## 2 Literature Review
Next, CV was assessed using values for factor loading of each scale item. The calculated values for factor loading were more than 0.50, which shows suitability. The analysis included those scale items with factor loading >0.50. Further, the results for SCR values were significant in favor of loadings sufficient to confirm CV. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Constructs** & **EnS** & **EBPr** & **SUP** & **OPT** & **Metric** \\ \hline EnS & 0.755 & & & & & & \\ EBPr & 0.32 & 0.868 & & & & & \\ SUP & 0.321 & 0.107 & 0.893 & & & & \\ OPT & 0.354 & 0.149 & 0.243 & 0.902 & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{8}{c}{**Hetero trait-Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) criterion**} \\ \hline Constructs & EnS & EBPr & SUP & OPT \\ \hline EnS & 1 & & & & & \\ EBPr & 0.355 & 1 & & & & \\ SUP & 0.354 & 0.113 & 1 & & & \\ OPT & 0.386 & 0.157 & 0.256 & 1 & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: SUP = sustainable operations, EnS = environmental sustainability, OPT = operational transparency, EBPr = environmental business practices, VIF = variance inflation factor.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Discriminant validity. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Item Scales** & **EnS** & **EBPr** & **SUP** & **OPT** & **VIF** & **SCR** & **AVE** & **Alpha** & **rho\_A** \\ \hline EBPr1 & 0.286 & **0.881** & 0.107 & 0.132 & 2.858 & & & & \\ EBPr2 & 0.253 & **0.848** & 0.082 & 0.109 & 2.462 & & & & \\ EBPr3 & 0.266 & **0.857** & 0.074 & 0.121 & 2.550 & 0.939 & 0.754 & 0.918 & 0.924 \\ EBPr4 & 0.276 & **0.862** & 0.079 & 0.117 & 2.959 & & & & \\ EBPr5 & 0.304 & **0.892** & 0.116 & 0.162 & 2.956 & & & & \\ \hline EnS1 & **0.700** & 0.199 & 0.253 & 0.229 & 1.575 & & & & \\ EnS2 & **0.794** & 0.243 & 0.249 & 0.295 & 1.969 & & & & \\ EnS3 & **0.742** & 0.223 & 0.232 & 0.275 & 1.707 & & & & \\ EnS4 & **0.754** & 0.268 & 0.237 & 0.256 & 1.741 & 0.903 & 0.571 & 0.874 & 0.876 \\ EnS5 & **0.762** & 0.244 & 0.239 & 0.261 & 1.803 & & & & \\ EnS6 & **0.759** & 0.259 & 0.222 & 0.280 & 1.771 & & & & \\ EnS7 & **0.773** & 0.253 & 0.268 & 0.271 & 1.833 & & & & \\ \hline SUP1 & 0.300 & 0.121 & **0.894** & 0.215 & 2.218 & & & & \\ SUP2 & 0.252 & 0.085 & **0.885** & 0.182 & 3.209 & & & & \\ SUP3 & 0.290 & 0.082 & **0.888** & 0.231 & 2.065 & 0.952 & 0.798 & 0.937 & 0.940 \\ SUP4 & 0.290 & 0.085 & **0.886** & 0.219 & 3.044 & & & & \\ SUP5 & 0.298 & 0.101 & **0.912** & 0.236 & 3.737 & & & & \\ \hline OPT1 & 0.330 & 0.130 & 0.217 & **0.897** & 3.617 & & & & \\ OPT2 & 0.301 & 0.128 & 0.207 & **0.908** & 2.129 & & & & \\ OPT3 & 0.342 & 0.145 & 0.235 & **0.912** & 1.090 & & & & \\ OPT4 & 0.311 & 0.124 & 0.212 & **0.900** & 1.749 & 0.963 & 0.814 & 0.954 & 0.955 \\ OPT5 & 0.308 & 0.134 & 0.217 & **0.896** & 2.622 & & & & \\ OPT6 & 0.320 & 0.145 & 0.228 & **0.901** & 1.801 & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: Bold values are loadings. SUP = sustainable operations, EnS = environmental sustainability, OPT = operational transparency, EBPr = environmental business practices, VIF = variance inflation factor.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Factor analysis. _SEM analysis_: In the SEM method, the significance levels of \(p\geq 0.05\), \(p\geq 0.01\), and \(p\geq 0.000\) are used for acceptance/rejection decisions, which scholars recommend [62]. The conceptual framework includes four constructs with seven hypothetical relationships. Six direct and four indirect relationships among EnS, EBPr, OPT, and SUP constructs were proposed in the SEM model. In smartPLS software, seven latent variables and 23 indicators for item scales were developed to analyze the collected data. After entering the raw data, numerous phases were performed during the analysis, such as data pre-processing, defining all constructs, and producing links among constructs to acquire the results. The measurement of model fit is assessed by ensuing the SRMR, chi-square (\(\chi\)2), NFI, d_ULS, and d_G values. The standard value of SRMR is <0.08, which indicates the structural model's good fit and suitability.