###### Abstract  
This study aims to examine the impact of green purchasing practices (GPP) on the financial performance (FP) of companies and the mediating role of environmental performance (EP) in the context of Turkiye, a developing country. GPP are represented by their all-related activities, such as green supplier selection (GSS), green supplier development (GSD), green supplier collaboration (GSC), and green supplier evaluation (GSE). Although much attention has been paid to GPP and their impact on FP in recent years, empirical evidence is still needed, particularly for companies in developing countries. For this purpose, this study explores the effect of GPP on FP and the mediating role of EP with survey data obtained from 455 companies in Turkiye. The findings reveal that GPP, in general, make a positive contribution to both the EP and FP of companies in Turkiye. However, the two GPP sub activities, GSD and GSE, do not have a significant effect on EP, contrary to our expectation. In addition, it is found that EP causes a significant increase in FP and plays a partial mediating role in the effect of GPP on FP. The insight gained from this study is that the increase in FP brought directly by GPP and indirectly through the increase in EP may offset the additional cost posed by GPP. In fact, this is an important finding in terms of overcoming the obstacles encountered in the transition to GPP in developing countries. green purchasing practices; environmental performance; financial performance; green supplier selection; green supplier development; green supplier collaboration; greensupplier evaluation 2023153617[[https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043617](https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043617)]([https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043617](https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043617))  
12 January 202310 February 202310 February 202316 February 20231  
this reason, GPP are regarded as the most crucial part of GSCM adoption. GPP seek raw materials and semi-finished products that have no environmental impact, requiring a radical change in purchasing practices [6; 7]. There are several practices that exist under GPP. Research [PERSON] et al. [8] categorized them as green supplier selection (GSS), green supplier development (GSD), green supplier collaboration (GSC), and green supplier evaluation (GSE). However, the relevant literature shows that not all GPP subgroups are equally adopted. For instance, [PERSON] and [PERSON] [9] have noted that GSD was neglected, while the most attention was given to GSS. Similarly, [PERSON] and [PERSON] [10] have stated that GSS, GSC, and GSE were prioritized in the existing studies. In terms of the impact of GPP on company performance, they are mostly reported to have a positive effect on EP, while studies showing their benefit on FP are less common [11; 12]. This may be because GPP result in additional costs for companies and, thus, their financial benefits are not visible for all cases, particularly in developing countries [13]. In addition, the level of GPP adoption and the environmental awareness of customers in developing countries is not as high as in developed countries [14; 15]. For example, a recent study in the Turkish food industry shows that although the green criterion is considered as a factor in supplier selection, it is one of the least important [16]. Moreover, a study conducted in Jordan reveals that companies competing in cost show limited attention to GPP [17]. In fact, there are some other studies in developing countries showing similar results [18]. In addition, a study conducted in Europe, Asia and North America reveals that there is no relationship between GPP and FP unless green purchasing behavior of customers is added as a moderator variable to the research model [19]. In contrast, a study conducted in India, an emerging country, indicates that GPP produce increased FP for companies [20]. In fact, all of these examples show that providing empirical evidence about the effect of GPP on FP is crucial in the context of developing countries.