1. Introduction
Changes in climate have emerged as a major challenge for countries all over the world, as they are impacting human life adversely through declining food yields and global warming [1]. In every industry, environmental protection strategies and policies have been observed, but whether they are applied or not has remained a question. Prior researchers have argued that organizations are becoming more inclined to engage in environmentally friendly activities [2,3]. Therefore, in the wake of this trend, organizations are now adopting green human resource management practices that may significantly influence environmental performance [4]. Green HRM practices have been a great concern and are a popular research topic among researchers nowadays [5,6]. The world is moving towards modernization, and there is increasing competition in the business world. To compete in this competitive business environment, organizations are keen to develop, implement, and adopt certain practices and strategic policies in an efficient way that becomes helpful to achieve competitive advantage [7]. This organizational race has caused an increase in the industrial population. Even though these effects can be the reason for demolishing the ecosystem, it has become a concern of scholars to investigate the environmental concerns and implement necessary changes at corporate levels [8,9]. So, to overcome these threats and environmental destruction, organizations have been observed to play a vital role in creating and implementing green awareness. Green human resource management practices have always been assumed to be an organization’s backbone [10]. However, subsequent research has demonstrated that, as a result of emerging environmental concerns, personnel are presumed to perform responsibilities outside of their comprehensive environmental roles, which is green organizational citizenship behavior [11,12]. Previous findings have emphasized the significance of green organizational citizenship behavior because of its ability to motivate individuals to work for subsequent generations in the absence of traditional incentives [8,13].
Green human resource management practices integrate, align, and implement green activities with environmental management to enhance and promote green practices in the organization and implement a green lifestyle [10]. A green lifestyle involves preferring actions that preserve and protect the natural resources [14]. These options may not be popular with people, but they are environmentally and morally sound. Green HRM aims to develop motivated and efficient employees that are self-aware of green behaviors and are greenly committed to the stability of the environment [15]. It has been stated in the previous literature that those employees who are green-committed and promote green activities and behaviors at the individual level play a significant role in enhancing and building environmental sustainability [16,17]. Green HRM practices have also been observed to have the same practices, i.e., recruitment, learning and development, rewards and compensation, and performance appraisal [6]. In the context of green HRM, these practices are modified and implemented in the organization so that the organization adheres to eco-friendly criteria and implements them in such a way that they contribute to the well-being of the environment [7].
Green lifestyle refers to the green attitude, behaviors, and practices of individuals that are part of their daily life [14]. It assists employees in developing eco-friendly products and utilizing existing products and resources in an eco-friendly manner [18]. Greening employees at the workplace helps to empower them to implement and practice a green work–life balance, thus leading to a green lifestyle [8]. Moreover, green innovation is highly significant for organizational stability and competitive advantage [19]. As for the product life cycle assessments, business and human resource practitioners have stated that processing and modifying existing products and processes into eco-friendly products and green processes reduces environmental issues and their impacts on the organizations and the environment [20].
This study contributes to the literature with the following perspectives. First, this study aims to explore the direct effect of green HRM practices on the green organizational behavior of hotel employees, which plays an influential role in the development of a green lifestyle. Second, prior researchers have suggested that green lifestyle, green innovation, and green shared values may have an effect on this relationship [15,21]. Therefore, this study attempts to investigate the mediating–moderating role of these variables in the relationship between green HRM practices and green organizational citizenship behavior.
Third, this study contributes to ability–motivation–opportunity (AMO) theory. The theory contends that HRM practices are developed, implemented, and enhanced among employees by giving them self-confidence in developing their abilities, motivating them, and creating opportunities for them [22]. In today’s contemporary environments, top management has been observed to face external pressures, introduce such strategies, and build innovative policies that significantly resolve environmental issues [23]. Different programs, workshops, and pieces of training have been arranged for top management staff and their managers to proactively fulfill the social and environmental gap and achieve the desired goals [24]. Fourth, prior research has emphasized the significance of green HRM practices on organizational factors in understanding the problems and consequences that can be further modified by green HRM implications [10,25]. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the impact of green HRM practices on green organizational citizenship behavior with the moderating effects of green innovation and shared values and the mediating effect of green lifestyle among the employees’ working in China.
2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development
2.1. Underpinning Theory
This study has employed the lens of the AMO (ability–motivation–opportunity) theory [26]. This theory suggests that employee performance is highly dependent on the three factors of ability, motivation, and opportunity [27]. Organizations that are more likely to achieve strategic goals effectively and efficiently are more likely to improve employee performance [2]. Previous research [28] introduced three main domains that help create alignment between employees and the organization. Organizations should be inclined to build the ability among their employees to work and perform their duties positively [29]; they should encourage their employees and show them different ways in which they adopt, create, and develop new ideas, increasing the employee’s performance that, in the long run, boost organizational performance [30].
2.2. Literature Review
2.2.1. Green Human Resource Management GHRM
“Green HRM” is a novel field of study that aims to look into organizational environmental protection through the implementation of human resource management [31,32]. Green HRM is defined as ‘’human resource management activities that enhance positive environmental outcomes and boost environmental stability” [33]. Green HRM practices are complementary to HRM practices [34]. However, GHRM aims to implement human resource management practices, such as recruitment, learning and development, empowerment, performance appraisals, and compensation, in an eco-friendly manner that aims to build green culture, behaviors, and develop a green workforce that plays a vital role in environmental stability [19]. This employee behavior and eco-friendly attitude makes them internally motivated and responsible for green activities and practices [21].
As stated by [19], employees and management keep themselves aligned by introducing and creating new ideas and practices in a unique way that is helpful for environmental performance. Organizational management and employees having a shared vision and urge to accomplish it make them unique and have a perspective of organizational citizenship behavior, and these green HRM practices are implemented so passionately that they become a green lifestyle of the organization [35]. GHRM practices are discussed as they help the organization with its overarching architecture.
2.2.2. Green Recruitment
Green recruitment is defined as the process of hiring individuals with certain knowledge, skills, and abilities that align with the environment and organizational management system [23]. From a broader perspective, green recruitment and selection organizations focus on attracting and hiring employees who are well aware of green activities and are interested in environmental concerns [36]. Those employees are motivated and focused on resolving environmental issues and playing their role in enhancing environmental well-being, as recruitment is the most initial and vital practice that leads to the overall results [37]. While recruiting the candidate, if the individual is concerned about environmental activities and stability, in the short run and long run, he will be passionately playing his role in green activities, knowledge, and practices [38].
Green recruitment is a concern and is aligned with enhancing the corporate green image to entice environmentally conscious talent [39]. Employees are involved in green activities, creating a green learning climate that encourages both employees and management to participate in and deal with environmental issues [33]. Green empowerment leads to ownership, in which employees understand and are well aware of the channels, issues, behaviors, and barriers that are to be resolved for betterment [40]. Environmental efficiency has been increased when the empowerment process has been shifted to the employees [41].
2.2.3. Green Learning and Development
Green learning and development is defined as providing environmental training to employees and organizational members in order to develop the necessary skills and abilities that improve environmental performance [42]. In an individual’s life, learning is a continuous process of self-growth. Nowadays, organizations are inclined towards the learning and development of their employees [4]. There should be a process of continuous growth and self-learning of green attitudes, behaviors, and skills that develop unique capabilities and hence play a vital role in contributing to the green mindset of the individual [2]. The organizations introduce and implement corporate eco-friendly programs so that employees know the importance of environmental stability [3]. Employees can understand the importance of environmental and organizational stability and their interlinked relationship through green HRM [26,43]. Organizations should create awareness among the employees (managerial and non-managerial staff) of recycling, waste management, reducing long-distance business travel, and minimal and effective usage of resources [31]. For effective green learning and development, organizations can create eco-friendly awareness by conducting seminars and workshops and introducing different activities that develop the behavior and practice of green activities at the workplace [19].
Organizations have been focused on introducing various eco-friendly workshops, seminars, and activities that have created positive employee attitudes toward green organizational practices [33]. It is necessary for every employee position to undergo eco-awareness training. Furthermore, these pieces of training are coordinated and distributed to all department employees [25]. In the previous literature, it has been observed that green learning and development have been seen by organizations as a formality by organizations that they must fulfill to avoid penalties [14,18]. Few organizations have been observed that adopt and implement green learning and development as an obligation. Although it has been concluded in the previous literature that green learning and development enhance the employee’s skills and abilities and build their green behaviors, they play an essential role in aligning with organizational green goals [8].
2.2.4. Green Compensation
Green compensation and rewards are defined as awarding employees for further motivating them to be involved in improving green organizational citizenship behavior and environmental performance [44]. Motivation has always been a positive trigger in an individual’s life [45]. Reward and compensation are types of motivation that create a desire to complete a task in order to receive a reward [9]. Motivation can be intrinsic or extrinsic, i.e., monetary or non-monetary, and is delivered to employees to encourage their pro-environmental behaviors. Monetary compensation is the reward or benefit that is extrinsic, i.e., paid vacations, green certificates, and promotions [11]. At the same time, non-monetary rewards and incentives are intrinsic rewards, i.e., green tax, green recognition, and green travel benefits [15]. It has been observed that either monetary or non-monetary, compensation plays a positive role in motivating and encouraging employees to develop and implement green behaviors, activities, and practices in their daily organizational operations [46].
A previous study found that compensation plays a significant role in green HRM and environmental performance [47]. Organizations and employees have been observed as being proactive towards green activities and practices and committed to being rewarded after performing some defined targets [24]. Organizations where top managers were rewarded with awards for environmental stability and meeting targets were found to be more likely to improve environmental performance, as opposed to fixed salaries for employees, but instead providing incentives and compensation for senior managers [48]. According to researchers, it has been stated that green compensation works as a catalyst for green processes and practices [9,25]. Employees feel more motivated and encouraged when they are rewarded and appreciated for their efforts. Green compensation and rewards are powerful tools for supporting environmental management activities in organizations [6].
2.2.5. Green Empowerment
Green empowerment is also a leading green HRM practice that significantly accomplishes environmental and organizational goals [7]. Green empowerment is defined as a strategy that motivates and assists employees in making decisions and becoming more involved [8]. In green empowerment, removing barriers between top management and employees is vital as it builds trust, inspiration, and decision-making power. Green HRM has been observed to be the most crucial element in developing and enhancing green behaviors [49]. Similarly, green empowerment has been found to have a strong positive correlation with the development and strengthening of employee skills, behaviors, and abilities [50]. Employees are aligning their green practices and autonomy, thus helping them in the decision-making process for the betterment of organizational and environmental well-being [19]. Employees who are greenly empowered are inwardly driven, contributing to job-related achievements. Empowered employees are more confident as they feel more authoritative at their job and can make decisions accordingly. Green-empowered employees are more inclined to fulfill green goals [35]. Empowerment among employees leads to self-motivation, enhanced work effectiveness, improved commitment, intrinsic motivation, and, most importantly, self-driven goals to accomplish them [23].
Green empowerment leads to a green workforce, as employees have the authority to make decisions related to environmental concerns. This motivates them to resolve issues and face challenges effectively [51]. According to [10], green empowerment has been highlighted in developing positive impacts on environmentally friendly activities. Green empowerment is implemented effectively in organizations when the hierarchal system is demolished, and decentralization is implemented among the top management, managerial, and non-managerial staff [52]. This decentralized system of the organizational allows employees to have autonomy and self-motivation. They feel responsible and concerned about their deeds and practices and hold themselves accountable for the desired outcomes. Green empowerment boosts cognitive performance among employees. It helps them make better decisions and come up with new ideas, and thus plays an important role in improving environmental performance [53]. Green empowerment fosters a positive learning competition environment in which employees are encouraged to perform better and implement environmentally friendly practices [43].
2.3. Hypotheses Development
2.3.1. Green HRM Practices and Green Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Green organizational citizenship behavior refers to individuals’ discretionary behaviors that contribute to effective organizational management in order to achieve collective environmental well-being and these behaviors are not formally rewarded [54]. Prior research has argued that green HRM practices have a significant effect on employee performance [33]. Prior literature concluded that employees’ behaviors and skills enhance organizational performance [55]. Green organizational citizenship behavior is termed as individualistic, as it is the behavior developed within the employee intrinsically, and they feel self-motivated [10]. This leads the employees to perform green activities by adopting green behaviors and developing the culture of green organizational citizenship behavior among employees. As discussed earlier, green organizational citizenship behavior is highly dependent on an individualistic approach [56]. The AMO theory states that organizations should be concerned with developing the urge to learn and develop new skills [22]. Management play an important role in encouraging employees’ self-awareness and implementing green practices in their daily work life, as well as providing them with an opportunistic culture in which employees’ behaviors and knowledge shower towards the improvement of the environment and organizational stability [8].
Organizations motivate employees to implement and enhance their knowledge and give them specific opportunities to engage in those behaviors and skills to contribute to environmental and organizational performance [55]. Employees invest their knowledge, skills, and abilities in the organization. Therefore, when employees are assumed to have autonomy in their duties, they feel motivated and develop a commitment [57]. Employees feel like an asset to the organization, and as a result, organizational citizenship behavior is built among the employees and the organization [58]. In the green context, employees are given green pieces of training, knowledge, and a particular set of abilities and skills and are given authority over their jobs to modify and introduce plans, tasks, and green behaviors to implement them [44]. Furthermore, the organization also aims to provide them with opportunities through open windows to promote and contribute green practices, knowledge, and skills to creatively resolve environmental issues and enhance environmental and organizational stability [13], thus, fostering proactive behavior. So, based on the above arguments, the first hypothesis states:
Green HRM practices positively influence green organizational citizenship behavior.
2.3.2. Green HRM Practices and Green Lifestyle
A green lifestyle has been defined as a pattern of living that involves careful consideration of the adverse impacts of one’s daily activities on the environment and the meaningful narrative that guides the process [14]. A green lifestyle involves eco-friendly consumption and habits [15]. An organization is made up of employees who have different characteristics, experiences, preferences, and work styles. Employees who are enthusiastic and actively participating in environmental stability activities are more inclined toward achieving more successful eco-friendly practices [59].
As ability–motivation–opportunity theory integrates that green HRM practices play a crucial role in the participation of employees, (1) the management feels its obligation to take their employees to the environmental works, thus developing the abilities that are inclined towards environmental stability; (2) the organization, at their own initiative, develops specific training and development programs, thus helping the employees build skills that help them adopt a green lifestyle; (3) with stabilization in the practices and structures of environmental work, employees would be given opportunities to perform their green behaviors [55]. The personal lives of employees are influenced by their professional lives. Employees who adopt and implement green practices at work may find that they incorporate them into their personal lives as a result [6]. Employees experiencing GHRM practices at their workplace absorb it positively and make it their lifestyle, encouraging the greening of the mind of the employees [10]. Individuals who are more environmentally responsible play an important and prominent role in the stability of the organization and motivate other individuals and employees. However, based on the preceding arguments, the next hypothesis states:
Green HRM practices positively influences the green lifestyle.
2.3.3. Green Lifestyle and Green Organizational Citizenship Behavior
A green lifestyle has been observed to have a significant role in green organizational citizenship behavior. The organization managerial and non-managerial staff is keen to learn, practice, and adopt green practices and implement them in their tasks, and are more inclined to introducing a green lifestyle [14]. Prior researchers have argued that a green lifestyle cannot be implemented and introduced all at once. Instead, it is instilled in the employees step by step by first introducing it [15,55]. Organizations are adopting green lifestyles, which influence the green behaviors of their employees. Employees develop and motivate themselves to show their green actions and are inclined towards green practices, developing and integrating the green organizational citizenship behavior with the green lifestyle of the organization [10]. Those organizations keen on green lifestyles are observed to be concerned about employees’ green organizational citizenship behaviors.
Following the AMO theory, organizations can play an efficient role in building the abilities of their employees for a green lifestyle. They can motivate and encourage them for their green actions by appreciating, rewarding, and enabling empowerment that leads to the development of green organizational citizenship behavior [8]. Employees feel self-motivated, believing that their organization considers and pays attention to their actions and plays an essential role in environmental and organizational stability. Most importantly, organizations give their employees opportunities and the right set of circumstances by building green cultures and directing them to the right path so that they can avail of the opportunity and feel a sense of accomplishment [60]. Employees’ green organizational citizenship behaviors collectively play a vital role in creating green cultures and directing people toward the green lifestyle, where employees would feel their obligation and duty to adopt, implement, and practice a green lifestyle and minimize those activities and behaviors that create environmental issues [48]. As a result of the preceding arguments, the third hypothesis states:
Green lifestyle positively influences green organizational citizenship behavior.
2.3.4. Green HRM Practices and Green Organizational Citizenship Behavior with the Mediating Effect of a Green Lifestyle
Organizational commitments urge the development and implementation of green HRM practices and thus encourage employees to motivate themselves, intrinsically or extrinsically, to commit to green activities and behaviors and feel it as their obligation [40]. Green HRM practices have been observed to be of great importance as they play a vital role in implementing green practices and modifying the existing policies effectively and in developing green organizational citizenship behavior [15]. According to previous literature, green organizational citizenship behavior has been analyzed to positively impact organizations’ and employees’ green lifestyles [45]. The development of green organizational citizenship behaviors among employees, leads to employees opting for green practices, behaviors, and actions and adapting a green lifestyle. The AMO theory argues that employees’ performances are highly dependent on the abilities, motivation, and opportunities given to them [50]. As a result of linking this theory, it is explained that organizations tend to develop specific green skills and abilities through their green HRM practices, i.e., green learning and development [26].
Employees are kept motivated to implement their green behaviors in their daily work–life routine by consuming fewer harmful resources and practicing more green activities for the betterment of the environment and their well-being [37]. Employees can also be motivated by introducing green rewards and compensation, encouraging them to perform practical green activities. Employees should be given opportunities by the organizations so that they can better perform their green activities by taking advantage of the opportunities [23]. An organization plays a significant role in developing green empowerment among its employees. This green empowerment boosts employees’ green skills, knowledge, and behaviors and their commitment, motivation, and alignment with the organization [61]. This commitment develops a sense of green citizenship behavior among the employees, who perceive themselves as significant and loyal members of the organization, contributing to its role for the betterment and effectiveness of the environment and organizational stability [10]. Thus, based on the above-mentioned discussions, the following hypothesis is predicts:
Green HRM practices and green organizational citizenship behavior positively influence the moderating effect of a green lifestyle.
2.3.5. Green HRM Practices and Green Lifestyle with the Moderating Effect of Green Innovation
Green innovation is defined as developing environmentally friendly technology, management functions, product design, and product processes [19]. It is stated that organizations are more inclined to invest in eco-friendly products and consumptions that use less harmful raw materials and reduce the use of electricity, water supply, and emissions [62]. Organizations are capable of designing strategies that do not devastate the ecosystem and environment. Organizations should be inclined to make green products and practice the green consumption of resources
Several scholars have stated that green innovations are highly successful in improving overall green lifestyle and green organizational citizenship behavior [20,31,60]. This green lifestyle will be influential in developing green operational practices, green HRM, and embracing green marketing departments. In broad terms, organizations should develop the aim and goal of building green departments and operations and work accordingly to develop the overall green lifestyle [25]. The organizations can also introduce different rewards and compensation programs for the departments that are more inclined toward green activities and modify the existing plans, processes, and activities for green innovativeness [10]. This develops an urge for commitment, enhancement, and motivation at the departmental level as well as at the individual level to achieve the goal. The organization should give empowerment and autonomy to the individuals so that they can show their skills and abilities in a better way where they can create and introduce new ideas and innovations to create a green lifestyle and green practices [33]. Therefore, the following hypothesis predicts:
Green HRM practices and green lifestyles are positively influenced by the moderating effect of green innovation.
2.3.6. Green Lifestyle and Green Organizational Citizenship Behavior by Moderating Effect of Green Shared Value
Green shared value is a business model that consists of operative business practices, activities, and policies that not only enhance the competitiveness of the organization but also play a crucial role in boosting the economic and social conditions of the society in which it operates [33]. It has been observed that those employees who are more enthusiastic and actively engage in fundamental environmental policies play a crucial role in achieving favorable and prosperous environmental policies [55]. Green shared values integrate green organizational practices and operations in such a way that they help to improve societal sustainability [62]. Green shared values improve competitiveness and enhance the business’s sustainable growth and development, resulting in better social conditions.
In the past few years, a beneficial interest in green shared value has increased, which is assumed to be a corporate strategy to help society [42]. Management focuses on green culture, where organizational team members show a keen interest in the environmental stability theory, their values, behaviors, and beliefs, helping the organization to positively implement and integrate green human resource management [31]. Green shared values are characterized by the procedures that improve the organization’s competitiveness while promoting social and economic conditions for the communities in which they operate [54]. Green shared value is a broader perspective; any organization achieves it by developing and adopting small steps toward the bigger one. Green shared values have been assumed to require organizations to have and introduce green behaviors among employees and top management. They incorporate these green actions, behaviors, and practices into their daily work routines and operational tasks and develop the green culture that leads to the green lifestyle of the organization [10]. Organizations that have developed green lifestyles are more inclined towards the green shared value. In the long run, that leads to sustainable development and green value creation for the community [8]. These green shared values play a significant role in green lifestyle and green organizational citizenship behavior and help the organization achieve a competitive advantage. Hence, from the above arguments, the following hypothesis states:
Green lifestyle and green organizational citizenship behavior positively influenced by the moderating effect of green shared value.
2.4. Conceptual Framework
Based on the above hypotheses development, Figure 1 shows the proposed research model that indicates five constructs, from green HRM practices to green organizational citizenship behavior.
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Study Context and Data Collection
The COVID-19 virus has a dramatic impact on the everyday lives of individuals and groups across the world. The COVID-19 outbreak has significantly impacted the tourism and hospitality industries [31,45]. Therefore, this study selected and collected data from the hospitality industry of China mainly focused on human resource HR heads, human resource HR business partners, and human resource managers. The location selected for data collection was Jiangsu Province, Zhenjiang City, which has approximately 45 hotels. This study followed a specific population frame that they perceived as having the best interests to support the research study. The purposive sampling method was used for data collection from 347 participants. The nature of this research study was cross-sectional, and the data were collected in a one-time frame through a questionnaire survey and distributed among the targeted population. For the data collection, a closed-ended questionnaire was adopted with the aim of keeping the respondent’s secrecy as a top priority. The confidentiality of the participants was assured as per ethical laws. The questionnaire was comprised of two sections, in which the first section was the introduction and general instructions for the respondents to follow, and most importantly, the purpose of the study was mentioned. The second part comprised the items for each variable, i.e., green human resource management practices (GHRMP), green organizational citizenship behavior (GRENB), green lifestyle (GRENL), green innovation (GRENI), and green shared value (GRENV).
3.2. Demographics
The demographics of the managers were divided into gender, age, education, and experience: 59% were males, and 41% were females who took part in this study and filled out the questionnaire. On the other hand, responses fell into three age categories, i.e., 29% were 20–30 years of age, 54% were 31–40 years, and 17% were 41–50 years. In terms of education, 67% of the managers and employees had a master’s degree, while 33% had a bachelor’s degree. The majority had 1–5 years of experience, with 23% having 1–5 years of experience, 20% having 5–10 years of experience, and 41% having more than 21 years of experience. In total, 16% of the employees had experience ranging from 5–10 years, and 24% had experience ranging from 11–15 years. Lastly, most of the respondents, i.e., 97%, were from the private hotels.
3.3. Measures
The five-point Likert scale was used to measure the respondent’s responses. Respondents were requested to answer the required question according to their preferences and experiences and select the valid option across five categories: 1: strongly disagree, 2: disagree, 3: neutral, 4: agree, and 5: strongly Agree). No external pressure was exerted on the respondents during data collection. Four hundred samples were gathered, and 347 valid responses were used for further statistical analysis. In this research study, GHRMP was measured by green recruitment, learning and development, green compensation, and green empowerment practices. The 13-item scale used to measure green recruitment, green compensation, green learning, and green empowerment is from the studies by [24,33,56]. Moreover, green organizational citizenship behavior (GRENB) has been measured by a questionnaire consisting of eight items adopted from [10,41], and green lifestyle (GRENL) has been measured by a questionnaire consisting of three items adopted from the study b [59]. Furthermore, to assess green innovation (GRENI), a four-item questionnaire was used from the study by [20]. Lastly, to measure the green shared value (GRENV), a questionnaire consisting of four items was adopted from the study [62]. The appendix is presented in the Supplementary Materials S1.
3.4. Common Method Biased
As the data collection was gathered by one source, the study can be affected by the common method bias. We used the Harman single-factor test. According to Harman’s (1976) methodology, there is an issue of common method bias if the eigenvalue accounts for the majority of the variance (>50%). The results from the factor analysis show that the first factor explained 32.17% of the total variance (>50%). Thus, there is no issue of common method bias in this study [63].
4. Results
4.1. Data Analysis Techniques
This study used partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) software for the statistical data analysis. The PLS-SEM method has been identified as being highly suitable for small-to-medium samples [64,65]. Every latent variable was used as a reflective variable in this research study. The PLS-SEM has two phases to analyze the conceptual model: measurement model and the structural model evaluation [66]. Internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity, and reliability were observed in the first phase of measurement model evaluation. In contrast, the structural model evaluation coefficients of determination R2, F2, and Q2, path coefficients, p values, and t-values were analyzed in the second phase to determine whether either hypothesis was accepted or rejected.
4.2. Measurement Model
Before analyzing the structural model, it is imperative to check the fitness of the measurement model. The fitness of the measurement model was assessed through reliability and validity analysis. Cronbach’s alpha (CA) and composite reliability (CR) were used to assess construct reliability. Table 1 indicates the values of Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability for green human resource management practices (0.958, 0.963); green organizational citizenship behavior (0.948, 0.957); green innovation (0.907, 0.935); green lifestyle (0.773, 0.869); and green shared value (0.906, 0.934). All the construct’s Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability values were acceptable and above the threshold value of 0.70 suggested by previous researchers [67]. Moreover, convergent validity was measured by the average variance extracted (AVE). The values of average variance extracted ranged from (0.667 to 0.780). According to prior researchers, AVE values should be greater than 0.50 [68,69]. Thus, this study achieved satisfactory results in terms of the average variance extracted. Furthermore, to check the possibility of multicollinearity between all the measurement constructs. This study observed the inflation factor (VIF) values. The results of VIF are shown in Table 1, which indicates no issue of multicollinearity in the data because all the construct’s VIF values are below the five suggested by existing researchers [70,71].
Discriminant Validity
Discriminant validity was evaluated as the last assessment in the measurement model. The cross-loading of each indicator has been checked for validity, and it was found that none of the indicators load higher than the other on an opposing construct [70]. Moreover, the criterion of Fornell–Larcker (1981) and the hetrotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio were also used to compare the correlation between other constructs and the square root of the AVE. The results confirmed that all diagonal values were significantly higher than those in the corresponding rows and columns, indicating that each construct differs from the others in the model. Additionally, as per the criteria of the HTMT ratio, the values should be less than 0.85 [68]. Therefore, it was observed that the highest attained HTMT value was 0.397, which was below the suggested value of 0.85. Thus, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 show that all the constructs fully meet the criteria for discriminant validity.
4.3. Structural Model
The fitness of the structural model was assessed through the coefficient of determination (R2), F2, and Q2 values. The values of R2 are shown in Figure 2. The values for endogenous constructs (R2) were used to evaluate model fit and determine how well data points matched a line or curve. According to [72], R2 levels can be categorized as small (0.02 to 0.10), medium (0.10 to 0.26), or large (0.26), depending on the R2 level. The endogenous constructs’ R2 values were utilized to test model fit. The value of a green lifestyle was (R2 = 0.119), and the value of green organizational citizenship behavior was (R2 = 0.156), which indicates a medium effect size. Next, we examined F2 values to find out the model’s explanatory power. We found that the green human resource management practices effect on green lifestyle and green organizational citizenship behavior was (0.035 and 0.039). Next, the green lifestyle effect on green organizational behavior was (0.040), whereas green innovation effect on green lifestyle was (0.050). Lastly, we found that the green shared value effect on green organizational citizenship behavior was (0.049). These findings related to f2 assessment are drawn upon guidelines suggested by [70]. Additionally, for the predictive relevance of the model, cross-validated redundancy measure Q2 was also assessed. As suggested by [70] the value of Q2 should be greater than zero. The results indicate that the values of Q2 for green lifestyle (0.072) and green organizational citizenship behavior (0.104) achieved the desired outcome level of the structural model.
4.4. Hypothesis Testing
The hypotheses were tested using the bootstrapping method with 5000 sub-samples. All the hypotheses were statistically significant, and the findings are presented in Table 5 and Figure 3. The results of H1 have a significant and positive effect, which indicates that green HRM has a positive and direct impact on green organizational citizenship behavior. Statistical illustrations of the hypothesis are (β = 0.192, t = 3.078, p = 0.002), thus accepting the H1. Regarding the H2, it has been interpreted that green HRM positively affects the green lifestyle, as the results were significant and positive (β = 0.159, t = 3.011, p = 0.003). So, H2 was supported. According to the statistical analysis, H3 had a positive impact on green organizational citizenship behavior (=0.193, t = 3.293, p = 0.001), supporting the relationship of H3. However, H4 findings show that a green lifestyle has a positive and significant indirect effect on the relationship between green HRM and green organizational citizenship behavior (=0.031, t = 2.184, p = 0.024).
Furthermore, the impact of moderation was analyzed in Hypotheses 5 and 6. H5 findings show that green innovation moderates the relationship between green HRM and green lifestyle insignificantly (=−0.080, t = 1.540, p = 0.124). Accordingly, H5 was not accepted. Lastly, H6 results indicate that green shared value positively and significantly moderates the relationship between green lifestyle and green organizational citizenship behavior (β = 0.101, t = 2.262, p = 0.024). Thus, H6 was also supported.
5. Discussion
The study’s goal is to examine the impact of green HRM on employee green organizational citizenship behavior, using a green lifestyle as a moderating variable and green innovation and green shared values as moderators. H1 states that green HRM practices significantly affect green organizational citizenship behavior. According to previous research, it has been stated that green organizational citizenship behavior has been proven to be a central goal for the sustainability of the environment [10]. If effective green HRM policies are implemented in the organization, it enhances the planet and the people, thus playing a significant role in the stability of environmental progress. Thus, these results show an alignment with the prior findings of studies on green HRM positively impact green organizational citizenship behavior [56].
H2 results indicate a significant positive relationship between green HRM and a green lifestyle. According to [14], green HRM has a pivotal function in an organization and plays a vital role in enabling and promoting green practices and functions in an organization. Furthermore, it has also been observed that employees’ green organizational citizenship behavior has a positive impact and makes them more inclined to develop and adopt a green lifestyle. H3 has been accepted, in which a positive impact of a green lifestyle has been observed on green organizational citizenship behavior. The results of previous studies show that if organizations have adopted a green lifestyle, it plays a vital role in implementing green HRM practices [15]. Indulging in a green lifestyle in the organization and building a positive green culture have been proven very effective and have shown significant outcomes in developing green organizational citizenship behavior among employees [55].
H4 findings show the mediation effect of a green lifestyle on green HRM practices and green organizational citizenship behavior. The results indicate that green HRM practices and green organizational citizenship behavior are positively mediated by green lifestyle. This finding is similar to prior research; the authors of [12] argued that green HRM helps employees complete their tasks more effectively. Thus, organizations are inclined to invest their resources, i.e., time and money, in building green lifestyles and cultures that further affect their employees’ green organizational citizenship behavior.
Furthermore, H5 results explain that green innovation has an insignificant moderating effect on the relationship between green HRM practices and green lifestyle. According to [19], to achieve competitive advantage and environmental success, it is essential to implement green product and process innovation. Green HRM practices and innovation have been observed to significantly boost the organization’s environmental performance while developing a green lifestyle culture. Additionally, H6 explains the positive and significant moderation effect of green shared values on green lifestyle and green organizational citizenship behavior. Organizations encourage and enhance a green lifestyle within and outside the organization, resulting in the progress of an environmentally friendly culture. The findings stated that internal factors such as green organizational citizenship behavior should be a focal point for organizations to improve green shared value, supporting the hypothesis with [62,73].
6. Implications, Limitations and Future Directions
Through green HRM practices and green organizational citizenship behavior, managers can potentially build an effective strategy to compete with their competitors. Green lifestyles have been observed to significantly promote green organizational citizenship behavior. Green HRM plays a crucial role in developing a green lifestyle; which opens the doors for HR practitioners to enhance and consider more green cultures and green values that will play a vital role in environmental protection. This study highlights the approach for policymakers to develop and implement green missions to promote and enhance green behaviors. A specific set of training and workshops can be conducted in the organization to increase individuals’ self-awareness toward green behaviors and practices. Organizations can also adopt and introduce job rotation among employees, in which the employees may be assigned different environmental or organizational tasks that thus help environmental initiatives.
This study has some limitations and future research directions. First, the nature of this study was cross-sectional, and data were collected from hotel employees all at once using a small sample size. Future research can be extended using longitudinal data and enhanced sample sizes to obtain more generalized results. Second, the research model and hypotheses have been studied under AMO theory. Future studies can be viewed from the perspective of resource conservation theory or expectancy theory. Third, this study employed a quantitative approach, with data gathered via a questionnaire survey. Future research can apply a qualitative research design for data collection, and interviews could be conducted between employees and top management. Fourth, information was gathered from employees of hotels in Zhenjiang, Jiangsu Province, China. Therefore, future research could extend the data collection from hotel employees in different provinces of China and compare their results to determine which hotel employees are more inclined towards eco-friendly practices.
7. Conclusions
Dealing with environmental issues is an imperative challenge for the business community. Consequently, to stay environmentally competitive, organizations are adopting a green lifestyle culture through green HRM practices. This study aimed to analyze the relationship between green HRM practices and green organizational citizenship behavior by the mediating role of a green lifestyle and moderating role of green innovation and shared values by using the lens of AMO theory. The study has employed smart PLS and structural equation modeling to test the model and analyze the results. It can be concluded that green HRM and green organizational citizenship behavior have positive and significant impacts, and play an essential role in enhancing the green lifestyle of their members. Green innovation has resulted in an insignificant effect, indicating that green HRM practices positively influence green innovation but are not significantly affecting the relationship between green HRM practices and green lifestyles. While green shared values have proved to be a significant moderator in enhancing green lifestyles and green organizational citizenship behavior among HR managers of hotels in China. As organizations face dynamic environmental challenges, this study will play a critical role in the long-term stability of existing HR strategies to gain a green competitive advantage.
Conceptualization, M.M., C.L. and J.M.; methodology and revision, J.M. and S.F.A.; software, A.B.; validation, M.M. and S.F.A.; formal analysis, M.M. and C.L.; investigation, A.B.; resources, S.F.A.; data curation, M.M., A.B. and S.F.A.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M. and C.L.; writing—review, revision, and editing, M.M., C.L. and C.L.; visualization, S.F.A.; supervision, J.M. and C.L.; project administration, J.M. and C.L.; funding acquisition, J.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the School of Management, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, China.
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Not applicable.
Postdoctoral Jiangsu University Talent Program.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Reliability and validity.
| Indicators | Loadings | Cronbach’s Alpha (CA) | Composite Reliability (CR) | Average Variance Extracted (AVE) | Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Green Human Resource Management Practices | 0.958 | 0.963 | 0.667 | ||
| GHRMP1 | 0.855 | 4.001 | |||
| GHRMP2 | 0.821 | 3.507 | |||
| GHRMP3 | 0.798 | 2.899 | |||
| GHRMP4 | 0.769 | 3.058 | |||
| GHRMP5 | 0.833 | 3.557 | |||
| GHRMP6 | 0.827 | 3.719 | |||
| GHRMP7 | 0.840 | 3.343 | |||
| GHRMP8 | 0.823 | 3.301 | |||
| GHRMP9 | 0.847 | 3.407 | |||
| GHRMP10 | 0.755 | 3.216 | |||
| GHRMP11 | 0.825 | 3.359 | |||
| GHRMP12 | 0.801 | 3.190 | |||
| GHRMP13 | 0.795 | 3.106 | |||
| Green Organizational Citizenship Behavior | 0.948 | 0.957 | 0.733 | ||
| GRENB1 | 0.833 | 2.597 | |||
| GRENB2 | 0.854 | 3.009 | |||
| GRENB3 | 0.854 | 3.217 | |||
| GRENB4 | 0.842 | 2.975 | |||
| GRENB5 | 0.859 | 3.139 | |||
| GRENB6 | 0.853 | 2.898 | |||
| GRENB7 | 0.872 | 3.144 | |||
| GRENB8 | 0.883 | 3.758 | |||
| Green Innovation | 0.907 | 0.935 | 0.782 | ||
| GRENI1 | 0.873 | 2.742 | |||
| GRENI2 | 0.923 | 3.795 | |||
| GRENI3 | 0.907 | 3.420 | |||
| GRENI4 | 0.833 | 2.302 | |||
| Green Lifestyle | 0.773 | 0.869 | 0.690 | ||
| GRENL1 | 0.887 | 2.238 | |||
| GRENL2 | 0.840 | 2.105 | |||
| GRENL3 | 0.759 | 1.297 | |||
| Green Shared Value | 0.906 | 0.934 | 0.780 | ||
| GRENV1 | 0.910 | 3.531 | |||
| GRENV2 | 0.879 | 2.752 | |||
| GRENV3 | 0.892 | 2.614 | |||
| GRENV4 | 0.851 | 2.252 |
Cross loadings.
| Indicators | GHRMP | GRENB | GRENI | GRENL | GRENV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GHRMP1 | 0.855 | 0.236 | 0.284 | 0.230 | 0.091 |
| GHRMP10 | 0.775 | 0.262 | 0.248 | 0.236 | 0.171 |
| GHRMP11 | 0.825 | 0.242 | 0.356 | 0.278 | 0.176 |
| GHRMP12 | 0.801 | 0.218 | 0.320 | 0.222 | 0.138 |
| GHRMP13 | 0.795 | 0.137 | 0.258 | 0.222 | 0.133 |
| GHRMP2 | 0.821 | 0.204 | 0.268 | 0.198 | 0.143 |
| GHRMP3 | 0.798 | 0.292 | 0.335 | 0.220 | 0.140 |
| GHRMP4 | 0.769 | 0.180 | 0.271 | 0.164 | 0.090 |
| GHRMP5 | 0.833 | 0.208 | 0.314 | 0.197 | 0.125 |
| GHRMP6 | 0.827 | 0.232 | 0.332 | 0.225 | 0.110 |
| GHRMP7 | 0.840 | 0.215 | 0.331 | 0.243 | 0.130 |
| GHRMP8 | 0.823 | 0.226 | 0.296 | 0.185 | 0.182 |
| GHRMP9 | 0.847 | 0.249 | 0.303 | 0.245 | 0.125 |
| GRENB1 | 0.253 | 0.833 | 0.228 | 0.239 | 0.225 |
| GRENB2 | 0.266 | 0.854 | 0.309 | 0.269 | 0.214 |
| GRENB3 | 0.212 | 0.854 | 0.313 | 0.222 | 0.191 |
| GRENB4 | 0.228 | 0.842 | 0.355 | 0.224 | 0.231 |
| GRENB5 | 0.220 | 0.859 | 0.288 | 0.184 | 0.200 |
| GRENB6 | 0.199 | 0.853 | 0.275 | 0.214 | 0.231 |
| GRENB7 | 0.286 | 0.872 | 0.284 | 0.212 | 0.271 |
| GRENB8 | 0.220 | 0.883 | 0.352 | 0.228 | 0.171 |
| GRENI1 | 0.315 | 0.269 | 0.873 | 0.274 | 0.101 |
| GRENI2 | 0.325 | 0.337 | 0.923 | 0.280 | 0.061 |
| GRENI3 | 0.358 | 0.334 | 0.907 | 0.249 | 0.137 |
| GRENI4 | 0.317 | 0.300 | 0.833 | 0.242 | 0.064 |
| GRENL1 | 0.250 | 0.242 | 0.262 | 0.887 | 0.041 |
| GRENL2 | 0.163 | 0.205 | 0.230 | 0.840 | 0.139 |
| GRENL3 | 0.257 | 0.204 | 0.242 | 0.759 | 0.065 |
| GRENV1 | 0.170 | 0.198 | 0.106 | 0.067 | 0.910 |
| GRENV2 | 0.116 | 0.211 | 0.116 | 0.106 | 0.879 |
| GRENV3 | 0.158 | 0.265 | 0.056 | 0.080 | 0.892 |
| GRENV4 | 0.143 | 0.217 | 0.093 | 0.079 | 0.851 |
Note: GHRMP = green human resource management practices; GRENB = green organizational citizenship behavior; GRENI = green innovation; GRENL = green lifestyle; GRENV = green shared value.
Discriminant validity (Fornell–Larcker criterion).
| Indicators | GHRMP | GRENB | GRENI | GRENL | GRENV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GHRMP | 0.817 | ||||
| GRENB | 0.278 | 0.856 | |||
| GRENI | 0.371 | 0.350 | 0.885 | ||
| GRENL | 0.273 | 0.263 | 0.296 | 0.831 | |
| GRENV | 0.167 | 0.256 | 0.102 | 0.094 | 0.883 |
Note: GHRMP = green human resource management practices; GRENB = green organizational citizenship behavior; GRENI = green innovation; GRENL = green lifestyle; GRENV = green shared value.
Heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT).
| Indicators | GHRMP | GRENB | GRENI | GRENL | GRENV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GHRMP | |||||
| GRENB | 0.284 | ||||
| GRENI | 0.397 | 0.379 | |||
| GRENL | 0.309 | 0.304 | 0.351 | ||
| GRENV | 0.177 | 0.270 | 0.116 | 0.118 |
Note: GHRMP = green human resource management practices; GRENB = green organizational citizenship behavior; GRENI = green innovation; GRENL = green lifestyle; GRENV = green shared value.
Hypotheses.
| Hypothesis | Relationships | β | T | p | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct Effects | |||||
| H1 | GHRMP -> GRENB | 0.192 | 3.078 | 0.002 | Accepted |
| H2 | GHRMP -> GRENL | 0.159 | 3.011 | 0.003 | Accepted |
| H3 | GRENL -> GRENB | 0.193 | 3.293 | 0.001 | Accepted |
| Indirect Effect | |||||
| H4 | GHRMP -> GRENL -> GRENB | 0.031 | 2.184 | 0.029 | Accepted |
| Moderating Effects | |||||
| H5 | GRENI × GHRMP -> GRENL | −0.084 | 1.540 | 0.124 | Rejected |
| H6 | GRENV × GRENL -> GRENB | 0.101 | 2.262 | 0.024 | Accepted |
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at:
References
1. McMichael, A.J.; Powles, J.W.; Butler, C.D.; Uauy, R. Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health. Lancet; 2007; 370, pp. 1253-1263. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61256-2] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17868818]
2. Elmagrhi, M.H.; Ntim, C.G.; Elamer, A.A.; Zhang, Q. A study of environmental policies and regulations, governance structures, and environmental performance: The role of female directors. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2019; 28, pp. 206-220. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.2250]
3. Moktadir, M.A.; Ali, S.M.; Kusi-Sarpong, S.; Shaikh, M.A.A. Assessing challenges for implementing Industry 4.0: Implications for process safety and environmental protection. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot.; 2018; 117, pp. 730-741. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2018.04.020]
4. Islam, M.A.; Jantan, A.H.; Yusoff, Y.M.; Chong, C.W.; Hossain, M.S. Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) Practices and Millennial Employees’ Turnover Intentions in Tourism Industry in Malaysia: Moderating Role of Work Environment. Glob. Bus. Rev.; 2020; 0972150920907000. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0972150920907000]
5. Rawashdeh, A.M. The impact of green human resource management on organizational environmental performance in Jordanian health service organizations. Manag. Sci. Lett.; 2018; 8, pp. 1049-1058. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2018.7.006]
6. Yusoff, Y.M.; Nejati, M.; Kee, D.M.H.; Amran, A. Linking Green Human Resource Management Practices to Environmental Performance in Hotel Industry. Glob. Bus. Rev.; 2020; 21, pp. 663-680. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0972150918779294]
7. Ren, S.; Tang, G.; E Jackson, S. Green human resource management research in emergence: A review and future directions. Asia Pac. J. Manag.; 2018; 35, pp. 769-803. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10490-017-9532-1]
8. Pham, N.T.; Tučková, Z.; Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J. Greening the hospitality industry: How do green human resource management practices influence organizational citizenship behavior in hotels? A mixed-methods study. Tour. Manag.; 2019; 72, pp. 386-399. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.12.008]
9. Shafaei, A.; Nejati, M.; Mohd Yusoff, Y. Green human resource management: A two-study investigation of antecedents and outcomes. Int. J. Manpow.; 2020; 41, pp. 1041-1060. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJM-08-2019-0406]
10. Hooi, L.W.; Liu, M.S.; Lin, J.J.J. Green human resource management and green organizational citizenship behavior: Do green culture and green values matter?. Int. J. Manpow.; 2022; 43, pp. 763-785. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJM-05-2020-0247]
11. Moin, M.F.; Omar, M.K.; Wei, F.; Rasheed, M.I.; Hameed, Z. Green HRM and psychological safety: How transformational leadership drives follower’s job satisfaction. Curr. Issues Tour.; 2020; 24, pp. 2269-2277. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1829569]
12. Mousa, S.K.; Othman, M. The impact of green human resource management practices on sustainable performance in healthcare organisations: A conceptual framework. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 243, 118595. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118595]
13. Mi, L.; Gan, X.; Xu, T.; Long, R.; Qiao, L.; Zhu, H. A new perspective to promote organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment: The role of transformational leadership. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 239, 118002. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118002]
14. Genoveva, G.; Syahrivar, J. Green Lifestyle among Indonesian Millennials: A Comparative Study between Asia and Europe. J. Environ. Account. Manag.; 2020; 8, pp. 397-413. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5890/JEAM.2020.12.007]
15. Chuah, S.-C.; Mohd, I.H.; Kamaruddin,; Binti, J.N.; Noh, M.N. Impact of Green Human Resource Management Practices Towards Green Lifestyle and Job Performance. Glob. Bus. Manag. Res.; 2021; 13, pp. 13-23.
16. Afsar, B.; Maqsoom, A.; Shahjehan, A.; Afridi, S.A.; Nawaz, A.; Fazliani, H. Responsible leadership and employee’s proenvironmental behavior: The role of organizational commitment, green shared vision, and internal environmental locus of control. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.; 2020; 27, pp. 297-312. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.1806]
17. Moktadir, M.A.; Dwivedi, A.; Ali, S.M.; Paul, S.K.; Kabir, G.; Madaan, J. Antecedents for greening the workforce: Implications for green human resource management. Int. J. Manpow.; 2020; 41, pp. 1135-1153. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJM-07-2019-0354]
18. Bombiak, E. Green human resource management- the latest trend or strategic necessity?. Entrep. Sustain. Issues; 2019; 6, pp. 1647-1662. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2019.6.4(7)]
19. Singh, S.K.; Del Giudice, M.; Chierici, R.; Graziano, D. Green innovation and environmental performance: The role of green transformational leadership and green human resource management. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.; 2020; 150, 119762. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119762]
20. Chen, Y.S.; Lai, S.B.; Wen, C.T. The influence of green innovation performance on corporate advantage in Taiwan. J. Bus. Ethics; 2006; 67, pp. 331-339. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9025-5]
21. Hsiao, T.Y.; Chuang, C.M. Creating Shared Value Through Implementing Green Practices for Star Hotels. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res.; 2015; 21, pp. 678-696. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2015.1068194]
22. Iftikar, T.; Hussain, S.; Malik, M.I.; Hyder, S.; Kaleem, M.; Saqib, A. Green human resource management and pro-environmental behaviour nexus with the lens of AMO theory. Cogent Bus. Manag.; 2022; 9, 2124603. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2124603]
23. Khatoon, A.; Khan, N.A.; Bharadwaj, S.; Parvin, F. Green human resource management: A transformational vision towards environmental sustainability. Int. J. Bus. Environ.; 2021; 12, pp. 207-226. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJBE.2021.116590]
24. Renwick, D.W.S.; Redman, T.; Maguire, S. Green Human Resource Management: A Review and Research Agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev.; 2013; 15, pp. 1-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00328.x]
25. Saeed, B.B.; Afsar, B.; Hafeez, S.; Khan, I.; Tahir, M.; Afridi, M.A. Promoting employee’s proenvironmental behavior through green human resource management practices. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.; 2019; 26, pp. 424-438. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.1694]
26. Yu, W.; Chavez, R.; Feng, M.; Wong, C.Y.; Fynes, B. Green human resource management and environmental cooperation: An ability-motivation-opportunity and contingency perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2020; 219, pp. 224-235. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.06.013]
27. Saeed, A.; Rasheed, F.; Waseem, M.; Tabash, M.I. Green human resource management and environmental performance: The role of green supply chain management practices. Benchmarking Int. J.; 2021; 29, pp. 2881-2899. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-05-2021-0297]
28. Kim, K.Y.; Pathak, S.; Werner, S. When do international human capital enhancing practices benefit the bottom line? An ability, motivation, and opportunity perspective. J. Int. Bus. Stud.; 2015; 46, pp. 784-805. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2015.10]
29. Rizvi, Y.S.; Garg, R. The simultaneous effect of green ability-motivation-opportunity and transformational leadership in environment management: The mediating role of green culture. Benchmarking; 2021; 28, pp. 830-856. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-08-2020-0400]
30. Sterling, A.; Boxall, P. Lean production, employee learning and workplace outcomes: A case analysis through the ability-motivation-opportunity framework. Hum. Resour. Manag. J.; 2013; 23, pp. 227-240. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12010]
31. Darvishmotevali, M.; Altinay, L. Green HRM, environmental awareness and green behaviors: The moderating role of servant leadership. Tour. Manag.; 2022; 88, 104401. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104401]
32. Yong, J.Y.; Yusliza, M.Y.; Ramayah, T.; Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J.; Sehnem, S.; Mani, V. Pathways towards sustainability in manufacturing organizations: Empirical evidence on the role of green human resource management. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2020; 29, pp. 212-228. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.2359]
33. Hameed, Z.; Khan, I.U.; Islam, T.; Sheikh, Z.; Naeem, R.M. Do green HRM practices influence employees’ environmental performance?. Int. J. Manpow.; 2020; 41, pp. 1061-1079. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJM-08-2019-0407]
34. Paulet, R.; Holland, P.; Morgan, D. A meta-review of 10 years of green human resource management: Is Green HRM headed towards a roadblock or a revitalisation?. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour.; 2021; 59, pp. 159-183. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12285]
35. Caliskan, A.O.; Esen, E. Green human resource management and environmental sustainability. Int. J. Acad. Multidiscip. Res.; 2019; 9, pp. 58-60. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17261/pressacademia.2019.1065]
36. Guerci, M.; Longoni, A.; Luzzini, D. Translating stakeholder pressures into environmental performance—The mediating role of green HRM practices. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag.; 2016; 27, pp. 262-289. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1065431]
37. Ojo, A.O.; Tan, C.N.L.; Alias, M. Linking green HRM practices to environmental performance through pro-environment behaviour in the information technology sector. Soc. Responsib. J.; 2022; 18, pp. 1-18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-12-2019-0403]
38. Han, H.; Hyun, S.S. Green indoor and outdoor environment as nature-based solution and its role in increasing customer/employee mental health, well-being, and loyalty. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2019; 28, pp. 629-641. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.2269]
39. Pinzone, M.; Guerci, M.; Lettieri, E.; Huisingh, D. Effects of ‘green’ training on pro-environmental behaviors and job satisfaction: Evidence from the Italian healthcare sector. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 226, pp. 221-232. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.048]
40. Mohammad Ashraful, A.; Niu, X.; Rounok, N. Effect of green human resource management (GHRM) overall on organization’s environmental performance. Int. J. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. (2147–4478); 2021; 10, pp. 99-116. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v10i4.1230]
41. Paillé, P.; Boiral, O.; Chen, Y. Linking environmental management practices and organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment: A social exchange perspective. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag.; 2013; 24, pp. 3552-3575. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.777934]
42. Haddad, M. How Are Green Human Resource Management Practices Promoting Employees’ Pro-Environmental Behaviour in the Workplace Within the New Zealand Wine Industry?. Doctoral dissertation; Auckland University of Technology: Auckland, New Zealand, 2019.
43. Akhtar, S.; Khan, K.U.; Atlas, F.; Irfan, M. Stimulating student’s pro-environmental behavior in higher education institutions: An ability–motivation–opportunity perspective. Environ. Dev. Sustain.; 2021; 24, pp. 4128-4149. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01609-4]
44. Aboramadan, M.; Karatepe, O.M. Green human resource management, perceived green organizational support and their effects on hotel employees’ behavioral outcomes. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag.; 2021; 33, pp. 3199-3222. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-12-2020-1440]
45. Zhang, Y.; Luo, Y.; Zhang, X.; Zhao, J. How green human resource management can promote green employee behavior in China: A technology acceptance model perspective. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 5408. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11195408]
46. Amrutha, V.N.; Geetha, S.N. A systematic review on green human resource management: Implications for social sustainability. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 247, 119131. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119131]
47. Pinzone, M.; Guerci, M.; Lettieri, E.; Redman, T. Progressing in the change journey towards sustainability in healthcare: The role of “Green” HRM. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 122, pp. 201-211. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.031]
48. Gilal, F.G.; Ashraf, Z.; Gilal, N.G.; Gilal, R.G.; Channa, N.A. Promoting environmental performance through green human resource management practices in higher education institutions: A moderated mediation model. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.; 2019; 26, pp. 1579-1590. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.1835]
49. Luu, T.T. Integrating green strategy and green human resource practices to trigger individual and organizational green performance: The role of environmentally-specific servant leadership. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2020; 28, pp. 1193-1222. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1729165]
50. Emilisa, N.; Michelle,; Lunarindiah, G. Concequences of Green Human Resource Management: Perspective of Professional Event Organizer Employees in Jakarta. Rev. Integr. Bus. Econ. Res.; 2020; 9, pp. 361-372.
51. Jackson, S.E.; Renwick, D.W.S.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Muller-Camen, M. State-of-the-art and future directions for green human resource management. Ger. J. Res. Hum. Resour. Manag.; 2011; 25, pp. 99-116. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1688/1862-0000]
52. Tuan, L.T. Disentangling green service innovative behavior among hospitality employees: The role of customer green involvement. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.; 2021; 99, 103045. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.103045]
53. Shahzad, F.; Du, J.; Khan, I.; Shahbaz, M.; Murad, M. Untangling the influence of organizational compatibility on green supply chain management efforts to boost organizational performance through information technology capabilities. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 266, 122029. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122029]
54. Luu, T.T. Green human resource practices and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: The roles of collective green crafting and environmentally specific servant leadership. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2019; 27, pp. 1167-1196. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1601731]
55. Malik, S.Y.; Mughal, Y.H.; Azam, T.; Cao, Y.; Wan, Z.; Zhu, H.; Thurasamy, R. Corporate Social Responsibility, Green Human Resources Management, and Sustainable Performance: Is Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Environment the Missing Link?. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 1044. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13031044]
56. Liu, Z.; Mei, S.; Guo, Y. Green human resource management, green organization identity and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: The moderating effect of environmental values. Chin. Manag. Stud.; 2021; 15, pp. 290-304. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CMS-10-2019-0366]
57. Rodrigo, P.; Aqueveque, C.; Duran, I.J. Do employees value strategic CSR? A tale of affective organizational commitment and its underlying mechanisms. Bus. Ethics A Eur. Rev.; 2019; 28, pp. 459-475. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/beer.12227]
58. Zhao, H.; Zhou, Q. Exploring the Impact of Responsible Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behavior for the Environment: A Leadership Identity Perspective. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 944. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11040944]
59. Florenthal, B.; Arling, P. Do Green Lifestyle Consumers Appreciate Low Involvement Green Products?. Mark. Manag. J.; 2011; 21, 35.
60. Anwar, N.; Nik Mahmood, N.H.; Yusliza, M.Y.; Ramayah, T.; Noor Faezah, J.; Khalid, W. Green Human Resource Management for organisational citizenship behaviour towards the environment and environmental performance on a university campus. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 256, 120401. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120401]
61. Al Aina, R.; Atan, T. The impact of implementing talent management practices on sustainable organizational performance. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 8372. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12208372]
62. Chen, Y.S.; Chang, C.H.; Lin, Y.H. The determinants of green radical and incremental innovation performance: Green shared vision, green absorptive capacity, and green organizational ambidexterity. Sustainability; 2014; 6, pp. 7787-7806. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su6117787]
63. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. J. Appl. Psychol.; 2003; 88, pp. 879-903. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14516251]
64. Hair, J.F.; Sarstedt, M.; Hopkins, L.; Kuppelwieser, V.G. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. Eur. Bus. Rev.; 2014; 26, pp. 106-121. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128]
65. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Rigorous Applications, Better Results and Higher Acceptance. Long Range Plan.; 2013; 46, pp. 1-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2013.01.001]
66. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract.; 2014; 19, pp. 139-152. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202]
67. Henseler, J.; Fassott, G. Testing Moderating Effects in PLS Path Models: An Illustration of Available Procedures. Handbook of Partial Least Squares; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 713-735. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8_31]
68. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci.; 2015; 43, pp. 115-135. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8]
69. Aiken, L.S.; West, S.G. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions—Google Books; Aiken, L.S.; West, S.G.; Reno, R.R. Sage: New York, NY, USA, 1991.
70. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev.; 2019; 31, pp. 2-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203]
71. Hair, J.F.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Mena, J.A. An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J. Acad. Mark. Sci.; 2012; 40, pp. 414-433. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6]
72. Chinn, W.W. The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modelling. Mod. Methods Bus. Res.; 1998; 295, pp. 295-336.
73. Chang, T.W. Corporate sustainable development strategy: Effect of green shared vision on organization members’ behavior. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2020; 17, 2446. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072446]
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Cai, Li 2 ; Bakhtawar, Ayesha 3
; Sheikh Farhan Ashraf 2
1 School of Management, Langfang Normal University, Langfang 065000, China
2 School of Management, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang 212013, China
3 Department of Business Administration, NUML University of Modern Languages, Islamabad 60000, Pakistan