Business Strategy and the Environment, 2025; 0:1–14 https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.4125 1 of 14 Business Strategy and the Environment RESEARCH ARTICLE OPEN ACCESS Optimizing Sustainable Resource Efficiency: A Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Sustainable Practices in SMEs Abeeku S. Edu1  | Eunice Ofosuhene1  | Divine Q. Agozie1  | Bright Akwasi Gyamfi2   | Simplice A. Asongu3,4,5 1Department of Operations and Management Information Systems, University of Ghana, Business School, Accra, Ghana  |  2Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, Selangor, Malaysia  |  3School of Economics, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa  |  4Department of Economics, Tashkent State University of Economics, Tashkent, Uzbekistan  |  5The Institute of Convergence Science, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea Correspondence: Simplice A. Asongu (asongusimplice@yahoo.com; asongus@afridev.org) Received: 5 September 2024  |  Revised: 2 December 2024  |  Accepted: 16 December 2024 Keywords: fsQCA | resource efficiency | SMEs | sustainable paths | topologies ABSTRACT This study examines the influence of sustainability practices on resource efficiency in Ghana's small and medium-sized enter- prises (SMEs), utilizing a comprehensive framework that integrates environmental and social dimensions, enabling conditions, innovative practices, and technological advancements. Through a survey of 462 manufacturing SMEs, the research uncovers the complex interrelationships between sustainability practices and their impact on resource efficiency. The findings reveal four distinct sustainability pathways: the first underscores the critical importance of environmental dimensions and enabling conditions without robust social dimensions and innovative practices. The second highlights the significance of environmen- tal and enabling conditions, even when technological innovativeness is limited. The third and fourth pathways emphasize the pivotal role of social dimensions and technological innovation, with innovative practices as supportive elements. Additionally, two typologies emerge, illustrating the integration of environmental and social dimensions with enabling conditions and the synergy between technological innovation, social dimensions, and innovative practices. This research advances the discourse on sustainability within SMEs, emphasizing the necessity for reduced resource consumption, conservation, efficient production, circular economy principles, and waste minimization. The findings suggest that achieving SDG 8.4 by 2030, which targets global resource efficiency, hinges on adopting these sustainable pathways with emphasis on Ghanaian SMEs. This study provides a deeper understanding of sustainability practices among developing economy SMEs, shedding light on the intricate dynamics that enhance resource management. It offers critical insights for policymakers and practitioners seeking to promote sustainability in local SMEs, particularly in Ghana, advocating for a holistic approach that considers the multifaceted nature of sustainability. 1   |   Introduction Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are increasingly becoming pivotal to economic development across both devel- oped and developing nations. According to a recent World Bank report (accessed on May 2, 2023), formal SMEs contribute up to 40% of gross domestic product (GDP) in most emerging mar- kets, and they are projected to generate 600 million jobs by 2030. These enterprises are crucial not only for job creation but also for fostering sustainable economic development, particularly in re- gions where they play a dominant role in both formal and infor- mal employment sectors (Westman, Moores, and Burch 2021). Despite the undeniable contributions of SMEs, their long-term sustainability hinges on the adoption of sustainable prac- tices. While large corporations have progressively integrated This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. © 2025 The Author(s). Business Strategy and the Environment published by ERP Environment and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.4125 https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.4125 mailto: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7567-9885 mailto: mailto: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5227-5135 mailto:asongusimplice@yahoo.com mailto:asongus@afridev.org http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1002%2Fbse.4125&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2025-01-08 2 of 14 Business Strategy and the Environment, 2025 sustainability into their core strategies, SMEs often lag in this area. The reasons for this lag include limited resources, lack of awareness, and insufficient support systems. As highlighted by Madrid-Guijarro and Duréndez (2024), the concept and im- plementation of sustainability within SMEs remain underex- plored globally, creating a significant gap in both academic and practical knowledge. Unlike larger firms, which employ multi- faceted sustainability drivers to meet regulatory demands and achieve long-term objectives, SMEs often struggle to integrate comprehensive sustainability strategies. Environmental, social, and economic dimensions are critical components of sustain- ability, and these are further supported by innovative practices, technological advancements, and enabling conditions (Asongu and Odhiambo  2020; Chowdhury and Shumon 2020; Madrid- Guijarro and Duréndez 2024). From a systems thinking perspective, sustainability within SMEs can be viewed as a configuration of business practices that simultaneously promote resource efficiency and profitabil- ity. These practices align with key dimensions—environmen- tal, social, technological, and innovative—that are essential for achieving sustainable development goals (SDGs) (Demirkan, Srinivasan, and Nand 2022; Adam and Alarifi 2021). However, the extent to which SMEs can effectively integrate these dimen- sions to optimize resource efficiency remains an area requiring further exploration. Given this context, there is a critical need for SMEs to adopt sus- tainable practices that enhance resource efficiency. Empirical evidence suggests that a holistic approach, considering both environmental and social sustainability alongside technolog- ical innovation and enabling conditions, can lead to optimal resource utilization (Hariyani et  al. 2023; Arias, Feijoo, and Moreira 2023). Although large firms have increasingly adopted such approaches, the full benefits for SMEs are not yet fully real- ized or understood. This presents a significant challenge as well as an opportunity, particularly in light of SDG Goal 8.4, which emphasizes the importance of improving global resource effi- ciency to support inclusive and sustainable economic growth. Inefficient resource use, particularly of raw materials, poses a substantial barrier to achieving these goals, making it impera- tive for SMEs to identify and adopt key practices that enhance resource efficiency. This study addresses a critical gap in the literature by mapping and examining the sustainability practices of SMEs concerning resource efficiency. Employing a systems thinking approach combined with qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), this re- search explores how various factors, including environmental and social dimensions, technological innovation, and enabling conditions, interact to influence resource efficiency. QCA's embrace of equifinality allows the identification of multiple pathways leading to the same outcome, offering a nuanced un- derstanding of the core and peripheral conditions that contribute to sustainable resource management in SMEs. The objective is to uncover and articulate the pathways through which SMEs can optimize resource efficiency, thereby advancing both their sus- tainability practices and the broader goal of global resource ef- ficiency. Consistent with the study objective, the fuzzy-set QCA (fsQCA) methodology considers variables as independent in a configurational investigation, identifying sufficient pathways for achieving a specific outcome (dependent variable). Unlike regression analysis, which often examines factors in isolation, fsQCA captures the combined effects of multiple variables. This approach is particularly useful in understanding SME sustain- ability practices towards resource efficiency, as single-variable effects may not provide a complete explanation. Theoretically, fsQCA employs a configurational model to demonstrate how multiple factors interact to produce an out- come. It highlights that the influence of some factors depends on the presence or absence of others. Additionally, configurational theories are rooted in the principle of causal asymmetry, where conditions leading to the presence of an outcome can differ from those leading to its absence. This nuanced perspective is crucial for uncovering the complex dynamics driving sustainable prac- tices for resource efficiency. 2   |   Literature Review 2.1   |   Sustainability Practices Sustainability development seeks to create a balanced ecosys- tem that integrates social, economic, and environmental con- siderations, essential for the long-term viability and resilience of firms. Once regarded as a niche concept, sustainability prac- tices have now become central to business operations globally. Firms are increasingly adopting these practices to drive inno- vation, enhance competitiveness, and create value (Das, Kundu, and Bhattacharya 2020; Chege and Wang 2020). The significant impact of sustainable practices on firm policies and operations is well-documented, particularly as they align with the United Nations SDGs (Jagani, Marsillac, and Hong 2024; Permatasari and Gunawan 2023). For instance, Jagani, Marsillac, and Hong (2024) found that a firm's commitment to sustainability significantly influences brand attitudes and customer loyalty. Similarly, Kitsis and Chen (2021) highlight the critical role of sustainability practices in ensuring strategic and operational competence within supply chains. Ngo et al. (2024) surmise that internal sustainability practices, such as green supply chain management and pollution preven- tion, are crucial for reducing environmental risks and costs, ultimately generating wealth for firms. External sustainability practices, including green product development, reassure stake- holders of a firm's legitimacy and goodwill (Sharma et al. 2024; Wang, Heugens, and Wijen 2024). By integrating both internal and external sustainability practices, firms can demonstrate a comprehensive commitment to sustainable development, fos- tering positive transformations across their value chains (Ngo et al. 2024). Robust internal sustainability practices, in partic- ular, improve resource efficiency and waste reduction within organizations. The emergence of green entrepreneurship, as discussed by Schaper (2010), marked a paradigm shift towards sustainabil- ity practices within entrepreneurial ventures. Sustainable business strategies contribute to environmental preservation and present lucrative revenue-generating opportunities. For example, in the fashion sector, entrepreneurial ventures are ex- ploring innovative initiatives that prioritize sustainability as a 10990836, 0, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/bse.4125 by U niversity of G hana - A ccra, W iley O nline L ibrary on [11/02/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense 3 of 14 distinctive quality. apping the Social Dimension of the Circular Econo et al. (2024) advocate for a more data-driven approach to uncover patterns and forces that drive creative and sustainable business strategies in this industry. In sustainable manufactur- ing enterprises, integrating sustainable manufacturing capabil- ities and practices is shown to improve performance (Kannan, Gholipour, and Bai  2023). Narayanan and Das (2022) further underscore the importance of marketing and brand innovation, product quality, and strategic planning and implementation in achieving efficient, sustainable development. This synthesis of the literature underscores the multifaceted nature of sustainability practices within the global economic landscape, emphasizing the critical role of innovation, entre- preneurship, and strategic management in driving sustainable development. However, while a holistic approach to sustain- ability practices is essential for firms of all sizes, the extent to which SMEs excel in these practices remains unclear. Basit et al. (2024) identified several obstacles hindering sustainability prac- tices among SMEs, including a lack of expertise and high ini- tial capital costs. To address these barriers, Journeault, Perron, and Vallières (2021) propose a collaborative approach involving government intervention to create enabling conditions for stake- holders to enhance sustainability practices within SMEs. 2.2   |   Drivers of Sustainable Practices An increasing number of sustainability practices and theories have emerged to understand the underlying factors driving sustainability. The application of the triple bottom line (TBL) framework, which encompasses environmental dimensions, social dimensions, and economic dimensions, has become a fundamental approach to analyzing sustainability practices. Over time, due to the multidimensional nature of sustainability, considerable factors have been aligned with these three dimen- sions to examine sustainability objectives effectively (Jain and Mohapatra 2023; Eisenmenger et al. 2020; Sala 2019). Effective sustainability practices therefore are premised on key drivers to address the complexity of sustainable measures. This study identifies five key drivers, thus environmental, social, techno- logical innovativeness, facilitating conditions, and innovative practices, which collectively support sustainable practices to- wards resource efficiency. The interplay of these drivers raises the urgency of emerging sustainable practices and their implica- tions for sustainability transformation (Voulvoulis et al. 2022). Existing studies have pushed for firms concentrating on the en- vironment and social dimensions of TBL, as these significantly impact resource efficiency within the emerging circular econ- omy (Kristensen and Mosgaard 2020; Hristov et al. 2021). 2.2.1   |   Environmental Dimensions Awareness of environmental considerations is crucial in firms' strategic planning for sustainability (Bhattacharyya 2019). The correlation between environmental dimensions and various ini- tiatives has been shown to improve firm performance. For in- stance, Trianni et al.  (2019) posited that linking sustainability adoption to improve manufacturing processes should empha- size environmental and social dimensions. Similarly, Chege and Wang (2020) revealed that firms tend to maximize financial out- comes when they dedicate environmental consciousness to com- munity engagement. These insights suggest that manufacturing SMEs can significantly enhance resource efficiency by adopting environmental responsiveness. Effective sustainable resource management requires awareness of environmental innovations such as waste control strategies, circular economy thinking, smart production processes, and adherence to environmental regulations. Cainelli, D'Amato, and Mazzanti (2020) emphasized that achieving resource efficiency involves continuous efforts to “reduce materials use per unit of output, recycle waste, water, or materials and improve recycling of post-use.” Theoretically, high environmental considerations lead to improved resource efficiency, highlighting the relationship between environmental dimensions and resource efficiency (Krishnan et al. 2020; Javaid et al. 2022). 2.2.2   |   Social Dimensions Broadly, social dimensions of sustainability encompass enablers such as safety, diversity, equity, governance, labor rights, and human health (Rostamnezhad and Thaheem 2022). Social sus- tainability promotes societal well-being, particularly for those susceptible to social justice and environmental issues. For many manufacturing firms focused on social sustainability, integrat- ing specific indicators should result in products that enhance societal well-being (Ajmal et al. 2018). The holistic scope of so- cial dimensions indicates that firms' life cycles are intertwined with society and the natural environment. Manufacturing SMEs should approach social dimensions activities within a social system that integrate stakeholders' perspectives on the overall resource usage. Achieving resource efficiency through social dimensions activities involves “reducing material inputs and substituting primary resources” to mitigate negative environ- mental impacts (Mayer et al. 2019; Zink and Geyer 2019; Mies and Gold  2021). Accordingly, Eisenmenger et  al.  (2020) high- light that SMEs in the manufacturing sector should carefully monitor activities to ensure absolute resource management, as outlined in SDGs 8. Prioritizing social dimensions in manufac- turing processes improves resource efficiency and establishes a clear relationship between social sustainability dimensions and resource efficiency. 2.2.3   |   Technological Innovation Accelerating sustainability goals for sustainable business pro- cesses requires the robust deployment of digital technologies. Empirical studies have extensively documented the transforma- tion of business processes and efficiencies through digital tech- nology deployment (Felsberger et al. 2022; Raut et al. 2019). For instance, Raut et  al.  (2019) highlighted the impact of big data analytics capabilities on sustainable business practices. More recently, smart manufacturing applications and platforms have revolutionized sustainable manufacturing processes (Kannan, Gholipour, and Bai 2023). Consequently, SMEs are increasingly considering key smart technologies aiding the improvement of sustainable practices. Given the significant impact of techno- logical innovation, Chege and Wang (2020) identified the use of technology to improve both products and processes assembled 10990836, 0, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/bse.4125 by U niversity of G hana - A ccra, W iley O nline L ibrary on [11/02/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense 4 of 14 Business Strategy and the Environment, 2025 within the manufacturing enterprises, thereby enhancing envi- ronmental and social sustainability. In practice, manufacturing SMEs must leverage emerging technologies to develop new and enhanced production processes aimed at optimizing resource utilization. Integrating technological innovations such as digital twins, automation, additive manufacturing, Internet of Things (IoTs), and emerging sustainable manufacturing technologies significantly supports sustainable practices. The integration, in turn, enhances resource efficiency in manufacturing processes. 2.2.4   |   Facilitating Conditions For most SMEs, the adoption of sustainable practices is incentiv- ized by the presence of enabling conditions within their operational ecosystem. Facilitating conditions necessitate that regulatory agencies supporting sustainability engagements provide compre- hensive guidance for green initiatives. SMEs often require regular stakeholder engagement on new green manufacturing practices and incentives for adopting such processes. For example, Yong et al. (2020) observed that initiatives such as green training, green rewards, and green performance assessment raise awareness and incentivize actors to adopt positive attitudes towards sustainability goals. Journeault, Perron, and Vallières (2021) further emphasized that SMEs ability to fully integrate sustainability goals requires collaboration with regulatory agencies, which support through training, coordination, and funding for sustainability practices. Governments must also play a crucial role in facilitating and devel- oping stakeholder networks to promote the adoption of sustainable manufacturing practices among SMEs. The impact of the facili- tation condition on green practices, through collaboration with agencies on green manufacturing practices, enhances resource efficiency and promotes sustainable development. 2.2.5   |   Innovative Practices Embracing innovative practices towards sustainability is a contin- uous effort involving the deployment and implementation of new methods, technologies, and strategies to achieve targeted environ- mental and social well-being objectives. Innovative practices are significantly linked to the sustainability of enterprises in contem- porary and competitive open markets (Adam and Alarifi 2021). These practices span strategic, tactical, and operational levels of decision-making and actionable processes within enterprises (Kneipp et  al.  2019; Battisti et  al.  2020). Over time, substantial investment in innovations such as developing new models, inte- grating skills among functional units, green manufacturing, raw material management, and cost reduction significantly contribute to sustainable practices, even with scarce resources (Loučanová et  al.  2023; Demirkan, Srinivasan, and Nand  2022; Battisti et al. 2020). Encouraging SMEs to engage in sustainable frugal in- novation leads to the satisfaction of resource efficiencies (Endres, Bican, and Wöllner 2022; Albert 2022). Overall, the integration of innovative practices within SMEs not only enhances their com- petitiveness but also ensures the achievement of sustainability goals. The holistic approach to innovation enables firms to adapt to changing market conditions and regulatory environments while promoting sustainable development and resource efficiency. Embracing innovative practices necessitates the implementa- tion of green innovation initiatives in the short term to enhance resource management among SMEs. Castellano et al. (2022) em- phasize the importance of facilitating conditions to support SMEs that lack the capacity to independently develop green innovation initiatives, ensuring their future sustainability. 2.3   |   Configural Paths of Sustainability Practices and Resource Efficiency Navigating the complex web of sustainability challenges while maintaining resource efficiency is crucial for the long-term viabil- ity of firms. Researchers and scientists are faced with the formida- ble task of establishing sustainable product and service models that balance economic and resource imperatives with environmental stewardship (Jauhar et al. 2021). An integral part of sustainabil- ity practices, particularly through SDG 8.4, is the improvement of resource efficiency in production. Achieving this goal requires a comprehensive consideration of sustainability dimensions that are key to resource efficiency. Rather than accessing these dimensions independently, a system thinking approach advocates for integrat- ing these dimensions, marking a paradigm shift towards a holistic perspective. Achieving SDG 8.4 necessitates a combinatorial ap- proach to sustainability practices, providing a robust framework for manufacturing processes. The study proposed a configural outlook that links the five sustainable dimensions—environmen- tal, social, technological innovation, facilitating conditions, and innovative practices—to resource efficiency. The system think- ing and configural approach offers to understand the pathways for addressing resource efficiency through various sustainability considerations among manufacturing SMEs. Figure  1 presents the configural linkage between the five sustainability practices that can be applied to achieve resource efficiency. The integrative model underscores the importance of a multidimensional strategy in fostering sustainable development and resource optimization in the manufacturing sector. By adopting this approach, SMEs can better navigate the complexities of sustainable practices and resource management, ultimately enhancing their sustainability and long-term success. The theoretical framework provides a com- prehensive approach to promoting sustainable practices among SMEs in Ghana. It emphasizes government-led incentives, tailored environmental regulations, and leveraging digital tools to enhance resource efficiency. Collaboration is encouraged through partner- ships between SMEs, government agencies, and industry associa- tions, with a focus on knowledge-sharing and mentorship. Policies support green product development and sustainable supply chains while addressing challenges such as limited access to finance and technical expertise. Networking opportunities connect SMEs with stakeholders, fostering collaboration and investment for an inclu- sive and scalable transition to a green economy. 2.4   |   Summary of Research Gaps The literature review identifies several research gaps that warrant further investigation. Firstly, while sustainability practices have been widely explored, the specific application and effectiveness of these practices within SMEs, particularly in the manufacturing sector, remain underexplored. The literature emphasizes the im- portance of both internal and external sustainability practices, yet there is limited understanding of how SMEs navigate these prac- tices compared with larger enterprises (Sharma et al. 2024; Wang 10990836, 0, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/bse.4125 by U niversity of G hana - A ccra, W iley O nline L ibrary on [11/02/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense 5 of 14 et al. 2024). The challenges SMEs face, such as limited expertise and high capital costs, highlight a need for more focused studies on the unique barriers and opportunities for sustainable develop- ment within smaller firms (Ngo et al. 2024). Secondly, the review underscores the multidimensional nature of sustainability, particularly through the lens of the TBL framework, which includes environmental, social, and economic dimensions. Despite the growing body of research on the drivers of sustainabil- ity, there is a notable gap in the literature regarding the integration of these dimensions, particularly in the context of SMEs. Existing studies primarily focus on individual drivers, such as environmen- tal considerations or technological innovation, without adequately addressing how these drivers interact and influence each other within the SME context (Passaro et al. 2023). This gap points to the need for research that adopts a systems thinking approach, exam- ining how various sustainability drivers collectively contribute to resource efficiency and overall sustainability outcomes in SMEs. Lastly, the review identifies a gap in the exploration of configural pathways that link sustainability practices to resource efficiency (Khizar et  al. 2024). While the literature acknowledges the im- portance of a holistic approach to sustainability, there is limited empirical evidence on how different sustainability dimensions can be integrated to form effective pathways for resource effi- ciency (Wang, Li, and Razzaq 2023; Lutfi et al. 2024), especially in SMEs. The proposed configural outlook, which links environ- mental, social, technological, and innovative practices, offers a promising framework but lacks empirical validation. Further re- search is needed to explore these configural pathways in different contexts, particularly in resource-constrained environments typ- ical of SMEs, to better understand how they can be leveraged to achieve SDGs. 3   |   Methodology 3.1   |   Research Design and Sampling To comprehensively address the study's objectives, a mixed- methods approach was adopted, combining a survey methodol- ogy with an extensive literature review. The survey methodology involved the distribution of questionnaires, while the literature review focused on examining sustainability practices in depth. The study targeted manufacturing SMEs located in Ghana, specif- ically within the Greater Accra Region. This region was selected due to its diverse and concentrated SME activities. The study pop- ulation included owners, managers, and other senior officials in the manufacturing sector. A purposive non-probability sampling technique is employed to ensure the inclusion of participants who possess in-depth knowledge relevant to the study (Kumar et  al. 2023). This sampling method was chosen to specifically target individuals directly involved in strategic sustainability practices within their organizations. A preliminary pilot study was con- ducted to ensure that participants had a clear understanding of sustainability concepts, resource efficiency, and the implications of the SDGs on sustainability practices. A total of 102 manufacturing SMEs were surveyed in the capital city, involving 500 participants comprising owners, managers, and supervisors. Out of the 500 questionnaires distributed, 462 were fully completed, yielding a response rate of 92%. 3.2   |   Data Collection Method and Analysis The data for this study were collected using a mixed-method ap- proach involving online questionnaires administered through Google Forms and in-person interactions. The questionnaire was structured into two sections: the first section gathered de- mographic information, including the type of manufacturing SMEs, the number of employees, and the nature of the products produced. The second section assessed sustainability parame- ters related to resource efficiency using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree,” to cap- ture respondents' levels of agreement. Six key constructs were evaluated: facilitating conditions (FAC), technological innova- tiveness (TECIN), social dimensions (SOCD), environmental dimensions (END), innovative practices (INOP), and resource efficiency (RESEF) as the outcome variable. The data analysis was conducted using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) to assess the reliability FIGURE 1    |    Configural model. 10990836, 0, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/bse.4125 by U niversity of G hana - A ccra, W iley O nline L ibrary on [11/02/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense 6 of 14 Business Strategy and the Environment, 2025 and validity of the constructs, ensuring the robustness of the proposed model. This analysis provided an initial examination of the relationships among the constructs. Subsequently, fsQCA was employed using R software to further analyze the data. FsQCA was selected due to its ability to handle the non-binary nature of the data and to offer a detailed understanding of the complex relationships between the various factors (Emami, Vakil Alroaia, and Zargar 2023; Dogra et al. 2023). The fsQCA process involved data calibration, construction of a truth table, and minimization of the truth table to develop membership set scores ranging from “0” to “1,” thereby capturing the intricacies of the data. This methodological approach allowed for a nuanced explora- tion of the interrelationships among the constructs and their impact on SMEs' resource efficiency. By integrating PLS-SEM and fsQCA, the study provided comprehensive insights into the pathways through which sustainability practices influence re- source efficiency, offering valuable implications for enhancing the agility and sustainability of manufacturing SMEs. 3.3   |   Data Analysis and Results The data analysis followed a three-stage approach: demographic analysis, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and fsQCA analy- sis, each aligned with the research objectives. The demographic analysis provided a comprehensive overview of the workforce and types of manufacturing businesses represented in the study, offering insights into the operational context of these SMEs. Table  1 summarizes the sample statistics, detailing key char- acteristics such as SME size and the types of manufacturing products produced. SMEs were categorized by employee count, showing that most Ghanaian SMEs are medium enterprises with 30–99 employees, followed by small enterprises with 6–29 employees, and micro-enterprises with 1–5 employees. This classification highlights the varied scale of manufacturing ac- tivities within the SME sector in Ghana. 3.4   |   CFA and Reliability Testing To ensure the robustness and validity of the study's constructs, CFA was performed using PLS-SEM. This analysis aimed to as- sess the reliability and significance of the variables, thereby vali- dating the constructs utilized in the research (Dogra et al. 2023). The CFA evaluated key metrics, including path coefficients, Cronbach's alpha, average variance extracted (AVE), composite reliability (CR), heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT), latent cor- relations, and overall model fit. The results, presented in Table 2, indicate that all constructs met the established benchmarks: path coefficients were equal to or greater than 0.70, Cronbach's alpha values were ≥ 0.70, AVE values were ≥ 0.50, and CR values were ≥ 0.50 (Henseler, Ringle, and Sarstedt 2015; Hair et  al. 2022). These results confirm the internal consistency and reliability of the mea- surement scales. Discriminant validity was also confirmed through HTMT ratios in Table 3, affirming the distinctiveness of each construct (Henseler, Ringle, and Sarstedt 2015; Ringle et al. 2023). Table 4 further details the significance tests for the path co- efficients and the overall variance explained in the outcome variable. The analysis revealed that all constructs were sta- tistically significant predictors of resource efficiency, with an R2 value of 54%, indicating that the model explains 54% of the variance in resource efficiency. Additionally, the normed fit index (NFI) was calculated at 0.81, suggesting an acceptable model fit. Overall, the CFA results provide strong evidence that the vari- ables related to sustainability practices and their impact on re- source efficiency are reliable and valid, offering robust support for the proposed configural model. 3.5   |   fsQCA and Sustainable Pathways To further investigate the sustainable pathways that lead to en- hanced resource efficiency among SMEs, fsQCA was utilized. FsQCA was selected due to its strength in handling nuanced, non-binary data and its capacity to uncover complex causal con- figurations that drive the desired outcomes (Dogra et al. 2023). The analysis was conducted in two main stages: data calibration and truth table analysis. Stage 1. Data Calibration In the first stage, raw Likert scale responses were transformed into fuzzy set membership scores ranging from 0 to 1. This calibration process involved converting the responses of each variable into fuzzy values, thereby reducing potential biases associated with subjective responses. This transformation en- abled a more precise measurement of the degree to which each TABLE 1    |    Sample statistics. Frequency Percentage Number of workforce Number 1–5 71 15.37 6–29 137 29.65 30–99 254 54.98 Types of manufacturing business Products Food and beverages 213 46.10 Leather, wood, and related products 83 17.97 Chemical 28 6.06 Electronic and computer devices 36 7.79 Rubber, plastics, and non-metallic mineral products 102 22.08 Total 462 100 10990836, 0, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/bse.4125 by U niversity of G hana - A ccra, W iley O nline L ibrary on [11/02/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense 7 of 14 case belongs to a particular set (Rasoolimanesh, Valaei, and Rezaei 2023). Stage 2. Truth Table Construction and Minimization The second stage involved constructing a truth table using the Quine–McCluskey algorithm to identify various causal pathways leading to resource efficiency. Both parsimoni- ous and intermediate solutions were examined, following fsQCA guidelines, to identify logical combinations of causal conditions that influence resource efficiency (Rasoolimanesh, Valaei, and Rezaei 2023). This approach aligns with fsQCA literature by embracing the concept of equifinality, which rec- ognizes that multiple pathways can lead to the same outcome (Dogra et al. 2023). The fsQCA analysis revealed four distinct sustainable pathways contributing to resource efficiency among SMEs, as presented in Table 5. The reliability and empirical relevance of these path- ways were validated by an overall consistency score of 0.901 and TABLE 2    |    Constructs validity, reliability, and collinearity test. Constructs Items Loadings VIF CA CR AVE Environmental dimension END1 0.83 1.93 0.84 0.88 0.61 END2 0.80 1.82 END3 0.77 1.71 END4 0.79 1.72 END5 0.71 1.46 Facilitating conditions FAC1 0.80 1.97 0.85 0.90 0.63 FAC2 0.80 2.03 FAC3 0.76 1.65 FAC4 0.85 2.20 FAC5 0.77 1.68 Social dimensions SOCD1 0.77 1.98 0.87 0.90 0.65 SOCD2 0.82 2.14 SOCD3 0.81 1.90 SOCD4 0.81 1.92 SOCD5 0.87 2.01 Technological innovativeness TECIN1 0.85 2.77 0.91 0.93 0.69 TECIN2 0.86 2.96 TECIN3 0.83 2.33 TECIN4 0.80 2.74 TECIN5 0.82 2.97 TECIN6 0.83 2.25 Innovative practices INOP1 0.77 1.74 0.84 0.89 0.61 INOP2 0.78 1.78 INOP3 0.79 1.79 INOP4 0.85 2.17 INOP5 0.81 1.56 Resource efficiency RESEF1 0.73 1.59 0.86 0.90 0.64 RESEF2 0.83 2.82 RESEF3 0.85 2.82 RESEF4 0.81 2.23 RESEF5 0.78 1.98 10990836, 0, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/bse.4125 by U niversity of G hana - A ccra, W iley O nline L ibrary on [11/02/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense 8 of 14 Business Strategy and the Environment, 2025 a solution coverage of 0.876. Moreover, the proportional reduction in inconsistency (PRI) was 0.951, confirming the acceptability and robustness of the identified pathways (Nikou et al. 2024). These findings underscore the diverse ways in which SMEs can achieve resource efficiency, highlighting the importance of tai- lored strategies that account for the unique conditions and capa- bilities of individual firms. 3.6   |   Sustainable Pathways Identified 3.6.1   |   Sustainable Pathway 1 This pathway indicates that strong environmental dimensions serve as a core condition, supported by social dimensions and facilitating conditions as peripheral factors. This combination effectively enhances resource efficiency. 3.6.2   |   Sustainable Pathway 2 This pathway demonstrates that high environmental dimen- sions coupled with robust facilitating conditions are essential for achieving resource efficiency. Even when social dimensions and technological innovativeness are low, the presence of strong environmental and facilitating conditions can sustain resource efficiency. 3.6.3   |   Sustainable Pathway 3 Here, the presence of environmental dimensions, social di- mensions, and technological innovativeness as core conditions, along with innovative practices as a peripheral condition, sup- ports resource efficiency. TABLE 3    |    Heterotrait–monotrait ratio matric. Constructs END FAC TECIN INOP SOCD RESEF END FAC 0.82 TECIN 0.67 0.85 INOP 0.72 0.83 0.71 SOCD 0.81 0.74 0.64 0.69 RESEF 0.59 0.80 0.75 0.66 0.61 TABLE 4    |    Path significance test. Paths Original sample (O) Standard deviation (STDEV) T statistics (|O/STDEV|) p values 0.26 0.05 5.75 0.00* 0.38 0.06 6.78 0.00* 0.33 0.05 6.78 0.00* 0.16 0.05 3.23 0.00* 0.18 0.05 3.52 0.00* Note: R2 = 0.54, normed fit index (NFI) = 0.81. *p-value < 0.05. TABLE 5    |    Truth table and sustainable paths. Constructs Sustainable paths 1 2 3 4 Environmental dimensions Ø Social dimension Ø Facilitating condition Technological innovativeness Ø Innovative practices Ø Raw coverage 0.813 0.780 0.810 0.736 Unique coverage 0.029 0.018 0.266 0.015 Consistency 0.834 0.860 0.813 0.914 Overall solution coverage 0.876 Overall consistency coverage 0.901 Overall PRI 0.951 Note: Black circles “ ” indicate the presence of a condition, and circles with “Ø” indicate its absence or low condition. Large circles depict core conditions, and small circles represent peripheral conditions. Blank spaces indicate that the condition is redundant in a given path to achieve an outcome (Pappas and Woodside 2021; Thomann and Maggetti 2020; Fiss 2011). 10990836, 0, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/bse.4125 by U niversity of G hana - A ccra, W iley O nline L ibrary on [11/02/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense 9 of 14 3.6.4   |   Sustainable Pathway 4 This pathway reveals that even with low environmental dimen- sions, the integration of social dimensions with technological innovativeness and innovative practices as core conditions can lead to improved resource efficiency. These findings highlight the significance of adopting a holistic and integrated approach to sustainability within manufacturing SMEs. The identified pathways illustrate how different combi- nations of environmental, social, technological, and innovative practices can collectively drive resource efficiency. Such insights are instrumental for policymakers and business leaders seeking to promote sustainable development in the SME sector, as they underscore the necessity of tailored sustainability strategies that leverage multiple dimensions of sustainability. The results from the PLS-SEM and fsQCA analyses collectively demonstrate that sustainability practices are reliably and signifi- cantly associated with resource efficiency in SMEs. The multi- ple sustainable pathways identified through fsQCA provide a nuanced understanding of how various factors can be config- ured to achieve optimal resource management, reinforcing the importance of flexibility and adaptability in sustainability strategies. 4   |   Discussion of Findings In alignment with the SDGs and the critical need for optimal resource utilization among firms, this study explores the sus- tainability practices of SMEs and their long-term implications for the future job market. The primary objective was to elucidate how the interplay of various sustainable constructs collectively drives resource efficiency in SMEs. While much of the existing literature has focused on sustainability practices in large firms, often analyzing sustainability variables or dimensions in iso- lation, this study specifically examined the combined roles of environmental dimensions, social dimensions, facilitating con- ditions, technological innovativeness, and innovative practices in achieving resource efficiency within SMEs. By doing so, it ex- tends the discourse on the role of SMEs in advancing sustainable practices, particularly in resource-constrained settings. The empirical results, supported by reliability measures and hy- pothesis testing, confirmed the significance of all the constructs considered for evaluating sustainability practices towards re- source efficiency. The fsQCA analyses uncovered four distinct pathways through which SMEs can achieve resource efficiency, highlighting the critical role of environmental dimensions as core conditions in three out of the four identified configurations. This suggests that SMEs with strong environmental dimensions can enhance resource efficiency even in the absence of robust social dimensions, provided there is adequate support from reg- ulatory bodies on resource management. This finding resonates with the work of Journeault, Perron, and Vallières (2021), who emphasized the importance of collaborative stakeholder en- gagement in integrating environmental concerns into sustain- ability practices, thereby improving resource management. The first sustainable pathway identified in this study suggests that SMEs lacking in technological innovativeness and innovative practices can still achieve resource efficiency with the support of local stakeholders (Dal Maso et al. 2018; Shubham, Charan, and Murty 2018). The results further indicate that prioritizing environmental dimensions as core, alongside social dimensions and govern- mental support as peripheral conditions, can significantly re- duce resource wastage during manufacturing processes, as highlighted in the second sustainable pathway. This pathway underscores the pivotal role of environmental sustainability, so- cial sustainability, and enabling conditions in resource manage- ment, even with minimal technological application (Lehmann et al. 2022). Additionally, the third pathway reveals that combin- ing environmental dimensions, social dimensions, and techno- logical innovativeness as core conditions, along with innovative practices, fosters resource efficiency. Although SMEs may lack the extensive capabilities of larger firms, integrating sustainable innovative practices into operational processes, business mod- els, and ethical frameworks can significantly enhance resource efficiency. Kneipp et al. (2019) and Castellano et al. (2022) have similarly identified that embedding innovative sustainable practices within other sustainability dimensions positively im- pacts resource efficiency. This finding underscores the critical importance of sustainable innovative engagements for the sur- vival and competitiveness of manufacturing SMEs (Adam and Alarifi 2021; Loučanová et al. 2023). For instance, Loučanová et al. (2023) observed that frugal innovations—focusing on cost minimization, adherence to standards and laws, and optimiza- tion of manufacturing inputs—can be a key driver of resource efficiency among SMEs. The study suggests that resource ef- ficiency can be achieved through the combinatorial effects of technological innovativeness and innovative practices as core conditions, with social dimensions serving as peripheral con- ditions, even in scenarios where environmental dimensions are less emphasized. The analysis identified two key topologies of configurational paths that enhance resource efficiency. The first topology, which combines Pathways 1 and 2, integrates environmental dimen- sions as core, with social dimensions and facilitating conditions as peripheral, even under conditions of low technological in- novativeness (Hristov et  al.  2021; Felsberger et  al.  2022). The second topology considers the combinatorial effects of techno- logical innovativeness and social dimensions as core conditions, with innovative practices as peripheral conditions, in contexts where environmental sustainability is not the primary focus. Nara et  al. (2021) argued that the integration of Industry 4.0 technologies into sustainability practices contributes to im- provements in green sustainability, reflecting the importance of digital innovativeness in resource management. This is consis- tent with the findings of Ambaye et al. (2023), who highlighted the significance of technology integration with sustainable strat- egies to minimize waste in manufacturing processes. Finally, the study's outcomes underscore the support for fsQCA analysis in revealing the combinatorial effects of different sus- tainable paths to resource efficiency in SMEs. This suggests that multiple sustainability practices can interact to enhance overall resource efficiency, providing valuable insights for SMEs seek- ing to improve their sustainable strategies. The identification and implications of Topologies 1 and 2 signal a significant paradigm 10990836, 0, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/bse.4125 by U niversity of G hana - A ccra, W iley O nline L ibrary on [11/02/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense 10 of 14 Business Strategy and the Environment, 2025 shift in sustainability strategies for SMEs, as emphasized by Voulvoulis et  al.  (2022). For instance, Voulvoulis et  al.  (2022) stress the importance of adopting a systems thinking approach to integrate key sustainable dimensions and goals, thereby facil- itating the transition towards achieving SDG objectives. These findings are consistent with those of the present study, which also highlights the critical role of synergies in sustainability strategies as guiding principles for advancing future sustainabil- ity methodologies (Mariyate and Bera 2023; Cheng et al. 2024). This study contributes to the ongoing discourse on sustainability practices among SMEs by elucidating the nuanced interactions between different paths that enhance resource management. Beyond merely identifying sustainable pathways, the findings prioritize strategies to reduce resource consumption, conserve resources, enhance production efficiency, implement circular economy principles, and minimize waste. Ultimately, the results suggest that achieving SDG 8.4 by 2030, which targets global re- source efficiency in consumption and production among SMEs in Ghana, hinges on the adoption and sustained implementation of these identified pathways. 5   |   Implications and Conclusion of Study 5.1   |   Theoretical Implications This study significantly advances theoretical discourse in sus- tainability research by employing a systems thinking approach, offering a transformative perspective on the interconnected dy- namics influencing resource efficiency in SMEs. The integration of multiple constructs and dimensions, rather than examining them in isolation, provides a robust analytical framework that enriches our understanding of sustainability practices, espe- cially within the manufacturing sector. These implications contribute to a more nuanced, holistic view of sustainable devel- opment, addressing critical gaps in existing scholarship. 5.1.1   |   Advancing Systems Thinking in Sustainability Research The adoption of systems thinking challenges traditional reduc- tionist methodologies by emphasizing the interconnectedness and interplay of sustainability dimensions. This study under- scores the necessity of examining environmental, social, tech- nological, and policy-related factors as an integrated whole, offering a holistic lens to analyze sustainability practices. By utilizing fsQCA, this research introduces a paradigm shift from linear, single-variable analysis to a configurational perspective, highlighting the synergistic effects of multiple factors. This in- novative approach pushes theoretical boundaries, promoting a deeper understanding of the complexity inherent in sustainabil- ity transitions. 5.1.2   |   Strengthening Configurational Theories in Sustainability 5.1.2.1   |   Unveiling Configurational Pathways.  The study identifies four distinct sustainable pathways and two critical typologies that SMEs can adopt to achieve resource effi- ciency. These findings validate causal asymmetry, emphasizing that sustainability outcomes are not achieved through uniform conditions but rather through diverse, context-specific combi- nations of drivers. This enriches theoretical discussions on how multi-factorial configurations produce sustainable outcomes. 5.1.2.2   |   Interplay of Sustainability Dimensions.  By integrating environmental, social, and technological dimen- sions with enabling conditions, this research bridges a signifi- cant gap in the literature, which often treats these dimensions in silos. The study elucidates how these factors converge to produce effective sustainability outcomes, offering a more com- prehensive understanding of their interdependencies and collec- tive impact. 5.1.3   |   Expanding SME-Centric Sustainability Frameworks This study addresses the underrepresentation of SMEs in sus- tainability discourse, presenting them as pivotal actors in re- source efficiency and sustainable development. It emphasizes the foundational role of environmental considerations while showcasing the indispensability of facilitating conditions such as policy support, innovation access, and collaborative networks. These findings extend the scope of existing frameworks by pro- viding actionable insights tailored to the unique challenges and opportunities of SMEs in the manufacturing sector, thereby en- hancing their theoretical relevance and practical utility. 5.1.4   |   Reframing Sustainability Measurement The application of fsQCA in this study redefines how sustain- ability is conceptualized and measured. Instead of relying on isolated metrics, this approach focuses on dynamic interactions and configurational pathways, providing a more sophisticated lens for understanding complex sustainability phenomena. This methodological advancement sets a new standard for future re- search, equipping scholars with tools to explore and theorize about sustainability in its multifaceted entirety. 5.2   |   Policy Implications The findings of this study highlight the critical need for poli- cymakers to adopt a systems thinking approach to effectively support SMEs in achieving resource efficiency. This approach necessitates the development of integrative policies that address the interconnected dimensions of sustainability, thus, environ- mental, social, and technological, while aligning with the ob- jectives of the SDGs. By recognizing the multifaceted nature of resource efficiency, policymakers can craft strategies that not only target sustainability but also enhance the operational re- silience of SMEs. A key recommendation is the provision of targeted incen- tives designed to encourage SMEs to adopt sustainable prac- tices. Tailored support mechanisms such as tax benefits, grants, and subsidized loans can enable SMEs to invest in 10990836, 0, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/bse.4125 by U niversity of G hana - A ccra, W iley O nline L ibrary on [11/02/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense 11 of 14 environmentally friendly technologies and smart manufac- turing systems, bridging the gap between sustainability goals and technological capabilities. This financial encouragement can play a transformative role in making sustainable prac- tices more accessible to resource-constrained businesses. Additionally, capacity building emerges as a vital pillar in pro- moting sustainable development. Policymakers should focus on fostering the adoption of digital tools and innovative solu- tions through training programs and platforms for knowledge sharing. These initiatives can equip SMEs with the necessary skills and resources to enhance their operational efficiency and sustainability performance. The study also underscores the importance of designing holis- tic policy frameworks that integrate environmental and social considerations alongside economic objectives. Utilizing meth- odologies like fsQCA allows for evidence-based policymaking, ensuring that policies are both dynamic and responsive to the nuanced challenges faced by SMEs. Such frameworks should align closely with sustainability goals, particularly those em- phasizing responsible consumption, production, and improved resource efficiency. Cross-sector collaboration further amplifies the impact of sustainability initiatives. Policymakers should encourage partnerships among government agencies, industry stakeholders, academic institutions, and international organiza- tions. These collaborations can pool resources, share expertise, and foster collective action to drive sustainable development within the SME sector. The synergistic efforts of diverse stake- holders can accelerate the adoption of sustainable practices and amplify their long-term impact. Finally, embedding circular economy principles into policy strat- egies is essential. By encouraging waste reduction, recycling, and resource conservation, policymakers can promote sustain- able production processes that prioritize efficiency. Integrating frugal sustainability and achieving sustainability goals with minimal resources ensures that SMEs, especially those with limited financial capacity, can participate in the broader sus- tainability agenda. Ultimately, policymakers play a pivotal role in shaping an eco- system that empowers SMEs as key agents of sustainability. Bridging the gap between policy design and implementation is critical to fostering resilient, competitive, and sustainable SMEs. By addressing their unique challenges and leveraging their po- tential, such policies not only contribute to global sustainability objectives but also bolster the long-term viability and competi- tiveness of SMEs in a rapidly evolving global economy. 5.3   |   Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Study Directions This study investigates sustainable practices among SMEs in the manufacturing sector, with a focus on aligning with the SDGs and optimizing resource utilization. By analyzing various sustainable constructs—including environmental dimensions, social dimensions, facilitating conditions, technological inno- vativeness, and innovative practices—the research identifies key pathways that drive sustainability and resource efficiency in SMEs. The findings underscore the importance of integrating environ- mental considerations, social dimensions, and governmental support to enhance resource efficiency. Four sustainable path- ways are identified, highlighting the pivotal roles of technological innovativeness and innovative practices alongside environmen- tal and social dimensions. Additionally, the study outlines two key topologies that bolster resource efficiency, emphasizing the integration of emerging technologies and a systemic approach to sustainability strategies. These insights provide valuable guid- ance for policymakers and practitioners in promoting sustain- able development and achieving SDG objectives. While this study underscores the importance of synergistic sustainability strategies and the interplay of diverse factors in fostering resource efficiency among SMEs, it is not without lim- itations. Acknowledging these limitations is essential to contex- tualize the findings and guide future research endeavors. One limitation is the specificity of the study's context, focusing primarily on SMEs in the manufacturing sector. This narrow scope restricts the generalizability of the findings to SMEs in other industries or geographic regions. Future research should explore how the identified pathways and topologies apply to SMEs in diverse sectors and cultural contexts, thus broadening the theoretical and practical applicability of the framework. Another limitation concerns the behavioral dimension of sus- tainability practices. This study does not account for the impact of employees' behaviors and decision-making processes on re- source management. Investigating these human factors could offer deeper insights into how internal organizational dynamics influence the adoption and success of sustainability strategies. Additionally, the study's reliance on configurational pathways derived from fsQCA, while robust, may oversimplify the nu- anced interactions among variables in real-world scenarios. Future studies could complement these findings with qualita- tive methodologies, such as in-depth case studies or interviews, to capture the complexities and contextual subtleties of sustain- ability practices. The cross-sectional nature of the research presents another limitation, as it captures sustainability configurations at a sin- gle point in time. Longitudinal studies could address this gap by examining how pathways and topologies evolve over time, providing insights into the adaptability and longevity of sustain- able practices under changing market, regulatory, and environ- mental conditions. Moreover, the study focuses on a limited set of dimensions influencing sustainability: environmental, so- cial, technological, and facilitating conditions. Future research could incorporate additional factors such as cultural influences, global supply chain pressures, and market dynamics, which are increasingly relevant in today's interconnected world. These di- mensions could offer a more comprehensive understanding of the forces shaping sustainability in SMEs. In summary, while this study makes significant contributions to advancing sustainable development and resource efficiency in SMEs, addressing these limitations in future research will further enhance the robustness and applicability of its findings. Expanding the scope, incorporating qualitative insights, and exploring additional dimensions and temporal dynamics will 10990836, 0, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/bse.4125 by U niversity of G hana - A ccra, W iley O nline L ibrary on [11/02/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense 12 of 14 Business Strategy and the Environment, 2025 deepen the theoretical understanding of sustainability configu- rations and their practical implications. Acknowledgments The authors are indebted to the editor and reviewers for constructive comments. References Adam, N. A., and G. Alarifi. 2021. “Innovation Practices for Survival of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in the COVID-19 Times: The Role of External Support.” Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 10, no. 1: 15. Ajmal, M. M., M. Khan, M. Hussain, and P. Helo. 2018. “Conceptualizing and Incorporating Social Sustainability in the Business World.” International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 25, no. 4: 327–339. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13504​509.​2017.​1408714. Albert, M. 2022. “Assessing the Sustainability Impacts of Frugal Innovation—A Literature Review.” Journal of Cleaner Production 365, no. June: 132754. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2022.​132754. Ambaye, T. G., R. Djellabi, M. Vaccari, S. Prasad, T. M. Aminabhavi, and S. Rtimi. 2023. “Emerging Technologies and Sustainable Strategies for Municipal Solid Waste Valorization: Challenges of Circular Economy Implementation.” Journal of Cleaner Production 423: 138708. Arias, A., G. Feijoo, and M. T. Moreira. 2023. “Biorefineries as a Driver for Sustainability: Key Aspects, Actual Development and Future Prospects.” Journal of Cleaner Production 418: 137925. Asongu, S. A., and N. M. Odhiambo. 2020. “Economic Development Thresholds for a Green Economy in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Energy Exploration & Exploitation 38, no. 1: 3–17. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​01445​ 98719​835591. Basit, S. A., B. Gharleghi, K. Batool, S. S. Hassan, A. A. Jahanshahi, and M. E. Kliem. 2024. “Review of Enablers and Barriers of Sustainable Business Practices in SMEs.” Journal of Economy and Technology 2: 79–94. Battisti, E., N. Miglietta, N. Nirino, and M. V. Diaz. 2020. “Value Creation, Innovation Practice, and Competitive Advantage: Evidence From the FTSE MIB Index.” European Journal of Innovation Management 23, no. 2: 273–290. Bhattacharyya, A. 2019. “Corporate Environmental Performance Evaluation: A Cross-Country Appraisal.” Journal of Cleaner Production 237: 117607. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2019.​117607. Cainelli, G., A. D'Amato, and M. Mazzanti. 2020. “Resource Efficient Eco-Innovations for a Circular Economy: Evidence From EU Firms.” Research Policy 49, no. 1: 103827. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​respol.​2019.​ 103827. Castellano, R., G. Punzo, G. Scandurra, and A. Thomas. 2022. “Exploring Antecedents of Innovations for Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises' Environmental Sustainability: An Interpretative Framework.” Business Strategy and the Environment 31, no. 4: 1730–1748. Chaudhuri, R., S. Chatterjee, M. M. Mariani, and S. F. Wamba. 2024. “Assessing the Influence of Emerging Technologies on Organizational Data Driven Culture and Innovation Capabilities: A Sustainability Performance Perspective.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 200: 123165. Chege, S. M., and D. Wang. 2020. “The Influence of Technology Innovation on SME Performance Through Environmental Sustainability Practices in Kenya.” Technology in Society 60, no. June 2019: 101210. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​techs​oc.​2019.​101210. Cheng, L. 2024. “The Potential Synergy Between air Pollution Control and Employment Growth.” Journal of Environmental Management 369: 122358. Dal Maso, L., F. Mazzi, M. Soscia, and S. Terzani. 2018. “The Moderating Role of Stakeholder Management and Societal Characteristics in the Relationship Between Corporate Environmental and Financial Performance.” Journal of Environmental Management 218: 322–332. Das, S., A. Kundu, and A. Bhattacharya. 2020. “Technology Adaptation and Survival of SMEs: A Longitudinal Study of Developing Countries.” Technology Innovation Management Review 10, no. 6: 64–72. Chowdhury, P., and R. Shumon. 2020. “Minimizing the gap Between Expectation and Ability: Strategies for SMEs to Implement Social Sustainability Practices.” Sustainability 12, no. 16: 6408. Demirkan, I., R. Srinivasan, and A. Nand. 2022. “Innovation in SMEs: The Role of Employee Training in German SMEs.” Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 29, no. 3: 421–440. Dogra, N., M. Adil, M. Sadiq, G. Dash, and J. Paul. 2023. “Unraveling Customer Repurchase Intention in OFDL Context: An Investigation Using a Hybrid Technique of SEM and fsQCA.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 72: 103281. Eisenmenger, N., M. Pichler, N. Krenmayr, et al. 2020. “The Sustainable Development Goals Prioritize Economic Growth Over Sustainable Resource Use: A Critical Reflection on the SDGs From a Socio- Ecological Perspective.” Sustainability Science 15, no. 4: 1101–1110. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s1162​5-​020-​00813​-​x. Emami, M., Y. Vakil Alroaia, and S. M. Zargar. 2023. “Investigating the Brand Performance of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) With fsQCA Technique: Emphasis on the Role of Entrepreneurship and Human Resource Strategy.” Co-Operation and Agriculture 12, no. 45: 118–133. Endres, M., P. M. Bican, and T. Wöllner. 2022. “Sustainability Meets Agile: Using Scrum to Develop Frugal Innovations.” Journal of Cleaner Production 347, no. March: 130871. Felsberger, A., F. H. Qaiser, A. Choudhary, and G. Reiner. 2022. “The Impact of Industry 4.0 on the Reconciliation of Dynamic Capabilities: Evidence From the European Manufacturing Industries.” Production Planning and Control 33, no. 2–3: 277–300. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​ 09537​287.​2020.​1810765. Fiss, P. C. 2011. “Building Better Causal Theories: A Fuzzy set Approach to Typologies in Organization Research.” Academy of Management Journal 54, no. 2: 393–420. Hair, J., G. Hult, C. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. 2022. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equationmodeling (PLS-SEM). 3rd ed. Sage. Hariyani, D., S. Mishra, P. Hariyani, and M. K. Sharma. 2023. “Drivers and Motives for Sustainable Manufacturing System.” Innovation and Green Development 2, no. 1: 100031. Henseler, J., C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. 2015. “Anew Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in Variance-Based Structuralequation Modeling.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 43: 115–135. Hristov, I., A. Appolloni, A. Chirico, and W. Cheng. 2021. “The Role of the Environmental Dimension in the Performance Management System: A Systematic Review and Conceptual Framework.” Journal of Cleaner Production 293: 126075. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2021.​ 126075. Jagani, S., E. Marsillac, and P. Hong. 2024. “The Electric Vehicle Supply Chain Ecosystem: Changing Roles of Automotive Suppliers.” Sustainability 16, no. 4: 1570. Jain, N., and G. Mohapatra. 2023. “A Comparative Assessment of Composite Environmental Sustainability Index for Emerging Economies: A Multidimensional Approach.” Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 34, no. 5: 1314–1331. Jauhar, S. K., M. Pant, V. Kumar, N. K. Sharma, and P. Verma. 2021. “Supply Chain and the Sustainability Management: Selection of Suppliers for Sustainable Operations in the Manufacturing Industry.” In Sustainability in Industry 4.0, 75–93. CRC Press. 10990836, 0, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/bse.4125 by U niversity of G hana - A ccra, W iley O nline L ibrary on [11/02/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2017.1408714 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132754 https://doi.org/10.1177/0144598719835591 https://doi.org/10.1177/0144598719835591 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117607 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103827 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103827 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101210 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00813-x https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2020.1810765 https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2020.1810765 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126075 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126075 13 of 14 Javaid, M., A. Haleem, R. P. Singh, R. Suman, and E. S. Gonzalez. 2022. “Understanding the Adoption of Industry 4.0 Technologies in Improving Environmental Sustainability.” Sustainable Operations and Computers 3, no. September 2021: 203–217. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ susoc.​2022.​01.​008. Journeault, M., A. Perron, and L. Vallières. 2021. “The Collaborative Roles of Stakeholders in Supporting the Adoption of Sustainability in SMEs.” Journal of Environmental Management 287, no. March: 112349. Kannan, D., P. Gholipour, and C. Bai. 2023. “Smart Manufacturing as a Strategic Tool to Mitigate Sustainable Manufacturing Challenges: A Case Approach.” Annals of Operations Research 331, no. 1: 543–579. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s1047​9-​023-​05472​-​6. Khizar, H. M. U., M. J. Iqbal, F. Murshed, and M. Ahsan. 2024. “Sustainability Outcomes in SMEs: A Configurational View of the Interplay of Strategic Orientations and Environmental Conditions.” Journal of Macromarketing 44, no. 2: 534–552. Kitsis, A. M., and I. J. Chen. 2021. “Do Stakeholder Pressures Influence Green Supply Chain Practices? Exploring the Mediating Role of top Management Commitment.” Journal of Cleaner Production 316: 128258. Kneipp, J. M., C. M. Gomes, R. S. Bichueti, K. Frizzo, and A. P. Perlin. 2019. “Sustainable Innovation Practices and Their Relationship With the Performance of Industrial Companies.” Revista de Gestao 26, no. 2: 94–111. Krishnan, R., R. Agarwal, C. Bajada, and K. Arshinder. 2020. “Redesigning a Food Supply Chain for Environmental Sustainability— An Analysis of Resource Use and Recovery.” Journal of Cleaner Production 242: 118374. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2019.​118374. Kristensen, H. S., and M. A. Mosgaard. 2020. “A Review of Micro Level Indicators for a Circular Economy—Moving Away From the Three Dimensions of Sustainability?” Journal of Cleaner Production 243: 118531. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2019.​118531. Kumar, S. S., V. Muthukumaran, A. Devi, V. Geetha, and P. N. Yadav. 2023. “A Quantitative Approach of Purposive Sampling Techniques for Security and Privacy Issues in IoT Healthcare Applications.” In Handbook of Research on Advancements in AI and IoT Convergence Technologies, 281–299. IGI Global. Lehmann, C., F. Cruz-Jesus, T. Oliveira, and B. Damásio. 2022. “Leveraging the Circular Economy: Investment and Innovation as Drivers.” Journal of Cleaner Production 360: 132146. Loučanová, E., M. Nosáľová, M. Olšiaková, et  al. 2023. “Innovation as a Tool for Sustainable Development in Small and Medium Size Enterprises in Slovakia.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 15, no. 21: 15393. Lutfi, A., A. Al-Hiyari, I. A. Elshaer, M. Alrawad, and M. A. Almaiah. 2024. “Green Environmental Management System and Environmental Performance: Results From PLS-SEM and fsQCA.” Sustainable Futures 8: 100276. Madrid-Guijarro, A., and A. Duréndez. 2024. “Sustainable Development Barriers and Pressures in SMEs: The Mediating Effect of Management Commitment to Environmental Practices.” Business Strategy and the Environment 33, no. 2: 949–967. Mariyate, J., and A. Bera. 2023. “Paradigm Shift Towards the Sustainability in Upstream oil Industry for Enhanced Recovery-A State-Of-Art Review.” Journal of Cleaner Production 386: 135784. Mayer, A., W. Haas, D. Wiedenhofer, F. Krausmann, P. Nuss, and G. A. Blengini. 2019. “Measuring Progress Towards a Circular Economy: A Monitoring Framework for Economy-Wide Material Loop Closing in the EU28.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 23, no. 1: 62–76. Mies, A., and S. Gold. 2021. “Mapping the Social Dimension of the Circular Economy.” Journal of Cleaner Production 321, no. August: 128960. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2021.​128960. Nara, E. O. B., M. B. da Costa, I. C. Baierle, et al. 2021. “Expected Impact of Industry 4.0 Technologies on Sustainable Development: A Study in the Context of Brazil's Plastic Industry.” Sustainable Production and Consumption 25: 102–122. Narayanan, S., and J. R. Das. 2022. “Can the Marketing Innovation of Purpose Branding Make Brands Meaningful and Relevant?” International Journal of Innovation Science 14, no. 3/4: 519–536. Ngo, V. M., H. T. Quang, T. G. Hoang, and A. D. T. Binh. 2024. “Sustainability-Related Supply Chain Risks and Supply Chain Performances: The Moderating Effects of Dynamic Supply Chain Management Practices.” Business Strategy and the Environment 33, no. 2: 839–857. Nikou, S., J. Mezei, E. W. Liguori, and A. El Tarabishy. 2024. “FsQCA in Entrepreneurship Research: Opportunities and Best Practices.” Journal of Small Business Management 62, no. 3: 1531–1548. Pappas, I. O., and A. G. Woodside. 2021. “Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA): Guidelines for Research Practice in Information Systems and Marketing.” International Journal of Information Management 58: 102310. Passaro, R., I. Quinto, G. Scandurra, and A. Thomas. 2023. “The Drivers of eco-Innovations in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: A Systematic Literature Review and Research Directions.” Business Strategy and the Environment 32, no. 4: 1432–1450. Permatasari, P., and J. Gunawan. 2023. “Sustainability Policies for Small Medium Enterprises: WHO Are the Actors?” Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 9: 100122. Raut, R. D., S. K. Mangla, V. S. Narwane, B. B. Gardas, P. Priyadarshinee, and B. E. Narkhede. 2019. “Linking Big Data Analytics and Operational Sustainability Practices for Sustainable Business Management.” Journal of Cleaner Production 224: 10–24. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2019.​ 03.​181. Rasoolimanesh, S. M., N. Valaei, and S. Rezaei. 2023. “Guideline for Application of Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) in Tourism and Hospitality Studies.” In Cutting Edge Research Methods in Hospitality and Tourism, 137–156. Emerald Publishing Limited. Ringle, C. M., M. Sarstedt, N. Sinkovics, and R. R. Sinkovics. 2023. “A Perspective on Using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling in Data Articles.” Data in Brief 48: 109074. Rostamnezhad, M., and M. J. Thaheem. 2022. “Social Sustainability in Construction Projects—A Systematic Review of Assessment Indicators and Taxonomy.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 14, no. 9: 5279. Sala, S. 2019. Biofuels for a More Sustainable Future: Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment and Multi-Criteria Decision Making Triple Bottom Line, Sustainability and Sustainability Assessment, an Overview. Amsterdam: Elsevier Inc. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​B978-​0-​12-​81558​1-​3.​ 00003​-​8. Schaper, M. 2010. Making Ecopreneurs. Burlington (USA): Gower. Sharma, A., S. B. Borah, T. Haque, and A. Adhikary. 2024. “Engaging Customers and Suppliers for Environmental Sustainability: Investigating the Drivers and the Effects on Firm Performance.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science: 1–26. Shubham, S., P. Charan, and L. S. Murty. 2018. “Institutional Pressure and the Implementation of Corporate Environment Practices: Examining the Mediating Role of Absorptive Capacity.” Journal of Knowledge Management 22, no. 7: 1591–1613. Thomann, E., and M. Maggetti. 2020. “Designing Research With Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): Approaches, Challenges, and Tools.” Sociological Methods & Research 49, no. 2: 356–386. Trianni, A., E. Cagno, A. Neri, and M. Howard. 2019. “Measuring Industrial Sustainability Performance: Empirical Evidence From Italian and German Manufacturing Small and Medium Enterprises.” Journal of Cleaner Production 229: 1355–1376. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ jclep​ro.​2019.​05.​076. 10990836, 0, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/bse.4125 by U niversity of G hana - A ccra, W iley O nline L ibrary on [11/02/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.01.008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.01.008 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-023-05472-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118374 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118531 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128960 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.181 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.181 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815581-3.00003-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815581-3.00003-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.076 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.076 14 of 14 Business Strategy and the Environment, 2025 Voulvoulis, N., T. Giakoumis, C. Hunt, et al. 2022. “Systems Thinking as a Paradigm Shift for Sustainability Transformation.” Global Environmental Change 75, no. May: 102544. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ gloen​vcha.​2022.​102544. Wang, R., P. P. Heugens, and F. Wijen. 2024. “Green by Affiliation? Ownership Identity and Environmental Management System Adoption in Chinese Business Groups.” Journal of Management 50, no. 4: 1331–1360. Wang, S., J. Li, and A. Razzaq. 2023. “Do Environmental Governance, Technology Innovation and Institutions Lead to Lower Resource Footprints: An Imperative Trajectory for Sustainability.” Resources Policy 80: 103142. Westman, L., E. Moores, and S. L. Burch. 2021. “Bridging the Governance Divide: The Role of SMEs in Urban Sustainability Interventions.” Cities 108: 102944. Yong, J. Y., M.-Y. Yusliza, T. Ramayah, C. J. Chiappetta Jabbour, S. Sehnem, and V. Mani. 2020. “Pathways Towards Sustainability in Manufacturing Organizations: Empirical Evidence on the Role of Green Human Resource Management.” Business Strategy and the Environment 29, no. 1: 212–228. Zink, T., and R. Geyer. 2019. “Material Recycling and the Myth of Landfill Diversion.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 23, no. 3: 541–548. 10990836, 0, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/bse.4125 by U niversity of G hana - A ccra, W iley O nline L ibrary on [11/02/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102544 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102544 Optimizing Sustainable Resource Efficiency: A Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Sustainable Practices in SMEs ABSTRACT 1   |   Introduction 2   |   Literature Review 2.1   |   Sustainability Practices 2.2   |   Drivers of Sustainable Practices 2.2.1   |   Environmental Dimensions 2.2.2   |   Social Dimensions 2.2.3   |   Technological Innovation 2.2.4   |   Facilitating Conditions 2.2.5   |   Innovative Practices 2.3   |   Configural Paths of Sustainability Practices and Resource Efficiency 2.4   |   Summary of Research Gaps 3   |   Methodology 3.1   |   Research Design and Sampling 3.2   |   Data Collection Method and Analysis 3.3   |   Data Analysis and Results 3.4   |   CFA and Reliability Testing 3.5   |   fsQCA and Sustainable Pathways 3.6   |   Sustainable Pathways Identified 3.6.1   |   Sustainable Pathway 1 3.6.2   |   Sustainable Pathway 2 3.6.3   |   Sustainable Pathway 3 3.6.4   |   Sustainable Pathway 4 4   |   Discussion of Findings 5   |   Implications and Conclusion of Study 5.1   |   Theoretical Implications 5.1.1   |   Advancing Systems Thinking in Sustainability Research 5.1.2   |   Strengthening Configurational Theories in Sustainability 5.1.2.1   |   Unveiling Configurational Pathways. 5.1.2.2   |   Interplay of Sustainability Dimensions. 5.1.3   |   Expanding SME-Centric Sustainability Frameworks 5.1.4   |   Reframing Sustainability Measurement 5.2   |   Policy Implications 5.3   |   Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Study Directions Acknowledgments References