial implications for
developing Green BPM practices in SMEs. First, the green attitude
among SMEs provides fruitful ground for the definition of a concrete
green strategy in line with the business strategy. However, it is observed
that it is challenging for SMEs to implement green strategies in their
processes since the owners are mainly occupied with daily business. In
sum, the managers are motivated to engage in the implementation and
subsequent execution of Green BPM measures, but the extent of their
current implementation is rather limited. Second, our study warrants
that managers need a holistic and strategic approach to Green BPM that
also realizes green modeling, green optimization, and green monitoring.
Before adopting Green BPM measures, a rigorous analysis of the existing
business processes is required. To do so, managers need to oversee
processes and the status of KEIs. Therefore, managers should focus on
defining processes and identifying KEIs related to processes to establish
a continuous green monitoring system.
Third, to create a positive impact, those SMEs who produce unsus­
tainable products should investigate the use of more sustainable mate­
rials. Some SMEs we interviewed have already investigated this
possibility, but no suitable alternatives were found that could satisfy
suppliers’ quality requirements. Hence, an important strategy would be
to converse with the suppliers to first discover or develop alternative and
sustainable materials as process inputs. Lastly, clear communication
with the customers would help SMEs elicit their quality requirements
also regarding sustainable products, which may result in innovative
ideas for sustainable product design (Bhatnagar et al., 2022). Since SMEs
do not typically have sufficient power to guide sustainability goals in
their ecosystem (Heikkurinen et al., 2019), they should interact with
large players in the value chain to impact sustainability requirements.
The interviews have shown that managers cannot expect to shift their
business to the next higher level of Green BPM without incentives, ideas,
expertise, and knowledge from outside. According to the findings of this
study, the managers/owners of SMEs are advised to.
1. Consult external advice to gain expertise, knowledge, and ideas on
potential Green BPM measures and to advance the level of Green
BPM. Only two SMEs in our sample were observed to consult external
advice.
2. Form a trade association solely targeted at exchanging experience on
environmental management, Green BPM measures, and pooling of
resources and knowledge, as suggested by an interviewee. The aim of
such an association or convention is the provision of mutual support
among businesspeople.
3. Search the dialogue and cooperation with customers and suppliers to
develop and produce alternative, sustainable materials themselves.
Three SMEs in our sample have use for sustainable inputs but thus far
have not found suitable alternatives.
4. Impact your ecosystem by engaging in efforts to influence the big
partners in the supply chain on implementing sustainability prac­
tices. This would allow green SMEs to take an advantageous position
as a supplier and open up new Green BPM opportunities, such as
implementing green logistics processes and access to sustainable
inputs and information systems.
5. Define and constantly monitor KEIs to first get a thorough under­
standing of the firm’s carbon footprint and then, rather than just
measuring, use the KEIs as the basis of decision-making for green
optimization. Two SMEs in our sample measured KEIs without using
them for optimization, hindering the benefit of having KEIs.
T.M. Sohns et al.
6. Consider using information systems to reduce the effort required for
green modeling, optimization, and monitoring practices. Use the
knowledge and potential to access information system resources
from the value chain (e.g., access to individual licenses rather than
purchasing a product)
7. Apply the Green BPM maturity model to establish strategic goals to
reach the next higher level. The model enables the owners/managers
to assess their current level and then identify measures to advance to
the next level.
5.3. Limitations and future research
As with any research account, the present study also exhibits limi­
tations that need to be acknowledged. An inherent limitation of case
studies is the lack of generalizability of the findings to other settings.
However, the overall aim of this study is not the generalizability of
findings, but the creation of first impressions of the level of Green BPM
in ten manufacturing SMEs as no previous account has yet combined the
research on sustainability in SMEs and Green BPM. Another limitation is
that the selection of SMEs for interviews did not follow random sam­
pling. Instead, the SMEs were selected based on their environmental
activities. The authors nonetheless took the necessary measures and
observed that the sampled SMEs reasonably represent the landscape of
manufacturing SMEs in the Eifel-Mosel region.
Several avenues for further research could be identified. First,
quantitative follow-up studies can be conducted to investigate the
importance of the identified benefits, pressures, and barriers for
achieving Green BPM. Moreover, a quantitative investigation of the
possible relationship between the perceived benefits, pressures, and
barriers and the shifts from one level of Green BPM to the next would
extend the findings made in the present study. Second, it will be valuable
to extend the case study to SMEs in other resource intensive industries as
well as service sectors in varying industries. Service providers may
process fewer physical resources for the provision of the final service,
but they account for an ever-increasing share of economic activity in
developed and developing countries (Vásquez et al., 2021). Conse­
quently, analyzing BST efforts in the service sector is a valid avenue for
further research. Third, using the Green BPM assessment results of this
study, SMEs can be supported further by developing tools and action
plans for their sustainability actions (Mitchell, O’Dowd, and Dimache,
2020). To achieve this, the maturity model can be extended to achieve a
prescriptive purpose (Pöppelbuß and Röglinger, 2011), for example, by
deriving best practices for certain domains such as smart manufacturing
(Barletta et al., 2021) and identifying capabilities and factors needed
specifically for process automation and data analytics (Aysolmaz et al.,
2023). Fourth, the consideration of different domains and contexts can
also be valuable for distinguishing how forces apply differently and
guiding SMEs better. For example, the cost reduction benefit may
depend on the domain and the type of products and services provided by
an SME, while the pressure of stakeholders perhaps mostly depends on
the ecosystem the SME is situated in. Fifth, for green monitoring of
processes, SMEs can be supported by providing example KEIs to evaluate
the sustainability of various aspects of their processes and using infor­
mation systems to measure those KEIs using process execution data (van
der Aalst et al., 2023; van de Ven et al., 2022). Sixth, large firms and
SMEs are different in the most elementary aspects of a business, and
thus, it would be of added value to conduct a comparative case study
between Green BPM measures in SMEs and large firms. For example, the
benefit of improved public relations and the barrier of lack of tools and
methods were not observed in our sampled SMEs. Revealing the reasons
behind such differences can help SMEs to better guide their Green BPM
efforts.
6. Conclusion
While many organizations have been putting considerable effort into
11
Journal of Cleaner Production 401 (2023) 136667
reducing the environmental impact of their business processes, there is a
gap in research on developing Green BPM initiatives. This issue is a
major challenge, specifically at the SME level. This study addresses this
challenge by conceptualizing a Green BPM maturity model and applying
it in the manufacturing SME context. Following multiple case study
research, we find that most of the investigated SMEs have a moderate
level of green attitude, green strategy, and green governance. However,
the operational aspects of Green BPM are poorly developed, and the
resource consumption and emissions produced are measured, moni­
tored, and utilized by only a limited number of SMEs. On aggregate, one
SME of ten is positioned in Green BPM level 0, while two SMEs are
observed to transition to level 1, five SMEs are positioned in Green BPM
level 1, and two are observed to transition to level 2, while none are
assessed to be in levels 2 or 3. Our analysis shows that the perceived
benefits of Green BPM practices are mostly realized through cost
reduction, better customer relations, improved competitiveness and
profitability, and a better firm image. The pressures dominantly
emanate from customers exerting pressure for retention and financial
institutions. The dominant barriers are limited availability of time, lack
of resources, expertise, and knowledge, high implementation costs, and
bureaucracy. However, no pattern of common benefits, pressures, and
barriers could be identified in the Green BPM levels. We observe that the
barriers constitute hurdles but do not prevent the SMEs from taking
further measures, while the benefits do motivate the owners to advance
on Green BPM. We contribute to the existing research stream of business
sustainability as well as BPM literature. Importantly, our study in­
tegrates two research fields to study the current level of Green BPM in
SMEs through a newly developed Green BPM maturity model. Hence,
this study provides an in-depth analysis of the implemented Green BPM
factors and related forces that impact Green BPM in terms of benefits,
pressures, and barriers to improve the level of business sustainability
through business processes for SMEs. In addition, a set of guidelines are
extracted to help SMEs in fostering their Green BPM efforts.
Declaration of funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration of originality and consent
We declare that this research is not under consideration for publi­
cation elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and
tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was
carried out, and that, if accepted, it will not be published elsewhere in
the same form, in English or in any other language, including elec­
tronically without the written consent of the copyright holder.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Theresa Marie Sohns: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investiga­
tion, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Visualization. Banu
Aysolmaz: Methodology, Validation, Investigation, Writing – review &
editing. Lukas Figge: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation,
Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Anant Joshi:
Validation, Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Supervision.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
T.M. Sohns et al.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136667.
References
Adams, W.C., 2015. Conducting semi-structured interviews. In: Handbook of Practical
Program Evaluation. John Wiley & Sons, pp. 492–505.
Ahmed, M.D., Sundaram, D., 2012. Sustainability modelling and reporting: from
roadmap to implementation. Decis. Support Syst. 53 (3), 611–624. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.dss.2012.02.004.
Al-Hakimi, M., Al-Swidi, A.K., Gelaidan, H.M., Mohammed, A., 2022. The influence of
green manufacturing practices on the corporate sustainable performance of SMEs
under the effect of green organizational culture: a moderated mediation analysis.
J. Clean. Prod. 376 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134346.
Asadi, S., Nilashi, M., Safaei, M., Abdullah, R., Saeed, F., Yadegaridehkordi, E.,
Samad, S., 2019. Investigating factors influencing decision-makers’ intention to
adopt green IT in Malaysian manufacturing industry. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 148,
36–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.04.028.
Aysolmaz, B., Joshi, A., Stubhan, M., 2023. Examining and comparing the critical success
factors between business process management and business process automation.
J. Glob. Inf. Manag. 31 (1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.4018/JGIM.318476.
Barletta, I., Despeisse, M., Hoffenson, S., Johansson, B., 2021. Organisational
sustainability readiness: a model and assessment tool for manufacturing companies.
J. Clean. Prod. 284 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125404.
Baxter, P., Jack, S., 2008. Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and
Implementation for Novice Researchers. 4).Sustainable IT Collaboration Around the
Globe. Association for Information Systems. Vol. 13, Issue, 1–10.
Belas, J., Çera, G., Jan, D., Čepel, M., 2021. Corporate social responsibility and
sustainability issues of small-and medium-sized enterprises. Corp. Soc. Responsib.
Environ. Manag. 28 (2), 721–730. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2083.
Bhatnagar, R., Keskin, D., Kirkels, A., Romme, A.G.L., Huijben, J.C.C.M., 2022. Design
principles for sustainability assessments in the business model innovation process.
J. Clean. Prod. 377 (134313), 134313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2022.134313.
Blengini, G.A., Garbarino, E., Šolar, S., Shields, D.J., Hámor, T., Vinai, R., Agioutantis, Z.,
2012. Life cycle assessment guidelines for the sustainable production and recycling
of aggregates: the sustainable aggregates resource management project (SARMa).
J. Clean. Prod 27, 177–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.01.020.
BMWI, 2022. The German mittelstand as a model for success. Bundesministerium für
Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz. https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/EN/Dossier/sme-po
licy.html.
Böckmann, L., Dammers, D., Martin, J.. Mittelstandsbericht 2019: statistischer bericht
über die situation der mittelständischen wirtschaft in rheinland-pfalz. https://www.
statistik.rlp.de/fileadmin/dokumente/stat_analysen/wirtschaft/Mittelstandsbericht
_2019.pdf.
Boiral, O., Baron, C., Gunnlaugson, O., 2014. Environmental leadership and
consciousness development: a case study among Canadian SMEs. J. Bus. Ethics 123
(3), 363–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1845-5.
Brammer, S., Hoejmose, S., Marchant, K., 2012. Environmental management in SMEs in
the UK: practices, pressures and perceived benefits. Bus. Strat. Environ 21 (7),
423–434. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.717.
Caldera, H.T.S., Desha, C., Dawes, L., 2018. Exploring the characteristics of sustainable
business practice in small and medium-sized enterprises: experiences from the
Australian manufacturing industry, journal of cleaner production. J. Clean. Prod.
177, 338–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.265.
Calogirou, C., Sørensen, S.Y., Bjørn Larsen, P., Alexopoulou, S., Pedersen, K., Kristiansen,
K.R., Mogensen, J., & Papageorgiou, M. (2010). SMEs and the environment in the
European Union. In European Commission, DG Enterprise and Industry. http://ec.
europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/business-environment/files/main_report_en.pdf
Calogirou, C., Sørensen, S.Yding, et al., 2010. European commission, DG enterprise
and industry SMEs and the Environment in the European union. http://ec.europa.
eu/enterprise/policies/sme/business-environment/files/main_report_en.pdf.
Cantele, S., Zardini, A., 2019. What drives small and medium enterprises towards
sustainability? Role of interactions between pressures, barriers, and benefits. Corp.
Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 27 (1), 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1002/
csr.1778.
Cleven, A., Winter, R., Wortmann, F., 2012. Managing process performance to enable
corporate sustainability: a capability maturity model. In: Brocke, J vom, Seidel, S.,
Recker, J. (Eds.), Green Business Process Management: towards the Sustainable
Enterprise. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, Berlin, pp. 111–129.
Comission, European, 2019. SME performance review (SPR) 2018 SBA fact Sheets for
Germany. https://www.euopen4business.eu/2019/sba-fact-sheets-for-germany/.
Couckuyt, D., Van Looy, A., 2020. A systematic review of green business process
management. Bus. Process Manag. J. 26 (2), 421–446. https://doi.org/10.1108/
BPMJ-03-2019-0106.
Couckuyt, D., Van Looy, A., 2021. An exploration of green business process maturity
based on ecoloables. Bus. Process Manag. J. 27 (7), 1999–2020. https://doi.org/
10.1108/BPMJ-05-2021-0293.
Dumas, Marlon, La Rosa, Marcello, Jan, Mendling, Hajo, A., Reijers, 2018. Fundamentals
of Business Process Management. Springer. http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/
10.1007/978-3-642-33143-5.pdf. (Accessed 12 November 2014).
12
Journal of Cleaner Production 401 (2023) 136667
Dyllick, T., Muff, K., 2016. Clarifying the meaning of sustainable business:introducing a
typology from business-as-usual to true business sustainability. Organ. Environ. 29
(2), 156–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575176.
Elo, S., Kyngäs, H., 2008. The qualitative content analysis process. J. Adv. Nurs. 62 (1),
107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x.
Etikan, I., Sulaiman, A.M., Rukayya, S.A., 2016. Comparison of convenience sampling
and purposive sampling. Am. J. Theor. Appl. Stat. 5 (1), 1–4. https://doi.org/
10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11.
Ghose, A., Hoesch-Klohe, K., Hinsche, L., Le, L., 2010. Green business process
management: a research agenda. Australasian J. Inform. Syst. 16 (2), 103–117.
https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v16i2.597.
Gohar, S.R., Indulska, M., 2015. Business process management: saving the planet?. In:
Australasian Conference on Information Systems (Adelaide).
Gohar, S.R., Indulska, M., 2020. Environmental sustainability through green business
process management. Australasian J. Inform. Syst. 24, 1–30. https://doi.org/
10.3127/AJIS.V24I0.2057.
González, A.H., Calero, C., Parra, D.P., Mancebo, J., Hernández González, A., Calero, C.,
Pérez Parra, D., Mancebo, J., 2019. Approaching green BPM characterisation.
J. Software: Evol. Process 31 (2), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.2145.
González-Benito, J., González-Benito, Ó., 2006. A review of determinant factors of
environmental proactivity. Bus. Strat. Environ. 15 (2), 87–102. https://doi.org/
10.1002/bse.450.
Golinska, P., Kuebler, F., 2014. The method for assessment of the sustainability maturity
in remanufacturing companies. Procedia. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
procir.2014.06.018. CIRP15201206.
Heikkurinen, P., William Young, C., Morgan, E., 2019. Business for sustainable change:
extending eco-efficiency and eco-sufficiency strategies to consumers. J. Clean. Prod.
218, 656–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.053.
Heimes, S., Petri, C., Preiser, K., 2017. Mittelstandsinitiative Energiewende und
Klimaschutz Qualifizierung Als Erfolgsmodell: Best-Practice-Beispiele Energie-Scouts.
DIHK Service GmbH. https://www.mittelstand-energiewende.de/fileadmin/user_up
load_mittelstand/MIE_vor_Ort/Leitfäden/Best-Practice_Energie-Scouts.pdf.
Helmdach, R., Röttgers, W., 2020. CSR Am beispiel der mitcaps GmbH Marina Schmitz
and René Schmidpeter. In: CSR in Rheinland-Pfalz: Nachhaltige Entwicklung Aus
Sicht von Wirtschaft, Wissenschaft, Politik Und Zivilgesellschaft. Springer Gabler,
Berlin, pp. 271–281.
Hermelingmeier, V., von Wirth, T., 2021. The nexus of business sustainability and
organizational learning: a systematic literature review to identify key learning
principles for business transformation. Bus. Strat. Environ. 30 (4), 1839–1851.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2719.
Hoesch-Klohe, Konstantin, Ghose, Aditya, Le, Lam-Son, 2010. Towards green business
process management. In: 2010 IEEE International Conference on Services
Computing, pp. 386–393. F L. U S A July July IEEE International Conference on
Services Computing Miami.
Houy, C., Reiter, M., Fettke, P., Loos, P., 2011. Towards green BPM - sustainability and
resource efficiency through business process management. Lecture Notes Busin.
Inform. Process, 66 LNBIP: 501–10.
Hrovatin, N., Cagno, E., Dolsak, J., Zoric, J., 2021. How important are perceived barriers
and drivers versus other contextual factors for the adoption of energy efficiency
measures. An empirical investigation in manufacturing SMEs. J. Clean. Prod. 323,
129123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129123.
IHK Trier, 2020. Region Trier 2030 Innovationskraft Stärken. Mitarbeiter Qualifizieren,
Trier, Germany. https://www.hwk-trier.de/downloads/region-trier-2030-innova
tionskraft-staerken-mitarbeiter-qualifizieren-54,1126.pdf.
IPCC Working Group III, 2022. 9781107025 working group III contribution to the sixth
assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change climate change
2022. Mitig. Clim. Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/re
port/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FullReport.pdf.
Ipsos European Public Affairs, 2022. European comission SMEs, resource Efficiency and
green markets. Eurobarom. Surv. https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/
2287.
Jansson, J., Nilsson, J., Modig, F., Hed Vall, G., 2017. Commitment to sustainability in
small and medium-sized enterprises: the influence of strategic orientations and
management values. Bus. Strat. Environ. 26 (1), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/
bse.1901.
Korsten, B., Aysolmaz, B., Turetken, O., Edel, D., Ozkan, B., 2022. A capability maturity
model for advanced data analytics. In: Proceedings of the 55th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences. Forthcoming.
Kübler, C., 2020. Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement im mittelstand - oder: nachhaltig managen
im mittelstand?. In: CSR in Rheinland-Pfalz: Nachhaltige Entwicklung Aus Sicht von
Wirtschaft, Wissenschaft, Politik Und Zivilgesellschaft. Springer Gabler, Berlin,
pp. 195–201. Marina Schmitz and René Schmidpeter.
Maciel, J.C., 2017. The core capabilities of green business process management: a
literature review. In: 13th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik,
pp. 1526–1537. St.Gallen, Switzerland.
Manninen, K., Huiskonen, J., 2022. Factors influencing the implementation of an
integrated corporate sustainability and business strategy. J. Clean. Prod. 343
(February),, 131036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131036.
Meath, C., Linnenluecke, M., Griffiths, A., 2016. Barriers and motivators to the adoption
of energy savings measures for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): the case
of the ClimateSmart business cluster program. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 3597–3604.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.085.
Mitchell, S., O’Dowd, P., Dimache, A., 2020. Manufacturing SMEs doing it for
themselves: developing, testing and piloting an online sustainability and eco-
innovation toolkit for SMEs. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 13 (3), 159–170. https://doi.org/
10.1080/19397038.2019.1685609.
T.M. Sohns et al.
Moyeen, Abdul, Courvisanos, Jerry, 2012. Corporate social responsibility in regional
small and medium-sized enterprises in Australia. Australas. J. Reg. Stud. 18 (3),
364–391. https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/ielapa.037119434761210.
Muff, K., Dyllick, T.L., 2014. An organizational roadmap of business sustainability. SSRN
Electron. J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2442211.
Nowak, A., Leymann, F., Schleicher, D., Schumm, D., Wagner, S., 2011. Green business
process patterns. In: Proceedings of the 18th Conference on Pattern Languages of
Programs. Association for Computing Machinery, Portland, Oregon, USA,, p. 6.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2578903.2579144.
Opitz, N., Krüp, H., Kolbe, L.M., 2014a. Green business process management - A
definition and research framework. In: 47th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences. IEEE, 3808–17.
Opitz, N., Krüp, H., Maria Kolbe, L., 2014b. Environmentally sustainable business process
management - developing a green BPM readiness model. In: PACIS 2014
Proceedings, p. 12.
Parker, C.M., Redmond, J., Simpson, M., 2009. A review of interventions to encourage
SMEs to make environmental improvements. Environ. Plann. C Govern. Pol. 27 (2),
279–301. https://doi.org/10.1068/c0859b.
Pöppelbuß, J., Röglinger, M., 2011. What makes a useful maturity model? A framework
of general design principles for maturity models and its demonstration in business
process management. In: 19th European Conference On Information Systems, ECIS
2011.
Quintás, M.A., Martínez-Senra, A.I., Sartal, A., 2018. The role of SMEs’ green business
models in the transition to a low-carbon economy: differences in their design and
degree of adoption stemming from business size. Sustainability 10 (6), 2109.
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/2109.
Rai, N., Thapa, B., 2015. A Study on Purposive Sampling Method in Research, 5.
Kathmandu School of Law, Kathmandu.
Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Ormston, R., McNaughton Nicholls, C., 2013. Qualitative Research
Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers, second ed. SAGE, Los
Angeles.
Rozman, T., Draghici, A., Riel, A., 2015. Achieving sustainable development by
integrating it into the business process management system. In: O`Connor, R.V.,
et al. (Eds.), Communications In Computer And Information Science, 22nd. Springer-
Verlag, Ankara, Turkey, pp. 247–259.
Salimzadeh, P., Courvisanos, J., 2015. A conceptual framework for assessing sustainable
development in regional SMEs. J. Environ. Assess. Pol. Manag. 17 (4), 1–17. https://
doi.org/10.1142/S1464333215500398.
Seidel, S., Recker, J., Pimmer, C., vom Brocke, J., 2010. Enablers and barriers to the
organizational adoption of sustainable business practices. In: Proceeding of the 16th
Americas Conference on Information Systems: Sustainable IT Collaboration Around
the Globe. Association for Information Systems, United States, pp. 1–10.
Shaw, E., 1999. A guide to the qualitative research process: evidence from a small firm
study. Qual. Mark. Res. Int. J. 2, 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1108/
13522759910269973.
Shi, X., Baba, T., Osagawa, D., Fujishima, M., Ito, T., 2019. A maturity model for
sustainable system implementation in the era of smart manufacturing. In: IEEE
International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation. ETFA
2019-Septe: 1649–52.
Shibamoto, Masahiko, 2022. Environmental awareness and green business practices in
the small business sector: empirical evidence using a small and medium-sized
13
Journal of Cleaner Production 401 (2023) 136667
enterprises survey in Japan. https://www.rieb.kobe-u.ac.jp/academic/ra/dp/Engli
sh/DP2022-08.pdf.
Stockwell, C., Geiges, A., Ramalope, D., Gidden, M., Hare, B., de Villa, M.J., Moiso, M.,
Hans, F., Mooldijk, S., Höhne, N., Fekete, H., 2021. In: Baxter, C., Merrett, C.,
Spagopoulo, F., Beer, M. (Eds.).
Stolze, C., Semmler, G., Oliver, Thomas, 2012. Sustainability in Business Process
Management Research - a Literature Review. AMCIS.
Tarhan, A., Turetken, O., Reijers, H.A., 2016. Business process maturity models: a
systematic literature review. Inf. Software Technol. 75, 122–134. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.infsof.2016.01.010.
Testa, F., Gusmerottia, N.M., Corsini, F., Passetti, E., Iraldo, F., 2016. Factors affecting
environmental management by small and micro firms: the importance of
entrepreneurs’ attitudes and environmental investment. Corp. Soc. Responsib.
Environ. Manag. 23 (6), 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1382.
Thompson, P.. The sustainability imperative for small business. https://www.ifac.org/
knowledge-gateway/preparing-future-ready-professionals/discussion/sustainability
-imperative-small-business.
Trier, Industrie- und Handelskammer, 2013. Industriestandort Region Trier. Industrie- und
Handelskammer Trier. https://www.ihk-trier.de/ihk-trier/Integrale?MODULE=Fr
ontend.Media&ACTION=ViewMediaObject&Media.PK=10757&Media.Object.Obje
ctType=full.
United Nations, 2022. The sustainable development goals report 2022. https://unstats.
un.org/sdgs/report/2022/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2022.pdf.
van de Ven, M.R., Lara Machado, P., Athanasopoulou, A., Aysolmaz, B., Turetken, 2022.
Key performance indicators for business models: a review of the literature. In:
European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2022): New Horizons in
Digitally United Societies. AIS Electronic Library.
van der Aalst, W.M.P., Hinz, O., Weinhardt, C., 2023. Sustainable systems engineering:
opportunities and challenges. Busin. Inform. Syst. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12599-022-00784-6.
Vásquez, J., Aguirre, S., Puertas, E., Bruno, G., Priarone, P.C., Settineri, L., 2021.
A sustainability maturity model for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises
(MSMEs) based on a data analytics evaluation approach. J. Clean. Prod. 311 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127692 NV - 127692.
vom Brocke, J., Seidel, S., Recker, J., 2012. Green Business Process Management:
towards the Sustainable Enterprise. Springer Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.
Watz, M., Hallstedt, S.I., 2020. Profile model for management of sustainability
integration in engineering design requirements. J. Clean. Prod. 247, 119155 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119155.
Yacob, P., Wong, L.S., Khor, S.C., 2019. An empirical investigation of green initiatives
and environmental sustainability for manufacturing SMEs. J. Manuf. Technol.
Manag. 30 (1), 2–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-08-2017-0153.
Yin, R.K., 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications. https
://books.google.de/books?id=FzawIAdilHkC.
Zhang, H., Anthony, V., Calvo-Amodio, J., Haapala, K.R., 2021. Making the business case
for sustainable manufacturing in small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises:
a systems decision making approach. J. Clean. Prod. 287 (125038) https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125038.
Munoz-Torres, M.J., Fernandez-Izquierdo, M.A., Nieto-Soria, L., Rivera-Lirio, J.M.,
Escrig-Olmedo, E., Leon-Soriano, R., 2009. SMEs and corporate social responsibility:
the perspective from Spanish companies. Int. J. Sustain. Econ. 1 (3), 270–288.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSE.2009.024316.