## 5 Discussion  
The results of the hypotheses testing, which was performed using the GPP scale created as a part of the study, are presented in Table 6, along with their summarized values.  
The results for H\({}_{1}\) and H\({}_{2}\) shows that GPP provide significant benefits for companies in Turkiye in terms of EP and FP in general. This suggests that executives in Turkiye need to focus more on GPP while doing their job. When H\({}_{1}\) and H\({}_{2}\) is elaborated, the expected pos  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Hypotheses** & **Results** \\ \hline H\({}_{1}\), GPP\(\rightarrow\)EP, \(\beta\) = 0.68, \(p\) < 0.01 & Partially Supported \\ \(\bullet\) & H\({}_{1a}\), GSS\(\rightarrow\)EP, \(\beta\) = 0.48, \(p\) < 0.01 & Supported \\ \(\bullet\) & H\({}_{1b}\), GSD\(\rightarrow\)EP, \(p\) > 0.1 & Not Supported \\ \(\bullet\) & H\({}_{1c}\), GSC\(\rightarrow\)EP, \(\beta\) = 0.36, \(p\) < 0.01 & Supported \\ \(\bullet\) & H\({}_{1d}\), GSE\(\rightarrow\)EP, \(p\) > 0.1 & Not Supported \\ \hline H\({}_{2}\), GPP\(\rightarrow\)FP, \(\beta\) = 0.70, \(p\) < 0.01 & Supported \\ \(\bullet\) & H\({}_{2a}\), GSS\(\rightarrow\)FP, \(\beta\) = 0.42, \(p\) < 0.01 & Supported \\ \(\bullet\) & H\({}_{2b}\), GSD\(\rightarrow\)FP, \(\beta\) = 0.14, \(p\) < 0.01 & Supported \\ \(\bullet\) & H\({}_{2c}\), GSC\(\rightarrow\)FP, \(\beta\) = 0.20, \(p\) < 0.01 & Supported \\ \(\bullet\) & H\({}_{2d}\), GSE\(\rightarrow\)FP, \(\beta\) = 0.12, \(p\) < 0.01 & Supported \\ \hline H\({}_{3}\), EP\(\rightarrow\)FP, \(\beta\) = 0.75, \(p\) < 0.01 & Supported \\ \hline H\({}_{4}\), GPP\(\rightarrow\)EP\(\rightarrow\)FP & Supported \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: Hypotheses Testing Results.  
itive effect of GSS on EP (H\({}_{1a}\)) and FP (H\({}_{2a}\)) occurred in parallel with the relevant literature. In addition, the effect of GSC on EP (H\({}_{1c}\)) and FP (H\({}_{2c}\)) was positive, as expected. Similarly, GSD and GSE showed their expected positive effect on FP (H\({}_{2b}\)) and FP (H\({}_{2d}\)), respectively. Surprisingly, GSD had no significant effect on EP (H\({}_{1b}\)) and GSE had no significant effect on EP (H\({}_{1d}\)). This can be explained with the geographical barriers between companies and suppliers in Turkiye, as this could hinder GSE and GSD, which companies address when managing their suppliers [79]. Considering that production in Turkiye is sourced through imports, it is likely to create a disadvantage in terms of GSD and GSE. It has also been reported that GSE may not have a direct effect on manufacturing companies' EP [79; 80] and that the practical relevance of GSD is far from what it deserves [81]. This reveals that more attention should be paid to GSD and GSE as they are crucial for developing long term GPP behavior by managers.  
In the case of H\({}_{3}\), EP showed a positive effect on FP, as expected. This reveals that managers in Turkiye can see the financial benefits of a having good EP. This result is important because one of the barriers to GPP are the perception of some company executives in developing countries that GPP only have environmental benefits, not financial benefits. However, this study shows that increased EP also results in increased FP.  
When the analysis results for H\({}_{4}\) are considered, it was supported due to EP's partial mediating effect. It shows that the cost burden generated by GPP have been balanced with the increase in FP, which has been achieved because of EP. There are studies showing that the lack of information and experience in implementing GPP can cause an increase in costs associated with GPP and a decrease in the competitive power [62]. The direct effect of GPP on FP along, with the secondary FP, increase as a result of the generated EP; this shows that senior management in companies can have a key role in overcoming the GPP barrier caused by cost-related concerns.