Impact of Transformational Leadership on Eco-Friendly Employee Behavior: Mediating Role of Green Human Resources Management, And Moderating Role of Green Work Climate Perception

Impact of Transformational Leadership on Eco-Friendly Employee Behavior: Mediating Role of Green Human Resources Management, and Moderating Role of Green Work Climate Perception

*Abdul Mateen Qasmi., Iqbal Ahmed Khan., Amina Imtiaz

Department of Management Sciences, Riphah International University, Islamabad, Pakistan

*Correspondence Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.914MG00147

Received: 27 August 2025; Accepted: 04 September 2025; Published: 01 October 2025

ABSTRACT

The study examines the impact of Transformational Leadership (TL) on eco-friendly behaviour of Employees (EFBE) with the mediation effect of Green Human Resources Management (GHRM) and moderation effect of Green Work Climate Perception (GWCP). In this systematic analysis a survey is conducted on 314 employees to explore the role of TL for EFBEE through GHRM and GWCP. Data is collected from the employees of Pharmaceutical Industry of Islamabad by using only google forms and analyzed through SPSS software to generate reports. The study is grounded in Transformational Leadership Theory (TLT) and findings revealed that TL has positive impact on EFBE, hence it is also found positive with mediation of GHRM whereas GWCP strengthened the relation between GHRM and EFBE.  In fact, the mediation effect of GHRM and moderation effect of GWCP is rigorously being explored in recent researches, as to this, the study added more significance into it. The diversified human resources engaged from the pharmaceutical industry Islamabad are the targeted population for this study; however, the generalizability of the result can be confined by the geography and industrial choice. To augment the viability of the result, it is directed to broaden the horizon of population in other industries as well as geographies. A convenience sampling technique is exerted; thus, it is suggested that future researchers should opt for purposive sampling to yield more robust results. The study interprets the analytical outcome of TL on EFBE and through GHRM as well as significance of GWCP. Henceforth, more studies are suggested on green voice behaviour and adaptive performance with other efficient practices of leadership styles. In addition to all, study offers rational and applicable insight to green business leaders, change agents and decision makers of pharmaceutical and other business for adapting EFBE by practicing TL and GHRM.

Keywords: Transformational leadership, Green human resource management, Green work climate perception, Eco-friendly behaviour of employees, Transformational Leadership Theory (TLT).

INTRODUCTION

In an organization, leaders have been promoting sustainable initiatives by exercising green practices, optimising commitment and engagement of human resources, appraising performance, developing an innovative culture and aligning the employees with organizational goals. The leadership effectively creates numerous impacts by its multiple dimensions, inspiring the followers through effective communication and motivation. According to Northouse, (1999) that it was critical to recognize such leadership dimensions that inspire and substantiate sustainability. Earlier, transformational leadership (TL) was explored as one of the most effective and reliable leadership styles that inspired and motivated the employees beyond their expectations and interests and positively contributed in growth and achieved organizational goals by setting an innovative culture of development (Bass, 1985). TL communicated the followers a dynamic vision resonated with future aspiration and values (Bass, 1985). Subsequently, it was found that TL inspired the followers by its commitment, enthusiasm, communicating a clear vision about the organizational targets and direction to work for shared purpose (Bass & Avolio, 1994). TL increased the capability of communicating compelling vision, developing trust and empowered employees by “intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and inspirational motivation” (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Later, TL was significantly explored on the ability of nurturing positive organizational change, developing a supportive working culture, and influencing the employees to adapt innovative and proactive behaviors (Avolio & Yammarino, 2013). Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) was known as a strategic framework which integrated the function, policies and process of HRM and optimized them with environmental sustainability concepts (Renwick, Redman, & Maguire, 2013). The framework was focused on embedding and integrating HRM functions in environmental goals for the sake of reducing carbon footprint, adapting environmentally friendly practices and creating awareness in the employees for the protection of environment (Jackson, Renwick, Jabbour, & Müller-Camen, 2011). The GHRM incorporates digitalization in HRM functions such as digital recruitment and selection, digital training and development and digital performance appraisal for enhancing green organizational performance and to connect with HR objectives (Renwick et al., 2013).

Eco-friendly behaviour of employees (EFBE) earned more recognition in recent years because organizations initiated to adopt sustainable development in their core business process. One & Dilchert, (2012) explored it when employees engaged themselves in a course of actions that reduced environmental footprint, conserved energy, reduced and recycled waste and directed towards sustainable development processes. Afterwards, Paillé et al., (2014) explored the scope of activities of EFBE that incorporated energy conservation, waste reduction and recycling and adoption of environmentally friendly practices in professional as well as personal life. In organization contexts, EFBE explored the factors of leadership support, corporate policies and presence of digital culture which significantly impacted employees’ readiness to adapt sustainable initiatives (Norton, Zacher, & Ashkanasy, 2015). Green work climate perception (GWCP) was the concept by which employees in the organizations set their priorities to support environmental sustainability processes (Paillé et al., 2014). GWCP was explored as the belief of employees on organizational commitment towards developing green policies and promoting green practices as well as course of actions to cope with environmental challenges and optimization of performance in day-to-day operations (Renwick et al., 2013). Moreover, it was found that GWCP correlated with more employee engagement and satisfaction as well as readiness to adopt eco-friendly initiatives (Paillé et al., 2014).

LITERATURE REVIEW

Transformational Leadership

Burns (1978) explored two absolute leadership styles; one transformational leadership (TL) style and second transactional leadership style. Theoretically it was discovered that TL influenced its followers to support each other for higher morale and motivation, whereas transactional leadership gave priority to its own interest and its followers, by doing so, the leaders perpetuated motivation level. TL added value in transformation and inculcated such abilities that brought change in organizational culture. Primarily, it was found influential for its followers and featured with idealized influence, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration (Bass et al., 1994; Bass, 1999). In the same study, Bass explored a set of behaviour which was influenced by TL and the conduct was illustrated by creating and communicating a vision, empowering the employees psychological, inculcating intellectual stimulus, considering the need of employees and motivating them continuously (Dust et al., 2014). In an investigation, Puni et al., (2018) explored in banking sector that TL increased job satisfaction with greater contingent rewards, a positive relationship was found between the TL traits and job satisfaction, and this relationship got stronger when contingent rewards were increased and for job satisfaction idealized influence and intellectual stimulation were moderated by contingent rewards.

Ma et al., (2020) described in an empirical study that TL and creative performance of employees were correlated and found supported by inverted U-shaped relationship. Henceforth, it was found that inverted U-shaped relationships were remarkable with low job formalization or greater distance of employees, which is because of moderation of the job formalization and power distance. In the direct analysis of TL with three factors; supportive management (SM), organizational citizenship behaviour OCB and job autonomy (JA), the influence of TL was found positive, whereas, the two SM and JA were impacted by the third OCB and mediating relationship between of TL and OCB impacted the other two (Pattnaik & Sahoo, 2021). Sudha et al. (2023) found that TL had not significantly influenced job performance; however, its mediation effect was limited. Contradictory to it, Xu et al. (2024) stated that TL extensively influenced psychological capital, employee creativity, team reflexivity and team team innovation climate, the relationship among all was influenced by TL and moderation effect of environmental dynamism strengthened the relationship too. Henceforth, it was explored that in the companionship of TL and professional ethical standards, the relationship between proactive personality and employee radical creativity was greater than expected outcome (Zhang et al., 2024).

Eco-friendly Behaviour of Employee

Eco-friendly behavior of employees (EFBE) cited as the attitude and conduct of people which positively contributed to preserving the environment for sustainability (Chen et al., 2013). Frey and Sabbatino (2017) explained a UN General Assembly agenda incorporating a set of 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) approved on 25th of September 2015. In the agenda, a clear framework regarding the need of collective efforts by the organization and business engaging the society at large was presented, which constituted a number of challenges for the organization to develop and execute business strategies considering a strong commitment with economic, social and environmental resources sustainability. For, leaders expressed their readiness to follow the global development measures and transform the business process. So, it is significant for the organization to address the challenges associated with formulation of strategies in order to contribute to UN-SDGs. It was explored that it was significant to concentrate on promoting EFBE for developing sustainable strategies in the organization (Norton et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2018). Kim et al. (2019) explained that EFBE was greatly impacted by HRM practices and this helped to alleviate environmental effects, then in channelizing environmental vision HRM highlighted the role of EFBE, and when employees got amicable with the environmental challenges, they performed beyond their job responsibilities and exert their expertise to preserve the environment. It was found that GHRM significantly impacted environmental performance and a partial mediation of EFBE was also significant between GHRM and environmental performance (Gill et al., 2021). In the tourism sector, it was explored that organizational identification and EFBE was positively impacted by GHRM practices and mediation of organizational identification was found impactful between GHRM practices and EFBE (Ribeiro et al., 2022). Ly (2023) established in Cambodian public institutions that organizational commitment was partially mediated by GHRM and EFBE and green house management was a structured method to successfully enhance employee dedication and environmental conscious behaviour. Later, Azmy (2024) added that organizational commitment and corporate performance was impacted by EFBE, similarly organizational environmental performance was impacted by the same behaviour and EFBE impacted the organizational commitment; however, it was unimpacted by GHRM.

Green Human Resources Management

A significant correlation was found among the green training, recruitment practices, employees innovative work behaviour and compensation (Mensah et al., 2023). The GHRM significantly created a change impact on organizational sustainability with CSR and environmental citizenship (Ziyadeh et al., 2023). In a study on Spanish wineries Falcó et al. (2024) discovered a strong positive correlation between GHRM and environmental performance, and a partial mediation was also done by employee well-being. It was explored that the efficient environmental performance significantly created an impact between GHR and corporate environmental ethics (Al-Swidi et al., 2024). Taamneh et al. (2024) stated that GHRM created a positive impact on CSR and the relationship between both was significant, whereas, the moderation of TL strengthened this relationship. (Faezah et al. (2024) explored that GHRM indirectly impacted on ecological behaviour of employees, it was found significant and positive with the mediation effect of green commitment.

Green Work Climate Perception

Organisational strategies, policies, procedures and processes related to HRM and employee perception about organization created an impact on employee psychological climate, and the outcome of this framework was GWCP which corresponded with pro-environmental behaviour Li et al., (2011). In a series of studies Norton et al. (2014) perceived the idea of “green work climate” that revolved around how the employees perceive environmental sustainability from the organization and its members. Dumont et al. (2017) presented the fundamental concept of GWCP in the same way and stated how employees visualise the green policies and process of the organizations and its members participate in the development of environmental sustainability.  Afterwards, Tian et al. (2020) demonstrated the segregation of GWCP in two types; one descriptive (coworkers) associated with voluntary green behaviour and injunctive (organizational) associated with task related green behaviour and explored that both types of behaviour were influenced by GWCP. Henceforth, Rubel et al. (2021) stated that GHRM and GWCP were found significantly correlated and closely related with pro-environmental behaviour and GWCP partially mediated the relationship between GHRM and pro-environmental behaviour. So, it could be instrumental to explain the role of GHRM for sustainability related behaviour of the employees in the organization.

Hypotheses

H1: There is a positive association between transformational leadership and Eco-Friendly Behavior of Employees.

H2: There is a positive association between transformational leadership and Green Human Resource Management.

H3: There is a positive association between Green Human Resource Management and Eco-friendly behavior of employees.

H4: Green human resource management mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and eco-friendly behaviour of employees.

H5: Green Work Climate Perception moderates the relationship between Transformational leadership and Green HRM.

METHODOLOGY

A quantitative research design was employed to investigate the relationship among TL, GHRM, GWCP and EFBE. As the study tests were derived from a theoretical framework, a deductive approach is used to ensure objectivity and control the biasness. For data collection, questionnaires were adapted, validated and distributed via google forms which enhanced the reliability and validity of the results. The independent investigation of theoretical abstract thoroughly supported methodological accuracy which contributed to academic literature and practical implication. Hence, the study substantiated the implication of TLT in the organizational context for green practices. In order to study the relationship of TL with EFBE through mediation of GHRM and moderation of GWCP, data was gathered once by using cross-sectional surveys with a quantitative approach from the employees of pharmaceutical industry Islamabad, Pakistan. Transformational Leadership Theory was founded by using convenience sampling techniques and online google forms. Employees were targeted on the basis of relevant expertise and roles and for a broader and diverse sample, a referral strategy was applied. Since, 312 responses were received from a total distribution of 410 questionnaires. Ethical measures were adhered to ensure anonymity, confidentiality and to get informed consent. The surveys were done in English language to guarantee the clarity so that precedent set by early scholars be followed (Fatima et al., 2018). Every research element was assessed on a 5-point Likert scale whereas responses ranged from 1, indicating “Strongly Disagree,” to 5, signifying “Strongly Agree.” This practice gave liberty to the participants to comment against the given levels of agreeing or disagreeing according to the scaled items. A 12-items scale was adopted from Vera and Crossan (2004 to measure TL. One item from the scale is “He/she encourages me to express my ideas and opinions”. A 7-item scale was adopted from Chou (2014); Scherbaum et al. (2008) to measure EFBE. The scale items were “I sort and recycle garbage in the workplace;” “When I leave a room that is unoccupied, I turn off the light;” and “I pay close attention to water leak”. Another 6-item of GHRM was adopted from Dumont et al. (2017). One item from the scales was “My company sets green goals for its employees”. Lastly, an 8-items were developed by Norton et al. (2014) to quantify GWCP. One item from the scales is “Our company believes it is important to protect the environment.”

RESULTS

Statistical description of mean value, standard deviation and reliability are explained in (Table 1). According to the given data, TL is positively related to GHRM (r = .272, p 0.01), EFBE (r =.365, p 0.01), and GWCP (r = .308, p 0.01). GHRM is positively correlated with EFBE (r =.334, p 0.01), and GWCP (r =.414, p 0.01). And GWCP is positively related with EFBE (r= 0.568, p 0.01).

Table 1. Mean, Standard Deviation, Correlation, and Reliabilities

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 (2-tailed). N=314; Bold values for Cronbach Alpha Reliabilities are provided in brackets.

To draw a conclusion from quantitative relationship, mediation regression analysis is done among the elements of the study.  To investigate the mediation of hypotheses, Model 4 of Haye’s Process Macro by Andrew Hayes is exerted as stipulated. The outcome of hypothesis 1 shows a significant relationship between TL and EFBE as (β = .3769, p-value =.0000, 95% CI [0.2488, 0.5050]). This supported hypothesis 1, and suggested the significant direct impact of TL on EFBE. TL independently influenced EFBE without any mediator. In line with Hypothesis 2, TL created a positive impact on GHRM. The outcome showed that there is a significant positive association between TL and GHRM as (β = .4056, p-value =.0000, 95% CI [0.2559, 0.5552]), supported hypothesis 2 and proposed a strong and positive relationship between TL and GHRM. Hypothesis 2 established a relationship between TL and GHRM. In the same way, it is analyzed that the direct and positive association is found between GHRM and EFBE about Hypothesis 3 which explained that both indicated a strong positive relationship as (β=.2021, p-value=.0000, 95% CI [0.1100, 0.2942]), supported hypothesis 3. Consequently, it is found that hypothesis 3 is also validated and accepted. In addition to that, analysis of Hypothesis 4, which held the mediation of GHRM between TL and EFBE, demonstrated that GHRM partially mediated the relationship between TL and EFBE, as shown with a value of 0.0820, 95% LLCI =.0182 and 95% ULCI = 0.1907. As in the values of the confidence interval, zero does not exist. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 is confirmed, and it established that GHRM partially mediated the relationship between TL and EFBE. (See Table 2)

Table 2. Mediated Regression Analysis

N=314, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001; TL=Transformational Leadership, GHRM=Green Human Resource Management, GWCP=Green Work Climate Perception, EFBE=Eco-Friendly Behaviour of Employee.

EFBE (outcome variable) is influenced because of TL (Predictor), GHRM (mediator) and GWCP (moderator). For regression analysis SPSS is used to examine the relationship between TL and GHRM and GWCP. Outcome of the regression analysis is shown in Table 3. A bootstrap procedure is opted with a 95% confidence level. Predictor and moderator are accounted for moderation regression analysis i.e., hypothesis 5 is put to test.  Interaction term is placed between predictor and mediator for step two conclusion to examine whether it is significant, which confirmed the moderation. Outcomes of moderation regression analysis are generated, hence hypothesis H5 is validated in Table 3 (Step 2) showed that GWCP moderated the relationship between TL and GHRM as (β= 0.082, P = 0.000, R2 = 0.197), and in the result it is confirmed that hypothesis H5 is supported. As in the result it is found that data supporting the moderation hypothesis, which means GWCP strengthened the relationship between TL and Green HRM.

Table 3. Moderation Analysis

DISCUSSION

In research, the impact of TL on the behaviour of employees was widely explored. In fact, in most of the empirical studies it was explored that TL through inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individual consideration and idealized influence significantly enhanced the EFBE. It motivated and empowered the employees to perform beyond their self-interests for organizational objectivity associated with the environment. Usually, the leadership focused on the environment and motivated the employees to be fully involved in environmentally sustainable practices. In the organizations, TL and GHRM are commended as the developers of sustainability and environmental responsibility. One of the TL core dimensions is to embrace and implement the GHRM processes. It is evidently found that TL influenced and extended a vision to integrate the HRM process in the organizations. As stated by Renwick, Redman, and Maguire’s (2013) that the role TL was significant to implement organizational policies and practices for environmental sustainability. The leadership expedited the process of GHRM through promoting a culture of recognizing environmental stewardship and setting environmental-sensitive criteria for HR functions such as recruitment, training, performance and reward management. The phenomenon was further supported by the studies of Jabbour and Santos’s work (2008), it was explored that TL strategically supported the insertion of GHRM practices in organizational framework.

The study revealed that GHRM practices are directly correlated and positively impacted the integration of EFBE. A supportive culture that inculcated through training, performance management, and rewards, enhanced employee engagement in sustainable initiatives was fostered by GHRM. As Tang et al. (2018) described those organizational activities were associated with explication of pro-environmental behaviour of employees. GHRM formed employee readiness with its capability, knowledge and motivation to adopt EFBE. Employees gradually comprehend EFBE at the workplace and become ambitious for the environment. This was asserted by Dumont, Shen, and Deng (2017) that EFBE was significantly and positively related with GHRM. This showed that in the organizations, GHRM enhanced employee behavior to understand the environmental configurations.

In this study, GHRM partially mediated the relationship between TL and EFBE. The mediating role of GHRM was seized from the research of Longoni, Golini, and Cagliano (2014), where it was evidently explored that GHRM mediated the impact of TL on employee environmental behaviour.  Henceforth, the partial mediation of GHRM put forward the direct impact of TL on EFBE and the impact is more significant when mediated by GHRM. TL ability to recognize the vision and setting framework for environmental sustainability and its delegation at employee level could be done by GHRM. As this was elucidated by Kim, Kim, Han, Jackson, and Ployhart (2017) that GHRM positively enhanced the influence of TL on pro-environmental behaviour of employees.

The study demonstrated that GWCP moderated the relationship between TL and GHRM, it strengthened the relationship which meant employees perceived that organization valued the environment and accordingly developed policies, this authenticated the role of TL to effectively promote GHRM for EFBE. The notion of moderating effect was perceived from the study of Norton, Parker, Zacher, and Ashkanasy (2015), in which it was explored that a positive organizational climate strengthened the impact of TL through GHRM. GWCP ideally extended a supportive environment for TL to create a strong impact through GHRM, particularly when environmental sustainability is exceptionally valued in the organization. As argued by Mittal and Dhar (2016) that a strong organizational culture enhanced the influence of TL on GHRM and environmental performance.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In conclusion, the study explained well how TL keen impact on EFBE and GHRM.  It has perfectly demonstrated the correlation within the framework of leadership styles, green practices and employee behaviour. The outcome of the study established that TL created a positive impact on GHRM and EFBE and highlighted the significance of the role of leadership for incorporating an influential, supportive and motivating environment for sustainable development and employee satisfaction. The study explained well about the operational role of GRHM in the mediation of TL and EFBE. It further endorsed that TL and GHRM indirectly augmented the EFBE, thereby expanding the scope of TLT for environmental sustainability. Then, to achieve maximum robustness, TL demonstrated the featured characteristics of GWCP to vitalize GHRM. Organizations are positioned to leverage the positive impact of leadership when integrated core values for a sustainable environment and optimized human resources for green culture. Overall, the study presented the intuition of applying transformational leadership theory in the real-business world for promoting EFBE via GHRM. Organizations may transform the behaviour of employees, develop a sustainable culture, establish an efficient green structure through the influence of transformational leadership. The outcome of the study presents the significance of leadership to develop a compatible environment for sustainability.

REFERENCES

1. Al-Swidi, A. K., Al-Hakimi, M. A., & Al-Hattami, H. M. (2024). Fostering environmental preservation: exploring the synergy of green human resource management and corporate environmental ethics. The Bottom Line, 37(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/bl-06-2023-0191.
2. Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2013). Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead. Emerald Group Publishing.
3. Azmy, A. (2024). The roles of green human resources on employees Eco-Friendly behavior, organizational commitment, and corporate’s environmental performance. Studies in Business and Economics, 19(1), 22–45. https://doi.org/10.2478/sbe-2024-0002.
4. Bass, B. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9–32.
5. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 2(2), 153e155.
6. Burns, J. (1978). Leadership (1st ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
7. Chen, Y. S., Chang, C. H. (2013). Greenwash and green trust: The mediation effects of green consumer confusion and green perceived risk. Sustainability, 7(7), 8694–8711.
8. Chou, C.-J., 2014. Hotels’ environmental policies and employee personal environmental beliefs: interactions and outcomes. Tour. Manag. 40, 436–446. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.tourman.2013.08.001.
9. Dumont, J., Shen, J., & Deng, X. (2017). Effects of green HRM practices on employee workplace green behavior: The role of psychological green climate and employee green values. Human Resource Management, 56(4), 613– 627.
10. Dust, S. B., Resick, C. J., & Mawritz, M. B. (2014). Transformational leadership, psychological empowerment, and the moderating role of mechanistic–organic contexts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(3), 413–433.
11. Faezah, J. N., Yusliza, M. Y., Chaudhary, R., Ramayah, T., & Fawehinmi, O. (2024). Green human resource management and employee ecological behaviour: the mediating role of green commitment. Social Responsibility Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/srj-07-2023-0399.
12. Falcó, J. M., Sánchez-García, E., Marco-Lajara, B., & Millán-Tudela, L. A. (2024). Green human resource management and green performance in the wine industry: the mediating role of employee well-being. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoa-10-2023-4051.
13. Fatima, N., Bilal, M., & Zafar, S. (2018). The impact of job stress on employee performance in the industrial sector of Pakistan. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 9(3), 223-233.
14. Frey, M., & Sabbatino, A. (2017). The role of the private sector in Global Sustainable Development: the UN 2030 agenda. In Palgrave studies in governance, leadership and responsibility (pp. 187–204). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63480-7_10.
15. Gill, A. A., Ahmad, B., & Kazmi, S. (2021). The effect of green human resource management on environmental performance: The mediating role of employee eco-friendly behavior. Management Science Letters, 1725–1736. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2021.2.010.
16. Jabbour, C. J. C., & Santos, F. C. A. (2008). The central role of human resource management in the search for sustainable organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(12), 2133-2154.
17. Jackson, S. E., Renwick, D. W., Jabbour, C. J. C., & Müller-Camen, M. (2011). State-of-the-art and future directions for green human resource management: Introduction to the special issue. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(2), 99-116.
18. Kim, A., Kim, Y., Han, K., Jackson, S. E., & Ployhart, R. E. (2017). Multilevel influences on voluntary workplace green behavior: Individual differences, leader behavior, and coworker advocacy. Journal of Management, 43(5), 1335-1358.
19. Kim, Y. J., Kim, W. G., Choi, H., & Phetvaroon, K. (2019). The effect of green human resource management on hotel employees’ eco-friendly behavior and environmental performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 76, 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.04.007.
20. Li, X., Frenkel, S.J., Sanders, K. (2011). Strategic HRM as process: how HR system and organizational climate strength influence Chinese employee attitudes. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 22 (9), 1825–1842.
21. Longoni, A., Golini, R., & Cagliano, R. (2014). The role of new forms of work organization in developing sustainability strategies in operations. International Journal of Production Economics, 147, 147-160.
22. Ly, B. (2023). Green HRM and eco-friendly behavior in Cambodian public organizations: The mediation of organizational commitment. Environmental Challenges, 10, 100674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2022.100674.
23. Ma, X., Jiang, W., Wang, L., & Xiong, J. (2020). A curvilinear relationship between transformational leadership and employee creativity. Management Decision, 58(7), 1355–1373. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-07-2017-0653.
24. Mensah, L. E., Shukla, S., & Iqbal, H. F. (2023). Green human resource management practices and employee innovative behaviour: reflection from Ghana. IIMBG Journal of Sustainable Business and Innovation, 1(1), 58–74. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijsbi-02-2023-0002.
25. Mittal, S., & Dhar, R. L. (2016). Effect of green transformational leadership on green creativity: A study of tourist hotels. Tourism Management, 57, 118-127.
26. Northouse, P. G. (1999). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.
27. Norton, S., Matthews, F. E., Barnes, D. E., Yaffe, K., & Brayne, C. (2014). Potential for primary prevention of Alzheimer’s disease: an analysis of population-based data. The Lancet Neurology,13 (8), 788-794.
28. Norton, T. A., Zacher, H., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2014). Organisational sustainability policies and employee green behaviour: The mediating role of work climate perceptions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 49-54.
29. Norton, T. A., Zacher, H., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2015). Pro-environmental organizational culture and climate. In J. L. Robertson & J. Barling (Eds.), The psychology of green organizations (pp. 322-348). Oxford University Press.
30. Norton, T.A., Parker, S.L., Zacher, H., Ashkanasy, N.M. (2015). Employee green behavior: a theoretical framework, multilevel review, and future research agenda. Organ. Environ. 28 (1), 103–125. doi:10.1177/1086026615575773.
31. Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (2012). Environmental sustainability at work: A call to action. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(4), 444-466. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2012.01478.x.
32. Paillé, P., Chen, Y., Boiral, O., & Jin, J. (2014). The impact of human resource management on environmental performance: An employee-level study. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(3), 451-466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1719-0.
33. Pattnaik, S. C., & Sahoo, R. (2021). Transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behaviour: the role of job autonomy and supportive management. Management Research Review, 44(10), 1409–1426. https://doi.org/10.1108/mrr-06-2020-0371.
34. Puni, A., Mohammed, I., & Asamoah, E. (2018). Transformational leadership and job satisfaction: the moderating effect of contingent reward. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(4), 522–537. https://doi.org/10.1108/lodj-11-2017-0358.
35. Renwick, D. W., Redman, T., & Maguire, S. (2013). Green Human Resource Management: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00328.x.
36. Ribeiro, N., Gomes, D. R., Ortega, E., Gomes, G. P., & Semedo, A. S. (2022). The Impact of Green HRM on Employees’ Eco-Friendly Behavior: The Mediator role of Organizational identification. Sustainability, 14(5), 2897. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052897.
37. Rubel, M. R. B., Kee, D. M. H., & Rimi, N. N. (2021). Green human resource management and supervisor pro-environmental behavior: The role of green work climate perceptions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 313, 127669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127669.
38. Scherbaum, C. A., Popovich, P. M., & Finlinson, S. (2008). Exploring individual‐level factors related to employee energy‐ conservation behaviors at work. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(3), 818–835.
39. Sudha, A., Azam, S. F., & Tham, J. (2023). Transformational leadership and job performance of Maldives Civil Service employees, mediated by organisational commitment. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 36(3), 271–287. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpsm-09-2022-0198.
40. Taamneh, M. M., Al-Okaily, M., Abudoleh, J. D., Albdareen, R., & Taamneh, A. M. (2024). Nexus between green human resource management practices and corporate social responsibility: does transformational leadership make difference? International Journal of Organizational Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoa-08-2023-3903.
41. Tang, G., Chen, Y., Jiang, Y., Paille, P., & Jia, J. (2018). Green human resource management practices: Scale development and validity. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 56(1), 31-55.
42. Tian, H., Zhang, J., & Li, J. (2020). The relationship between pro- environmental attitude and employee green behavior: the role of motivational states and green work climate perceptions. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(7), 7341-7352.
43. Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 222–240.
44. Wang, X., Zhou, K., Liu, W. (2018). Value Congruence: a study of green transformational leadership and employee green behavior [original research]. Front. Psychol. 9. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01946.
45. Xu, S., Yaacob, Z., & Cao, D. (2024). How transformational leadership promotes employee creativity within the context of environmental dynamism: a multilevel perspective. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijotb-06-2023-0117.
46. Zhang, W., & Xu, F. (2024). Proactive personality, transformational leadership and ethical standards: influences on radical creativity. Management Decision, 62(1), 25–49. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-05-2022-0666.
47. Ziyadeh, M. W., Othman, M., & Zaid, A. A. (2023). Effects of green human resource management on organisational sustainability: the mediating role of corporate social responsibility and organisational citizenship behaviour. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 32(2), 357–372. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoa-11-2022-3506.