## 2 Literature Review
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Environmental Sustainability Awareness Has Started Improving the**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Yes**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**NO**} \\ \cline{2-6} \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Implementation of Environmental Business Practices.**} & **Count** & **\%** & **Count** & **\%** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Gender} & Male & 592 & 50.95\% & 25 & 49.02\% \\ \cline{2-6}  & Female & 570 & 49.05\% & 26 & 50.98\% \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Age} & \textless{}20 years & 337 & 29.00\% & 10 & 19.61\% \\ \cline{2-6}  & 20–24 years & 423 & 36.40\% & 4 & 7.84\% \\ \cline{2-6}  & 25–28 years & 209 & 17.99\% & 9 & 17.65\% \\ \cline{2-6}  & 29–32 years & 102 & 8.78\% & 11 & 21.57\% \\ \cline{2-6}  & 33–36 years & 61 & 5.25\% & 10 & 19.61\% \\ \cline{2-6}  & 37–40 years & 20 & 1.72\% & 6 & 11.76\% \\ \cline{2-6}  & \(>\)40 years & 11 & 0.95\% & 1 & 1.96\% \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Firm Size} & \textless{}50 Employees & 781 & 67.21\% & 31 & 60.78\% \\ \cline{2-6}  & 51–100 Employees & 211 & 18.16\% & 12 & 23.53\% \\ \cline{2-6}  & 101–150 Employees & 141 & 12.13\% & 8 & 15.69\% \\ \cline{2-6}  & 151–200 Employees & 26 & 2.24\% & 0 & 0.00\% \\ \cline{2-6}  & \(>\)200 Employees & 4 & 0.34\% & 0 & 0.00\% \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Firm Age} & \textless{}2 years old & 358 & 30.81\% & 17 & 33.33\% \\ \cline{2-6}  & 2–4 years old & 421 & 36.23\% & 10 & 19.61\% \\ \cline{2-6}  & 4–6 years old & 190 & 16.35\% & 9 & 17.65\% \\ \cline{2-6}  & 6–8 years old & 121 & 10.41\% & 8 & 15.69\% \\ \cline{2-6}  & \(>\)8 years old & 73 & 6.28\% & 7 & 13.73\% \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Firm Registration} & \textless{}0 Ownership & 607 & 52.24\% & 29 & 56.86\% \\ \cline{2-6}  & Partnership & 351 & 30.21\% & 10 & 19.61\% \\ \cline{2-6}  & A limited company & 176 & 15.15\% & 8 & 15.69\% \\ \cline{2-6}  & A group-based firm & 26 & 2.24\% & 4 & 7.84\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Environmental sustainability awareness. During FsQCA, calibrated values for each construct must be calculated with values ranging from 0 to 1 for transformed fuzzy sets. [PERSON] [70] explained that nearly 1 calibrated value represents full set membership, 0 calibrated value represents no set membership, and 0.5 calibrated value denotes no set membership. However, in our research, the full membership calibrated value is 5, the non-membership calibrated value is 2, and the crossover calibrated value is 3. Further, calibrated constructs were calculated through mean values of corresponding items of constructs. In the FsQCA method, the configuration of the causal condition was analyzed through consistency metrics, which include empirical relevance of the subset and statistical significance [71]. The first step for the FsQCA was the necessity analysis of our data, which verified the condition (consistency value should be >0.74, and coverage should be >0.27) of whether OPT and EBpr are present / absent in all cases where SUP and environmental sustainability are present/absent [72]. In our research, two different models for SUP and environmental sustainability were executed during FsQCA. We produced a truth table from the analysis of sufficiency through the FsQCA algorithm (see Table 2). The results for the EnS model show that the consistency among EBpr, OPT, and EnS is 0.891 with 0.721 coverage, which means EnS cannot be achieved without OPT and EBpr. The consistency results for SUP are showing 0.843 with 0.690 coverage, and the analysis explained that SUP depends on OPT and EBpr. The combination of EBpr and OPT for a firm's performance outcome is contributed in all solutions. _Factor Analysis_: Before the SEM technique, factor analysis was executed through smartPLS 3.0 software to examine the model assessment. To verify the data's reliability and validity, the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) method was employed as factor analysis.