Adoption of Green Environmental Practices in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: Entrepreneur and Business Policies Patterns in Romania

Abstract

Current research shows that SMEs’ social and environmental actions are fragmented and informal, and few have formal policies and intentions. At the same time, many SMEs are engaged with environmental policies, often not knowing it. Concurrently, there is a gap between the pro-environmental attitudes of the SMEs managers, who are often seen as the main drivers for the firm’s behavior, and the policies implemented in reality in their firms. To this end, our research’s objective is to explore pro-environmental behavior, both at the individual and firm level, to identify connections between these levels and measures but also with firm’s and managers’ demographics, based on a study of Romanian SMEs. The descriptive analysis and factor analysis including tetrachoric correlation methods were used to explore these behaviors and the associations between them. The results confirm the research’s hypothesis and show that there are positive connections between the “green” behaviors at the individual level and in the SME context. Moreover, comparative analysis provided evidence of differences in the adoption of environmental practices, which were based on the firm’s demographics and manager’s characteristics. Simultaneously, five typologies of pro-environmental behavior in SMEs were identified and described, depending on the additional investment necessary and allocated resources, on the changes in organizational structure, and on the manager’s personal involvement. These findings contribute to a better understanding of the environmental improvement policies in SMEs and may help policy-makers tailor interventions and SMEs managers learn from good practices of their peers.

1. Introduction

In the sixties, the private sector reassembled most of the neo-liberal policies’ benefits. These policies were guided by the search for a maximum profitability in the short term. This approach resulted in a rather unethical economic model, in which competition exceeds cooperation, the accumulated welfare increases the need for more gains, and a new individual pattern—Homo economicus [1]—rises above the others, spreading a neo-Darwinian logic around him.

As a counterpart, the concept of sustainable development evolved constantly since its emergence in the 1970s, not only from the philosophical point of view but also from a practical point of view at a firm’s or individual’s level.

Among the challenges our society faces, there is an unprecedented level of visibility surrounding environmental aspects, such as climate change, pollution, and over-consumption of natural resources. Subsequently, it is expected of the citizens to take both action and responsibility [2]. Various terms are used to describe the relationship between firms and the environment [3], including environmental impact, sustainable responsibility, credentials, improvement, commitment, good practices, and performance. Researchers tend not to define these items, or they use them interchangeably, believing they are self-evident. According to Parker and Simpson [4], environmental improvement represents changes in technology and practices that reduce the current level of negative impact on the environment.

Environmental initiatives cannot be understood by focusing exclusively on the actions taken by individuals nor solely in terms of organizational structures that surround them but rather as a mutual relationship between actions and organizational or social structure [5]. Most environmental performance processes focus on a combination [6] of internal and external processes.

Companies have an important contribution to the societal global development, acting simultaneously at different levels [7], i.e. ethical, legal, economic, philanthropic, and environmental. Among them, small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) count for the majority in terms of firms’ and employers’ numbers. However, many SMEs managers feel that their impact on the environment is minimal, and thus, they have no interest in engaging in environmental improvement [8,9,10,11]. Whilst some SMEs may attempt to exempt themselves from taking responsibilities or acting to protect the environment due to their small scale and to their relatively negligible impact on the environment [4,12], their collective influence can be significant [2].

In the context of the informational technology expansion and of increased business environment volatility, organizations are in a continuous evolution and interdependence. Most of them are small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), both as number, and as contribution to Global Internal Product and number of employees. An analysis conducted by W. Luetkenhorst in 2004 [12], confirmed by a study from 2012 of the European Commission, cited by Jansson et al. [13] notes that 98% of companies in the European Union are small and medium-sized enterprises, and that in some sectors such as textile, construction, and furniture, they provide around 80% of the jobs. The first author states that countries with a high percentage of SMEs have at the same time a relatively equal distribution of income and present high social stability. In addition, SMEs can be a significant factor for innovation in niche markets that need high flexibility and customized products. SMEs also serve as “grow labs” for innovation and risk-oriented product development. On the other hand, they are responsible for around 60% of all carbon dioxide emissions and 70% of the global pollution [4]; therefore, they are expected to engage in environmental improvement. As a corollary to their impact, climate change and intensifying weather conditions add pressure for SMEs to take environmental issues into account [14] and to reconsider their source of competitive advantage.

Accordingly, the academic research is unanimous in stating that SMEs have an important role in the economy and society [15,16], regardless of their size, localization, or sector, while presenting specificities that need to be taken into consideration as far as environmental improvement is concerned [17,18].

The firm’s size may represent an important factor for the degree of adoption of environmentally responsible practices [19]. However, some authors [20,21] minimize its impact alone, arguing that the involvement of stakeholders can moderate a business’ behavior. Economic, social, and environmental partners can bring fresh resources to firms that return to them in a different form. These exchanges materialize in mutual contributions [22] between SMEs and their environment (informational and collaboration–mobilization relationships [23,24]), with positive impact for sustainable practices in firms. Moreover, the inclusion of collaboration–mobilization relationships in the firm’s strategy can lead to increased competitiveness and sustainable innovation. However, the degree of integration depends on complex parameters [25,26], such as managers’ attitude, individual beliefs and interests of the stakeholders, and the power games resulting from their connections but also the manager’s penchant for social compromise [22]. Academic literature points out that beyond the firm size (micro, small, middle) and the relationships with various stakeholders, internal capabilities and beliefs [27] are a determinant of a firms’ involvement in environmental improvement. Accordingly, at a micro level, the personal motivations of key individuals can also result in changes in a business context [28]. Pro-environmental attitude has a very robust association with pro-environmental behavior [29], but the academic literature shows that there also may be a disconnection between environmental attitude and environmental actions in the SMEs context.

The understanding of the relationship between managers’ attitudes toward environment protection and their formal actions at the business level is important in order to articulate the interventions from the regulators and public authorities. Moreover, these interventions must be tailored according to the firms’ size and characteristics, since every measure is likely to be effective only for a category of enterprises, and the literature acknowledges that there is a need to separate SMEs characteristics and interventions [3]. There is little research in the field of environmental policies and measures in a SME context, mostly because small businesses believe they have a low environmental impact and that environmental issues have no relevance to the strategy of the firm [2]. Concurrently, the link between managers’ individual behavior as far as the environment protection is concerned, and the policies adopted in SMEs, needs further exploration, since research describes a contradictory situation regarding this topic. More specifically, managers may express concern for the environment at a personal level and be willing to act as an individual but feel that responsibility for dealing with any business-oriented negative environmental impact rests with the government or the regulatory bodies [2]. Moreover, managers of SMEs who perceive taking environmental actions as only a business issue, primarily driven by cost savings as an outcome, then do less [30].

One objective of our paper is to explore the connections between SMEs managers’ individual attitudes and behavior toward environment and the policies adopted in the firm. In addition, we investigate whether there are connections between the firms’ characteristics and the environmental measures adopted based on a SME study in Romania. In the two following sections, we analyze the specificities of SMEs regarding environmental protection, respectively the typologies of actions and policies adopted by SMEs in this field. The Material and Methods section describes the research assumptions, methods, and the way they were applied. The results and discussion are presented according to the research method that conducted to their production—descriptive analysis, comparative analysis, and association rules, while in the Conclusions section, we synthetize and comment on our main findings.

2. Can SMEs Make a Difference in Environment Protection?

This section investigates the role of SMEs in the economy and society, pointing out their particularities in integrating sustainable environmental strategies, which requires them to be treated differently compared to corporations as far as the research is concerned.

The managerial transposition of this notion in a business [31] is achieved through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). P. Koleva defines CSR as the microeconomic reflection of sustainable development [32], while Aguinis and Glavas [33] state that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is defined as context-specific organizational actions and policies that take into account stakeholders’ expectations and the triple bottom line performance. Moreover, business organizations such as DTI (British Department for Trade and Industry) refers to CSR [34] as concern of firms for the impact they have on the wider society they operate in, particularly on economic, social, environmental, and human rights issues, theorized by academic literature as the “multi-stakeholder approach” [35].

Alongside their quantitative impact in the global economy, society, and environment, research has explored the qualitative aspects of SMEs [36,37], namely the way their specificities facilitate the connections with stakeholders, which can further translate into increased sustainability: organizational flexibility, proximity with local communities and environment, and capacity to easily access various networks. These specificities are presented in academic literature as “natural assets” [38,39,40,41] of SMEs that contribute to sustainable innovation and corporate social responsibility.

Further research [4,42] depicts the typical SME as having limited resources, limited cash, few customers, being often engaged in managing “fire-fighting”, focusing on current performance rather than strategy, having a flat organizational structure and possibly a high staff turnover. Many SMEs are unaware of the environmental legislation that affects their business [17], or feel that it does not apply to them [10]. They are doubtful about the business benefits of environmental improvement and only adopt the practices that reduce their costs.

Academic authors are unanimous in acknowledging that managers’ perceptions (influenced by intentions, values, experiences, attention focus on opportunities and threats) in SMEs have a stronger influence on SMEs’ activities and performance than in larger firms [43,44,45,46]. SMEs’ managers do care about environmental issues, and most of them would prefer that their firms adopt environmental practices [47]. However, due to intense pressure to remain competitive, SMEs’ managers can focus on short-term costs of adopting environmental practices, perceiving greater costs than benefits. On the other hand, the managers’ focus on threats can increase their risk aversion [48] and thus their penchant for investments for environmental improvements [49].

Regardless of the SMEs’ drivers for going toward environmental improvement, many authors state that the adoption of environmental practices leads to stronger financial performance [50,51]. Research suggests a positive relationship between going green and gains in operational efficiency [52], innovative capabilities [53,54] and finally, financial performance [50,51]. Maintaining low operational costs is perceived as the primary threat to survival for SMEs, and thus, SMEs’ managers may focus more on protecting the market share and profits on the short term through cost-saving [30,55,56]. SMEs’ managers may also have resources constraints and a lack of experience with environmental practices, compared to larger firms, including compliance [48]. The pressure for conformity and the managers’ inexperience may generate a greater perceived risk of failure and fear of insufficient human resources to adopt new practices [48,57,58]. When financial and human resources are limited—those being the two most frequent barriers for sustainability mentioned by SMEs [59]—and managers focus on firm’s survival, they may choose to adopt individual practices than an entire environmental management [10,60].

The exploration of the SMEs’ specificities regarding environmental improvement is important to understand the drivers and obstacles for adopting green practices. However, scientists agree that there are research gaps [33], namely at the individual level of analysis (SMEs’ managers) but also regarding the mediation effect (the process through which environmental actions lead to a particular outcome), the multilevel and longitudinal perspective (analysis based on firms’ and managers’ characteristics), and the qualitative studies concerning the underlying mechanisms of environmental engagement. Our study wishes to bring a contribution to the understanding of the individual behavior of the SMEs managers regarding the environment, to explore the way their individual behavior impacts the green actions adopted at the firm’s level, and to investigate the link between the firms’ parameters (size, profit) and managers’ characteristics (age, gender, studies’ degree) and how these influence the concrete actions adopted.

3. Environmental Patterns or How Do SMEs Commit to Environmental Improvement from Wishful Thinking to Concrete Actions

In this section, we explore, based on a literature review, the different levels of environmental improvement in SMEs and the typologies of green engagement based on the managers’ and firms’ characteristics. Understanding the motives and patterns for corporate environmental responsiveness is critical for two reasons: it can assist organizational theorists to predict ecologically based behaviors, but it also may expose the mechanisms that foster ecologically responsible firms, allowing researchers, managers and policy makers to determine the efficacy of measures and policies in the field [61].

Researchers agree that one of SMEs’ essential features is the independence of the organization in terms of decision-making, and the overwhelming influence of the key decision-maker’s personality in the firm’s goal and strategy [62]. Small business owners have a stronger impact on a company’s policy, culture, and actions than owners of large firms; therefore, most SMEs’ environmental commitment should be studied at the individual level [63]. Key decision-makers in SMEs have a responsibility in creating and renewing societal wealth. As suggested by Schumpeter, entrepreneurs are social engineers. SMEs managers incorporate prosocial goals within their organizational behavior (linked to information availability and the time the managers have to undertake business activities), which is also in line with growing institutional and competition pressure for sustainable engagement. Committing to prosocial goals such as green practices requires specific personal drivers, for instance joy of finding, personal fulfillment, need for achievement, the desire to help society, and the “joy of changing the world” [62]. Many researchers point out that environmental sustainability orientation is driven by an entrepreneur’s explicit and implicit power motives [62,64]. This framework of analysis, based on McClelland’s definition of power [65] and the three key motives for individuals (achievement, power, and affiliation), argues that implicit motives “push” individuals toward actions that they enjoy, while explicit motives “pull” them toward actions that they want [66]. While explicit motives can be easily measured via self-reports in the form of a questionnaire, implicit motives are more challenging to be assessed, with the Implicit Association Test (IAT), Pictorial Attitude IAT (PA-IAT), and Shortened Pictorial Attitude IAT (SPA-IAT) being the most practiced. The theory and “pull” and “push” as drivers for environmental behavior is mentioned under a different form by Revell (2010). Accordingly, SME business owners are motivated not only by the “push” of legislation and environmental concern, but also by the “pull” of potential cost-savings, new customers, higher staff retention, and good publicity.

Most environmental managerial typologies are based on a combination of internal and external processes [6]. The most cited entrepreneur typologies are those described by Smith (1967), Chell et al. (1991), Dunkelberg and Cooper (1982), Dana (1995), and Thompson (1998). Based on the definition of what is “green production” and “environmental industry”, on economical versus sustainability orientation and on soft versus hard structural influences, Walley (2002) [5] proposes a typology of green entrepreneurs: ad hoc enviropreneurs, ethical mavericks, innovative opportunists, and visionary champions.

As far as the environmental commitment degree of inclusion is concerned, Revell (2010) [3] shows that there are at least four types of SMEs (profit, compliance, advantage, and environment driven). This typology is based both on business performance commitment (profit, turnover) and environmental commitment. The author stresses the importance of treating the various types of SMEs differently, from the point of view of interventions the external parties may use to influence their environmental improvement. Similarly, inspired by case studies in innovative SMEs, Willard identifies five stages of adoption of environmentally sustainable practices in firms [67]: pre-conformity; compliance; beyond compliance; integrated strategy; scope and passion, the latter being rather a special type of firm, meant to “save the world” than a stage of development in firms.

Another framework for analyzing the adoption of sustainable green practices in SMEs is suggested by Jansson et al. (2017) [13], in a study on a panel of 450 Swedish SMEs, and Baker and Sinkula (2009) [68]. The authors assume that there is a positive connection between the strategic orientation (market versus entrepreneurial orientation) and the inclusion of these practices in the firms. While market orientation may focus either on customers and their needs, on external factors such as environmental requirements, or on coordination and planning [69], the entrepreneurial orientation has an innovative, proactive, and risk-taking approach. From the environmental point of view, this approach can materialize into testing new green technologies [70] or exploring new environmentally friendly partnerships.

Patterns and models described by the academic literature for depicting environmental engagement in SME managers often adopt holistic approaches. More specifically, based on a psychological framework of the seven action logics identified by Rooke and Torbert (2005) (Opportunist, Diplomat, Expert, Achiever, Individualist, Strategist, and Alchemist), Boiral and Cayer (2009) [71] explore how these entrepreneur types can affect environmental leadership. This concept is defined as the ability to influence individuals and mobilize organizations to realize a vision of long-term environmental sustainability. Effective environmental leaders are more aware of eco-centric values, more attentive to stakeholders’ expectations, and personally committed to organizational change through various approaches, such as pollution prevention, implementation of managements systems such as ISO 14001, and heightened employee awareness [61]. On the other hand, the authors point out that environmental leadership could even be characterized by a process of amoralization and loss of meaning caused by the predominance of an economic rationality, attention being given to economic, strategic, and technical implications instead of moral or ecological issues [72]. This analytical framework provides a broad understanding of how managers respond to the challenges they face, including environmental issues.

However, the analytical frameworks for environmental improvement must be applied cautiously. Given that entrepreneurs tend to reinvent their business over time, the evolution of a particular entrepreneur might see him or her moving from one ideal type to another [5]. For this reason, the analysis of environmental commitment in SMEs from the firms’ and managers’ characteristics point of view can provide a better understanding of its mechanisms and types of interventions [4].

A cross-sector survey of 220 UK SMEs [3] suggests that a high percentage of owners–managers are actively involved in recycling, energy efficiency, responsible buying and selling, and efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Managers–owners saw it as their responsibility to help solve environmental problems and were willing to accept the costs of tougher environmental regulations and taxation. However, even if managers–owners may possess positive inclinations with regard to environmental initiatives, they may lack the tools to implement anything more than informal ad hoc measures. Similarly, they may not have any methods to measure the impact on the business performance. Without any tangible evidence, many owner–managers are forced to ignore or abandon the green strategies [28]. At the same time, academic literature shows that the firm’s and manager’s characteristics have a great influence on the way environmental policies are adopted. For instance, managers with micro-sized firms with low growth objectives, and they may be more prepared to integrate a personal environment perspective into their business activities.

The link between the firm’s size and profit, on one hand, and managers’ characteristics, on the other hand, and the green policies adopted in the firms is explored in a study conducted on a panel of 71 Romanian SMEs. Moreover, we investigate the association between the individual “green” behavior of managers and the environmental measures in their firm context. Our hypotheses are as follows: (1) there are differences from the environmental policies point of view, in SMEs, based on firm’s size and profit, but also on managers’ age, gender, and studies’ degree; (2) the individual “green” behavior of the manager is partially reflected in the firm’s behavior; (3) SMEs, regardless of their size and sector, accomplish environmentally friendly policies, even if informally and unconsciously.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. The Questionnaire

Based the study of the scientific literature and non-academic sources, we built the research tool consisting of a questionnaire, which was then submitted to business managers. The first version of the questionnaire was proposed for completion on a panel of five enterprises (not part of the extended sample). The purpose of this approach is to test and adjust the research tool in real conditions, using the same type of respondents who complete the final questionnaire. Based on previous research [59], it was estimated that the size of 71 SMEs is sufficient for the significance level of 95% (z = 1.96) population size of 11,000 (source: termene.ro, reference year 2017) and with a margin of error slightly over 10% (e = 11.59).

The survey questionnaire is divided in nine sections, three of which are reported in this paper (firms’ demographics, managers’ environmental behavior, and environmental policies in the firms’ context). The firm’s characteristics are as follows: number of employees: less than nine employees, 10 to 49 employees, 50 to 250 employees; turnover: <2 million €, 2 to 10 million €, >10 million €; enterprise profit: <10,000 €, 10,000 to 100,000 €, >100,000 €; the firm’s sector. Managers’ information included age, gender, and degree of studies. In the two last sections, the managers had the possibility to provide open detailed answers, in addition to the choices proposed in the questionnaire. Given the number and variety of answers at the open questions sections, we organized them in categories based on keywords and themes. The first section of questions aimed at obtaining demographical data on the firm (sector, location, number of employees, turnover, profit, type of clients: BtoB or BtoC) and on the managers (age, studies’ degree, gender). The second section regarded the owner–manager’s individual behavior as far as environment protection is concerned. These questions reflected concrete situations and daily actions the managers could have accomplished, on a Likert scale from 1 to 5, the content being based on the NEP scale (New Ecological Paradigm) [72] but restrained to less than 15 questions. The last section included questions regarding the main environmental actions adopted in the firm. In elaborating the examples of environmental measures proposed as choices, we used the frameworks proposed by the Observatoire du Bureau Responsible [73] and Riposte Verte [74], which are two organizations that monitor and help measure the adoption of environmentally friendly practices in French enterprises. These frameworks include the following sections: environment (in which the first level of the ISO 14001 standard is used), Corporate Social Responsibility, waste, and paper management. All the themes proposed in these assessment tools were integrated in our survey but in a simplified form. Our survey’s goal was not to perform a complete and precise diagnosis of the firm’s degree of sustainability but to identify managers’ perceptions and behaviors, current measures regarding environmental improvement, and the links between them and with the firms’ and managers’ characteristics. Moreover, we limited voluntarily the use of figures in the questions (i.e., “which was the amount of paper used last year by the firm?”), since, in reality, few SMEs managers know and monitor these figures. This situation was confirmed when the questionnaire was tested in a focus group. Instead, we preferred asking questions such as, “Do you know the amount of paper used per employee last year?” We also acknowledged that some themes, such as governance or fair practices, do not need a high number of questions, considering that they do not apply frequently to Romanian SMEs’ practice, or they do not provide sincere and spontaneous answers from the managers. All these aspects were verified during the preliminary step, when the initial questionnaire was submitted to a focus group of five SMEs, which were different from those from the final sample group.

4.2. Data Analysis Methods

Categorical data were presented as count and percentage and ordinal data as mean (M) and standard deviation (SD). We used the Chi-square test or Fischer exact test (when appropriate) to assess if each of the environmental practices were independent of firm characteristics (such as number of employees, the company’s profit, manager age, gender, study level). In case of questions related to managers’ environmental behavior, with responses expressed on a Likert scale, the normality was assess using the Shapiro–Wilk test. Kruskall–Wallis and Mann–Whitney tests were used for comparison with company characteristics. Exploratory factor analysis of the 23 items regarding environmental practices was conducted using the factor analysis method for binary data and tetrachoric correlation matrix as matrix of association for the factor analysis. Tetrachoric correlation is a special case of the polychoric correlation, which is usually used when both variables being correlated are binary.

This study has the following objectives: to identify pro-environmental behaviors experienced by managers in the individual and firm’s context, to analyze the connections between them and with the firm’s and managers’ characteristics, and to contribute to a better understanding of intervention measures for stimulating the implementation of environmental improvement practices in SMEs, based on the typologies identified.

5. Results

5.1. Environmental Policies—A Descriptive Analysis

We regrouped the environmental policies adopted in the firms into the following categories: ecological supply policy; collaborative conception of products and services; limiting the energy consumption; ecological transportation; reducing resources and raw material consumption; and ecological waste management.

The environmental actions in the firms of our study can be synthetized in the following

Table 1. The occurrence of environmental practices mentioned in our survey, based on firm’s size.

Environmental Management Practices	Code	Total	Micro	Small	Medium	p
Ecological supply policy
using recycled paper	PM1	40.85%	41.67%	35.71%	57.14%	0.641
using collective printers or copying machines	PM2	49.30%	37.51%	71.43%	100.00%	0.002
using ecological cleaning products	PM3	46.48%	43.75%	42.86%	85.71%	0.106
limiting the use of plastic packaging and disposable products	PM4	66.20%	66.67%	64.29%	85.71%	0.566
using reconditioned furniture	PM5	40.85%	42.55%	38.46%	57.14%	0.711
other ecological supply measures	PM6	54.93%	60.42%	50.00%	42.86%	0.586
collaborative conception policy (with customers, suppliers, competitors etc.)	PM7	40.85%	39.58%	35.71%	71.43%	0.243
Limiting the energy consumption
external energetic auditing	PM8	5.63%	2.08%	0.00%	42.86%	0.000 *
turning off computers/ printers during the night	PM9	61.97%	66.67%	50.00%	71.43%	0.472
energetic performance assessment	PM10	12.68%	2.08%	21.43%	71.43%	0.000 *
clear instructions for employees regarding heating/ lighting	PM11	53.52%	47.92%	64.29%	85.71%	0.127
recommendation to recycle displayed on external support	PM12	18.31%	8.33%	42.86%	42.86%	0.003 *
other energy saving measures	PM13	64.79%	66.67%	64.29%	71.43%	0.948
Eco-transportation
incentives for the employees to use collective transportation	PM14	39.44%	39.58%	35.71%	57.14%	0.621
only for professional purpose	PM15	23.94%	25.00%	14.29%	42.86%	0.356
other eco-transportation measures	PM16	42.25%	41.67%	42.86%	57.14%	0.741
Limiting resource consumption and ecological waste management
are there toilets/sinks with water saving	PM17	12.68%	14.63%	18.18%	20.00%	0.825
is there a selective waste collection system?	PM18	87.32%	85.42%	100.00%	100.00%	0.182
are the printer or toner cartridges recycled?	PM19	66.20%	62.50%	78.57%	85.71%	0.301
are the light bulbs recycled?	PM20	56.34%	62.50%	42.86%	57.14%	0.423
are the batteries recycled?	PM21	63.38%	62.50%	71.43%	71.43%	0.774
are the computer equipment recycled?	PM22	39.44%	29.17%	64.29%	71.43%	0.013
other measures	PM23	53.52%	56.25%	50.00%	57.14%	0.912

The Chi-square test or the Fischer test was used, and the resulted p-values are presented in the table. * marks a p-value smaller than 0.05.

.

The analysis of the table leads to the followings observations: the great majority of managers (97%) declare practicing environmentally-friendly policies in their firm. However, the “carbon footprint” diagnosis is very rare (1% of the respondents). Regarding the eco-responsible supply policies, two-thirds of the managers indicate that they reduce voluntarily in the firm’s context plastic packaging and disposable products. The majority of respondents propose other variants of answers: better information and raising awareness for partners/suppliers; working with local/seasonal suppliers, optimizing deliveries; selecting suppliers of natural or ecological raw materials; sustainable packaging policy (one-fifth of the firms use biodegradable packaging, re-use or upcycle them, reduce packaging by ordering in bulk, etc.); re-using products or equipment, changing destination, long use/reparation (one-fifth of the firms reuse products and equipment, including by changing their destination, using equipment beyond the accounting depreciation time, using personal items or equipment for professional purposes in order to limit the consumption, practicing reparations); reducing the environmental impact in office supplies (one-quarter of the managers, by using multifunctional office products, reducing paper consumption by re-using it, digitalization, and two-sided printing).

Half of SMEs use collective printers and copy machines for economic reasons (reducing costs) and environment protection. More than one-third of the managers use recycled paper in the office, and they respectively possess upcycled furniture. Nearly half (41%) of the SMEs have already conceived products and services in collaboration with partners (suppliers, customers, competitors, etc.). Regarding the energy consumption, almost two-thirds of the managers propose their own variants of answers, which we regrouped as follows: lighting or heating equipment with low energy consumption (more than one-third of the managers); turning off installations and equipment that use energy, when they are on pause (more than one-quarter of the firms); digitalizing archives and databases; using alternative energy sources; modifying buildings or constructions, including office sharing; communication and awareness for employees. Most of the firms turn off the electronic devices (computers, printers, etc.) during the night and give precise instructions for employees on how to optimize heating and lighting. Less than 15% of the managers performed an external diagnosis of energy performance or energy consumption. The majority of managers do not have an active eco-friendly transportation policy. In other words, they do not provide incentive to employees for using environmentally friendly transportation.

However, 42% suggest other measures they use informally in their firm. A synthesis of these good practices is presented as follows: there are eco-transportation practices, but with no incentives or formal recommendations (13% of the managers); optimizing routes or internal transportation regrouping (8% of the managers); using environment-friendly vehicles; placing the office location in an area with good public transportation facilities; verbal recommendation; internal collective transportation; remote working. The great majority of managers practice selective waste collection in their firm, which is a percentage close to the one of individuals who adopted this measure. Most of the enterprises recycle light bulbs, batteries, cartridges, and toners. These positive recycling practices are observed despite the fact that only 18% of the firms display on external media the recommendation to recycle. In this sub-section also, more than half of the managers propose open answers to these questions. This can be illustrated by the following good practices mentioned, by order of prevalence: working with external providers or consultants for waste management, supporting environmental NGOs; limiting office supplies consumption; reducing raw material consumption; using rechargeable products or equipment; installations or equipment that reduce the resource consumption (water); respecting recycling instructions, cleaning and nature conservation; involving the customers/employees in reducing waste, raising awareness; re-using or selling internally produced waste, repairing defect equipment or machines or changing their destination.

5.2. Environmental Policies—A Comparative Analysis

In this section, we analyze how the firm’s and managers’ characteristics (number of employees, profit level, type of customers, age, gender, and studies degree of the manager) have an impact on the environmental measures adopted in the firms. Each measure was identified with a specific code (i.e., PM3 for using recycled paper) for not only the proposed choices of answers in the questionnaire but also the open answers mentioned by managers. These last answers were analyzed and regrouped by categories in order to facilitate the research based on themes and keywords. When we performed data analysis, we retained only the variants that presented a minimum number of answers from the managers. The comparative data according to the firm’s size is presented in the Table 1.

The study of the correlations shows the following connections:

• The use of collective office equipment is practiced by half of the firms and is directly proportional with the following: the firm’s profit (85% of the most profitable SMEs, compared to only one-third of those having an annual profit under 10,000 € per year; p = 0.003); the number of employees (100% of the medium-sized firms, compared to 71% of the small firms and only 38% of the micro-enterprises; p = 0.002); among the firms that practice this measure, a higher proportion consists of male managers (62% compared to 40%);
• The external energy auditing is directly proportional with the firm’s size (75% of the larger companies) and profit (none of the firms with small profit) and most frequently practiced by male managers; similarly, less than 15% of the firm conducted an energy performance diagnosis, its occurrence depending on the firm’s size (71% of larger companies compared to 2% of micro-enterprises) and on manager’s gender (more frequent for male managers);
• Less than one-fifth of the firms practice the displaying of recycling recommendations on external media, this measure being directly proportional with the firm’s turnover (more than half of the larger firms) and with the profit’s level (almost half of the firms with profit above 100,000 € per year);
• Recycling computer equipment is directly proportional with the number of employees (71% for larger firms compared to 29% of micro-enterprises) and with turnover;
• Reducing plastic packaging and disposable products is largely practiced (68% of the firms), most of these are larger companies (98%) and only 66% micro-enterprises;
• Almost all the large firms with turnover above 2 billion € mention other measures of lowering energy consumption (95% compared to 65% of the smallest firms), while female managers are more inclined to indicate open answers to these practices (77% compared to 56% of men, p = 0.061);
• Collaborative conception of products and services is directly proportional with the firm’s profit and most adopted by male managers (56% compared to 30% of female managers, p = 0.022);
• Light bulb recycling is directly proportional with the firm’s profit (69% compared to 15% only of most profitable businesses), this measure being possibly explained by the personal involvement of the micro-sized firms;
• The installation of water-saving toilets and sinks has a higher prevalence in managers of 35–40 years old (p = 0.002);
• Only 3% of the managers declared that they do not adopt any environmentally-friendly measures in the firm, with a higher proportion for secondary-education degree of studies;
• Female managers are more likely to use ecological cleaning products 960% compared to 35%, p = 0.040);
• The firms with individual customers (BtoC) are more likely to adopt and mention other good practices of eco-friendly supply (71% compared to less than half for BtoB firms, p = 0.039);
• Voluntarily reducing the office supplies is an environmental policy more prevalent in micro-enterprises (20% of them, compared none of the largest firms in the sample) and in low-profit firms;
• The call for an external provider of waste management is directly proportional with the firm’s number of employees, turnover, and level of profit, the proportion being more than 2:1 between the large firms with high profit and the smallest firms with less employees and low profit;
• Reducing the environmental impact in office supplies is more practiced by female managers (36% compared to 14% of men);
• Female managers are also more prone to turn off installations and equipment when they are not in use (20%, compared to only a male manager mentioning this practice); this measure is alto more frequent in BtoB firms (17% against 5% for BtoC);
• Re-using products and equipment, repairing and changing its destination is practiced by around one-third of BtoC firms (compared to 15% of BtoB);

5.3. Typologies of Environmental Policies

Based on the factor analysis of the correlations between the environmental measures adopted in the SMEs from the sample group, five factors were identified and described in the following patterns, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Group1 (code MR1) includes practices that do not necessitate a specific organizational structure in the firm or dedicated resources, being accessible to most enterprises; these include a selective waste collection system, recycling light bulbs, batteries, cartridges and toners, but also displaying the recommendation to selective waste collecting on external media.

Group2 (code MR3) includes practices accessible to a certain category of enterprises with more employees that involve a specific organization and allocated resources (larger companies from the sample); among these measures, we mention external energy diagnosis, energy consumption auditing, recycling computer equipment, collaboration conception of products or services with external partners, collective printers or copy machines, toilets or sinks with water-saving systems.

Group3 (code MR2) includes practices of companies without special resource allocation but generated from an additional engagement from the manager and that involve changes in the firm’s organization; examples of these practices are other measures of ecological supply policy, repairing or using upcycled furniture, the use of recycled paper.

Group5 (code MR4) includes additional measures adopted by managers, depending on the firm’s specificities and adapted to their situation; to this category, belong giving employees precise instructions for heating and lighting in order to save energy, turning off the electronic devices during the night, other measures for limiting waste and energy consumption, and other measures to stimulate ecological transportation among employees.

Group4 (code MR5) includes practices emerging from the manager’s conviction and correlated with individual actions performed by the owner–managers; these include reducing plastic packaging and disposable products in the firm, using ecological cleaning products but also proposing incentives from employees in order to use eco-friendly transportation.

5.4. Managers’ Environmental Behavior—A Descriptive and Comparative Analysis

Among the questions addressed to SMEs’ managers, the second section of the survey consists of interrogations regarding the inclusion of environmental policies in the firm’s strategy but also the day-to-day actions the managers accomplish at a personal level from the environmental point of view. The data concerning the managers’ environmental behavior, organized depending on the firm’s size, are presented in the

Table 2. The environmentally friendly measures adopted by managers at an individual level based on the firm’s size.

Manager’s Environmental Behavior	Code	Total	Micro	Small	Medium	p
recycling waste	AM1	3.14 ± 1.47	2.96 ± 1.44	3.64 ± 1.50	3.43 ± 1.51	0.243
separate waste collection	AM2	4.18 ± 0.95	4.08 ± 1.05	4.36 ± 0.63	4.57 ± 0.53	0.505
limited consumption of food, clothes, household appliances	AM3	3.34 ± 1.24	3.44 ± 1.25	2.71 ± 1.27	3.86 ± 0.69	0.088
choosing reparation instead of buying new items	AM4	3.44 ± 1.33	3.40 ± 1.28	3.50 ± 1.51	3.57 ± 1.51	0.879
public transportation, bicycle, walking	AM5	2.89 ± 1.26	2.90 ± 1.28	2.86 ± 1.23	2.86 ± 1.35	0.994
participating in campaigns/collective environmental actions	AM6	2.48 ± 1.42	2.50 ± 1.39	1.93 ± 1.14	3.43 ± 1.81	0.115
avoiding the use of plastic packaging	AM7	3.11 ± 1.17	3.26 ± 1.07	2.50 ± 1.51	3.29 ± 0.76	0.233
buying bulk food	AM8	2.77 ± 1.28	2.90 ± 1.28	2.50 ± 1.22	2.43 ± 1.40	0.449
other actions	AM9	2.97 ± 1.5	3.22 ± 1.37	2.36 ± 1.65	2.43 ± 1.81	0.188

The Kruskall–Wallis test was used and the resulted p-values are presented in the table.

.

The analysis of the answers to these questions shows that environmental issues represent a priority for around 80% of the managers, the repartition by managers’ age being descending; thus, the eldest managers from the group (40–60 years old) answer positively to this question by 80%, while for the youngest (25–35 years old), only 54% agree (p = 0.068). Meanwhile, the individual environmental actions owner–managers practice the most are as follows: selective waste collection, mentioned often and very often by the respondents ((M = 4.18, SD = 0.95), and repairing the fixing broken objects instead of buying new items ((M = 3.44, SD = 1.33). Other actions of environment protection mentioned above the average are reducing the consumption of food, clothes, and other current items, recycling waste through upcycling, recovery or changing its destination, or avoiding the use of plastic packaging. The last measure is practiced the most in the largest (85% from the managers) and the smallest firms (80%) from the sample, while small firms’ managers mention it less frequently (p = 0.078). The most rarely mentioned measure is participating in collective environmental campaigns such as planting trees or waste collection in nature; more than half of the managers declare that these actions are very rare or absent. Buying food is bulk and ecological transportation are also little practiced, with less than one-third of the managers mentioning that they accomplish these frequently.

Since they bring new perspectives, it is also interesting to analyze the open answers provided by the managers of these questions. In order to facilitate the examination of their various answers, we structured them by themes and keywords. The environmentally friendly gestures the managers mention the most are reducing resource consumption (water, energy, etc.), by around one-fifth, dumping waste in special locations (even if it is illegal, dumping waste in nature is a real problem in Romania, and some managers felt the need to mention they do respect the law), supporting environmental NGOs, using eco-friendly packaging and avoiding chemicals that affect the environment, local or seasonal consumption, re-using products, waste, or packages, including buying second-hand items, self-sufficiency, promoting a healthy and active life for oneself as well as raising awareness among family and friends.

As far as the analysis depending on the gender is concerned, some differences are observed regarding the practice of buying food in bulk (72% of women have an average, good, and very good score of this measure compared to 54% of men). Moreover, female managers are more likely to mention and give details about other environmental actions they practice (78% of them, compared to 52% of men). As for the open answers to the questions, female managers are more inclined to mention products re-use and upcycling (not a single male manager indicated this practice).

5.5. The Correlations between Managers’ Individual Behavior and the Environmental Measures in the Firms

Little research investigated the link between managers’ individual behavior regarding the environment and the eco-friendly measures adopted in their firms. Kesenheimer and Greitemeyer [29] show that there is a strong connection between pro-environmental attitude and pro-environmental behavior in an individual context. Furthermore, pro-environmental attitude is a precondition for pro-environmental behavior. A minimum of 10% of variance of pro-environmental behavior can be explained by pro-environmental attitude. However, the mechanism explaining how a pro-environmental manager, behaving accordingly from an individual point of view, decides to implement environmentally friendly policies in the firm and which type of measures are adopted in reality, is still unclear. Authors such as Williamson [30] argue that if there is no cost reduction benefit attached, the environmental dimension of the manager’s behavior in itself would not be enough to stimulate a change in the firm’s policy. Even if a desire for financial benefit was combined with a positive environmental attitude from the owner–manager, the attitude in itself is insufficient to sustain permanent environmental engagement in the firm’s context [12]. Similarly, other authors [75] mention the “attitude–behavior gap”, which is reflected in the lack of changes in people’s lifestyle, regardless of consumers’ willingness to opt for greener alternatives. A worldwide survey on sustainable consumption conducted by WBCSD, cited by Partidario, Vicente, and Belchior [76], concludes that the four main factors for non-adopting sustainable practices are related to a lack of understanding, resigned lifestyles, selfishness, and associated costs and taxes.

As far as our research is concerned, some correlations were observed between managers’ individual behavior and “green” measures implemented in their firms. These results are depicted in Figure 2. The strongest link is between separate waste collection at an individual level and the same measure applied in the firm’s context. Concurrently, managers who report limiting their consumption of food, clothes, etc. in order to be more sustainable, declare adopting measures of limiting the energy consumption in the firm. Equally, managers who prefer repairing and fixing broken items instead of buying new ones are more inclined to take in their firm measures to reduce plastic packaging and disposable products. Regarding the environmentally friendly transportation, we have found that managers who practice it at an individual level (bicycle, walking, public transportation) are more likely to implement this policy in the firm. Another interesting correlation is between the managers’ participation in environmental campaigns, such as planting trees, or nature trash pickups, and the collaborative conception of products and services in the firm, or the adoption of ecological transportation at the firm’s level. At the same time, managers who declare that they avoid plastic packaging in day-to-day life are more prone to adopt policies of limiting the consumption of resources in the firm. Simultaneously, managers who buy in bulk are more likely to collaborate with customers, suppliers, or competitors in order to conceive products together. Finally, managers who mention taking “other measures of environment protection” at the personal level are the ones who adopt policies of resources consumption limitation and ecological transportation in the firm’s context.

The Chord diagram illustrates these links between the individual pro-environmental behavior of the manager and the pro-environmental behavior of the firm. For instance, strong connections can be observed between AM5 (manager’s personal preference for ecological transportation or traveling) and the equivalent measures (PM14, PM15 and PM16) adopted in their firm.

6. Discussion

Our research, even if not performed on a large sample of firms, deals with broad and transversal interrogations related directly or indirectly to environment protection in SMEs. Firstly, it explores the range of environmental policies adopted in SMEs and identifies five patterns of managerial policies adoption in this field, based on the level of investment and resource allocation needed, on the organizational changes involved to implement these policies, and finally, on the manager’s personal commitment to adopt them. Additionally, we observe the links between these policies and the firms’ and managers’ demographic characteristics. Secondly, it depicts the main environmentally friendly day-to-day measures that the managers of SMEs take, which is built on self-assessment. Thirdly, we study the connections between the pro-environmental behavior of the manager and the pro-environmental behavior in the firm’s context.

The analysis of environmental policies contributes to a better understanding of the range of environmental measures adopted in Romanian SMEs. It appears that the “carbon footprint diagnosis”, along with energy performance diagnosis and external energy auditing, are rare to very rare and are linked to the firm’s size, being absent in micro-sized enterprises. This result is consistent with current research showing that SMEs do not see an audit as useful [8], but it can be successful in conjunction with education (workshops and self-help toolkits) [77,78]. On the other hand, the lack of interest of the managers for evaluation of the carbon emissions can be surprising, given that the calculation of the direct and indirect carbon footprint is possible anytime online by the enterprises themselves [79] (p. 47). In addition, our study shows that the integration of environmental impact in supply policy is generally not structural. Few managers collaborate with suppliers, customers, or competitors to conceive environmentally friendly products; nevertheless, this practice is mentioned more often in larger firms. Some authors consider that the conclusion of partnerships and alliances, including for the production of goods, is a facilitator of sustainable development [80] (p. 130). Research also acknowledges that design for environment (eco-design) is less a priority for small firms than large [81]. Alternatively, the managers indicate a wide range of good practices in the field, most of which do not necessitate specific investments or resources. Similarly, upcycling, repairing changing destination, using equipment beyond the accounting depreciation time, using personal items or equipment for professional purpose in order to limit the consumption, and recovering packages and waste are also common practices among Romanian SME managers. These practices are accessible also to micro-sized firms and low-profit enterprises, but they would not be possible without the personal commitment of the manager. This finding is in line with academic research suggesting that small firms are often an extension or a reflection of the owner–manager’s personality, and that the boundaries between the personal and the professional are flexible and permeable [2,27].

The main policies to reduce the energy and resource consumption mentioned by managers are the use of collective printers and copy machines and of recycled paper; lighting or heating equipment with low energy consumption; turning off installations and equipment that use energy, when they are on pause; and digitalizing archives and databases. Reducing the amount of paper and switching to digitalization are clearly facilitators for reducing waste and thus increasing environmental sustainability [82]. The research confirms that waste management and transport are both environmental issues that can be associated to cost issues, which are considered to be important facilitators of environmental practices. There is a perception that “reducing waste is synonymous to reducing costs” [2,12,30]. The main waste-reduction practices mentioned by managers in our study are as follows: selective waste collection; working with external providers or consultants for waste management; and supporting environmental NGOs (research confirms that willingness to donate to environmental organizations has already been successfully used as an indicator for pro-environmental behavior [29]). However, recent research [83] shows that firms may use charitable donations as a fire-suppressing method to address the negative impact of environmental misconduct. As far as ecological transportation is concerned, our study shows that most SMEs from the sample do not provide incentives to employees for using environmentally friendly transportation. However, 42% of the managers claim they have implemented other good practices, such as optimizing routes or internal transportation regrouping, using environment-friendly vehicles, placing the office location in an area with good public transportation facilities, verbal recommendation, internal collective transportation, or remote working. However, these practices are rather rare and depending on the enterprise’s localization and specific situation, but they show a positive intention emerging from the manager in order to reduce the environmental footprint related to transportation in the firm.

The comparative analysis of environmental policies allows us to portray a few typologies, depending on the firm’s and manager’s characteristics. Accordingly, larger firms are more likely to use collective office equipment, to perform energy auditing and diagnosis, to recycle computer equipment, to reduce plastic packages and disposal products, to adopt a collaborative conception of products and services, or to call for external providers of waste management. This behavior is probably linked to the adoption of formal environmental management practices, which is proportional with the firm’s size. The academic literature [84] acknowledges that the lack of adoption of formal management systems is a barrier for implementing environmental improvement in SMEs, but their adoption increases with the firm’s size. On the other hand, our study shows that micro firms seem to be more inclined to reduce office supplies consumption, this behavior being in line with the manager’s involvement. Our research also suggests that female managers tend to provide more detailed open answers regarding the environmental policies adopted in the firm, are more likely to use ecological cleaning products and to reduce the environmental impact of office supplies, but also to turn off installations and equipment when not in use. Simultaneously, male managers tend to adopt more often collaborative practices with external partners but also to perform energy diagnosis and auditing. Academic research confirms that there may be differences in management style and behavior linked to gender [2,85,86,87], with some authors [88] arguing that female managers may encourage a more eco-centric engagement with the world for the firms. Another interesting finding of our study is the link between the managers’ degree of studies and the adoption of environmentally friendly practices. Basically, it appears that managers with a secondary education degree are more likely to claim not adopting any environmental measure in the firm. This finding is in line with existing research [89] that shows a connection between manager’s training and education and the implementation of sustainable practices in the firm.

The comparative analysis of environmental policies confirms our first research hypothesis, according to which the implementation of such policies in Romanian SMEs varies depending on firm’s and manager’s characteristics. Moreover, the comparative study of these measures, along with the factor analysis, contributed to identifying several patterns or groups of environmental behavior in SMEs, which are as follows: practices that do not necessitate a specific organizational structure in the firm or dedicated resources, being accessible to most enterprises; practices accessible to a certain category of enterprises with more employees, which involve a specific organization and allocated resources (larger companies from the sample); practices of companies without special resource allocation, but emerging from an additional engagement from the manager and that involve changes in the firm’s organization; additional measures adopted by managers, depending on the firm’s specificities and adapted to their situation; practices emerging from the manager’s conviction and correlated with individual actions performed by the owner–managers. These typologies are partially acknowledged by existing academic research. For instance, Nikolaou (2018) documents the existence of four green entrepreneur typologies, based on institutional and resource-based views [90]. Jeronimo Silvestre et al. (2018) [91] identifies three types of sustainable engagement in businesses (Conventional, Responsible, and Essential), based on the degree of inclusion of sustainability principles in the firm’s strategy. Some similarities can be observed also with the typologies described by Lozano in 2012 (Involuntary, Voluntary, and Market) [92]. However, even if many managers of our study were not aware initially that their actions were considered as pro-environmental, it appears that most of them did not only accomplish the minimum to comply (based on the Involuntary type from this pattern and on the framework developed by Post and Altman (1994) [5]) but engaged in more environmental actions that were possible in the firm’s context, depending on the business’ constraints and resources.

Another issue investigated by our research is the relationship between pro-environmental behavior among Romanian managers and the environmental policies adopted in their firms. Firstly, we examined the main day-to-day green measures adopted by managers and the way they vary depending on the firms’ and managers’ characteristics. Our findings suggest that a vast majority of SME managers consider the environmental aspects among the priorities of their firms. At an individual level, the most frequent pro-environmental actions practiced by managers are selective waste collection, repairing the fixing broken objects instead of buying new items, reducing the consumption of food, clothes, and other current items, recycling waste through upcycling, recovery, or changing its destination, or avoiding the use of plastic packaging. No significant differences were reported depending on the firms’ and managers’ characteristics, except for the finding that female managers are more likely to practice buying food in bulk, products re-use, and upcycling as well as mention and give details about other environmental actions they practice. As shown in the analysis of environmental policies in the firm, research confirms that women may have a more eco-centric attitude and be more socially oriented than men [84]. Finally, some correlations were observed between managers’ individual behavior and “green” measures implemented in their firms. The strongest link is between separate waste collection at an individual level and the same measure applied in the firm’s context. Managers who report limiting their consumption of food, clothes, etc. in order to be more sustainable declare adopting measures of reducing the energy consumption in the firm. This suggests a connection between a manager’s personal inclination for limited consumption and the adoption of resource-saving policies in the firm. Another finding refers to the fact that managers who prefer repairing and fixing broken items instead of buying new ones are more inclined to take in their firm measures to reduce plastic packaging and disposable products. This result shows the connection between a manager’s preference to reduce waste and promote sustainable consumption and a similar behavior at the firm’s level. At the same time, a link was also found between the individual predisposition for eco-friendly transportation and the same type of measures implemented in the firm. These data allow us to confirm our second research hypothesis, according to which there are connections between the pro-environmental behavior at the individual level and the actions implemented in the SMEs. Moreover, the semi-structured interviews with the managers, which allowed them to provide open answers to our questionnaire, showed that most of them initially indicated that they do not practice any environment friendly policy in their firms, but they became aware of certain “green” measures implemented when they provided their own variants of detailed answers. This finding confirmed our third hypothesis, stating that SMEs managers implement some environmentally focused actions informally and unconsciously.

The main limitation of our study concerns the self-assessment technique in order to evaluate the pro-environmental behavior at an individual and firm’s level. The self-reported behavior can be “shown at no cost” [29,93], it is often retrospective, and therefore, it is also prone to biais. Another limitation is linked to the representativeness of the sample and to its size. We made the deliberate choice to limit the number of enterprises object of the study but to perform a deep analysis in different fields (environmental, social, ways to measure the sustainability aspects), including the connections between these factors and the firm’s parameters and manager’s characteristics. Therefore, the interviews necessitated sometimes 2 hours per manager in order to integrate all these concerns. Thus, the sample selection depended not only on our voluntary criteria but also on managers’ availability and openness, since low rates of participation in research by SMEs owner–managers are common [47].

7. Conclusions

The SME sector is often depicted as lagging behind in terms of green businesses, due to management and resource issues characteristics of SMEs. However, a lack of action in the context of the firm does not always reflect the personal attitude of the owner–manager [2]. The objective of our study was to describe the pro-environmental behaviors at the individual’s and firm’s level and to find connections between them. Moreover, we aimed at identifying patterns in the adoption of these behaviors, not only depending on firm’s and manager’s characteristics, but also on other factors such as the degree of investment and additional resources involved, the manager’s personal engagement, and the changes in organizational structure to achieve a more environmentally friendly business. Our findings confirm the research’s hypothesis and provide new perspectives of analyzing the SMEs green behavior. The typologies identified suggest that managers with micro-sized firms can also be prepared to integrate a personal environmental perspective into their business activities. Moreover, the comparative analysis shows differences in the adoption of green practices both in SMEs and at the individual level, which are mostly related to the firm’s size and profit but also the manager’s gender. Identifying patterns and typologies in environmental behavior in SMEs is necessary for a better understanding of the way they conduct their businesses while integrating green aspects, which leads to a more effective intervention of policy-makers according to each type. Equally, the active and voluntary involvement of SME in environmentally sustainable actions depends on their awareness of the good practices and on the existence of environmental leaders. Research shows that SMEs learn the best from their peers and informal networks [94,95], so they can be motivated by “championing” and exemplary owner–managers. Finally, further exploration of the environmental behavior in managers and SMEs is necessary in order to expand these results to different sectors of activity and countries.