Impact of Green HRM and Green Participative Leadership on Environmental Performance: The Role of Green Job Embeddedness and Pro-environmental Behaviour

Impact of Green HRM and Green Participative Leadership on Environmental Performance: The Role of Green Job Embeddedness and Pro-environmental Behaviour | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Impact of Green HRM and Green Participative Leadership on Environmental Performance: The Role of Green Job Embeddedness and Pro-environmental Behaviour Muhammad Rafiq, Ding Weichao This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6742874/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study aims to investigate how green human resource management (Green HRM) and green participative leadership influence environmental performance through the mediating role of green job embeddedness. Additionally, it examines the moderating role of pro-environmental behaviour on the relationship between Green HRM, green participative leadership, and green job embeddedness. A structured questionnaire was to collect data from employees in manufacturing organizations across Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou. SmartPLS 4.0 was utilized to analyse the data and test the proposed direct, mediating, and moderating hypotheses. The results indicate that both Green HRM and green participative leadership have significant positive effects on environmental performance, with green job embeddedness playing a partial mediating role. Furthermore, pro-environmental behaviour significantly moderates the relationship between Green HRM, green participative leadership, and green job embeddedness. The findings provide practical insights for manufacturing organizations to foster environmental performance through strategic HRM practices and participative leadership styles. Organizations are encouraged to promote pro-environmental behaviour among employees to strengthen green job embeddedness and sustainability outcomes. This study extends the emerging research on green job embeddedness, introducing it as a critical mechanism linking leadership and HRM practices to environmental outcomes. It also contributes by investigating the relatively unexplored role of green participative leadership within the sustainability and HRM domain. Business and commerce/Business and management Social science/Business and management Social science/Environmental studies Green HRM Green participative leadership Green job embeddedness Pro environmental behaviour Environmental performance Introduction As environmental challenges intensify globally, organizations are under increasing pressure to align their operations with sustainable development goals (Jan, Salameh, Rahman, & Alasiri, 2024 ). In the manufacturing sector, where resource-intensive operations prevail, adopting green practices has become not only a regulatory requirement but a competitive necessity (Hoogendoorn, Guerra, & Van Der Zwan, 2015 ). Research in green management has emphasized external drivers such as regulations and customer expectations but has paid comparatively less attention to internal enablers (Ghosh, 2019 ). Internal organizational elements, particularly human resource practices and leadership approaches, are pivotal in embedding sustainability into daily operations (Dirani et al., 2020 ). Green human resource management (Green HRM) practices are designed to align employee behaviours with environmental objectives, but their full potential remains underexplored (Amrutha & Geetha, 2020 ). In the same way, leadership styles that encourage participation and collaboration in green initiatives can significantly influence organizational environmental outcomes (Ahmad, Ullah, & Khan, 2022 ). Yet empirical studies directly connecting green participative leadership behaviours with environmental performance are scarce (Lili & Rafiq, 2025 ). The limited evidence suggests a pressing need to explore how green participative leadership and HRM practices together drive environmental success. Therefore, this study specifically focuses on examining the roles of Green HRM and green participative leadership in enhancing environmental performance within manufacturing settings. By targeting these internal mechanisms, the study aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of sustainability integration at the organizational level. While leadership and HR practices form the structural backbone of organizational sustainability, employee attachment to green values offers a psychological anchor crucial for long-term success (Manuti & Giancaspro, 2019 ). The theory of job embeddedness, initially developed by Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, and Erez ( 2001 ) and later operationalized by Crossley, Bennett, Jex, and Burnfield ( 2007b ), explains why employees stay committed to organizations. However, the original construct focuses on general retention factors like community links, fit, and sacrifice, without integrating sustainability-related motivations (Setthakorn, Rostiani, & Schreier, 2024 ). In today context, where green missions are becoming core organizational values, it is essential to expand the embeddedness concept to capture environmental alignment. To fill this gap, this study introduces green job embeddedness by adapting the established seven-item scale from Crossley et al. ( 2007b ) into a sustainability framework. Green job embeddedness reflects an employee's deep psychological connection to the organization’s environmental goals and initiatives. This adaptation maintains theoretical rigor while offering contemporary relevance by incorporating environmental commitment as a core attachment driver. By positioning green job embeddedness as a mediating mechanism, the study proposes that employees embedded in green values are more likely to translate leadership and HRM initiatives into environmental performance. Hence, the introduction of green job embeddedness provides a novel until now theoretically grounded advancement to the sustainability and HRM literature. In addition to organization structures and personal attachment, employee behaviours are regarded as less being significant to organizations advancing an environmental agenda (Scott & Myers, 2010 ). The construct of pro-environmental behaviour, which is defined as voluntary behaviours used to help reduce the environmental harm (Rafiq & Xiuqing, 2025 ), has become a major focus in the study of environmental sustainability. Still, past scholarship has largely treated pro-environmental behaviour as an consequence of green initiatives rather than a dynamic enabler or moderator (Carfora, Caso, Sparks, & Conner, 2017 ). In reality, employees with stronger pro-environmental tendencies may respond more positively to green HRM practices and participative leadership, enhancing their embeddedness. This behavioural reinforcement can amplify the impact of organizational strategies on environmental outcomes, especially in manufacturing sectors where operational engagement is key. Therefore, this study conceptualizes pro-environmental behaviour not merely as an outcome but as a moderating factor strengthening the links between green practices and employee embeddedness. By considering pro-environmental behaviour as a moderator, the model acknowledges the active role of employee agency in sustainability integration. This way provides a richer and behaviourally nuanced understanding of how green initiatives translate into environmental performance. Consequently, integrating pro-environmental behaviour as a moderator contributes to bridging theoretical gaps and enhancing the practical relevance of green management strategies. This study makes several key contributions to the green management and organizational behaviour literature. First, it introduces the construct of green job embeddedness by adapting the traditional job embeddedness framework of Mitchell et al. ( 2001 ) and Crossley et al. (2007) to an environmental context. Green job embeddedness highlights how employees’ psychological attachment to their organization can be driven by shared environmental values and sustainability initiatives. Second, the study expands leadership research by examining green participative leadership, a concept recently introduced by Lili and Rafiq ( 2025 ). Unlike prior work focusing mainly on pro-environmental behaviours, this study investigates the direct relationship between green participative leadership, and environmental performance. Third, it conceptualizes pro-environmental behaviour not merely as an outcome but as a moderating factor that strengthens the influence of green HRM and leadership practices. Fourth, the theoretical framework combines social exchange theory for direct relationships and conservation of resources theory for explaining mediation and moderation mechanisms. This dual-theory approach enriches the theoretical rigor and provides a comprehensive understanding of the processes linking leadership, HR practices, employee embeddedness, and sustainability outcomes. It contributes to practical implications to improve environmental performance through employee-centred green activities in manufacturing enterprises. Theoretical framework and hypotheses development Social exchange theory and conservation of resource theory Blau ( 1964 ) developed the social exchange theory, which highlights the importance of mutual relationships between people and organization in modulating individual and organizational behaviour. The core idea of social exchange theory is that social interactions are governed by the expectation of mutual benefits and trust over time (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005 ). In organizational life, employees respond positively to supportive environments, reinforcing the organization through discretionary efforts (Frenkel & Bednall, 2016 ). When firms prioritize environmental sustainability through HR practices and leadership behaviours, employees interpret these as valuable investments in their well-being. This perceived support cultivates an obligation to reciprocate, often leading to enhanced engagement in organizational sustainability goals. This is especially the case for manufacturing, where there is a strong environmental cause, aspiring to create open markets for such exchanges to lead to meaningful, measurable environmental results. Staff members who are exposed to green HRM practices and participative leadership may perceive a moral and professional obligation to support in green outcomes. These internal dynamics rooted in social exchange help explain how organizational actions translate into employee-driven environmental behaviours. Understanding employee reciprocation mechanisms provides a strong foundation for linking leadership, HRM strategies, and sustainability performance. The notion of reciprocity embedded in social exchange theory helps clarify why employees internalize environmental values when nurtured through green HRM and leadership support. Leaders who foster open dialogue and include employees in green initiatives encourage a stronger identification with organizational environmental missions (Rafiq, Cham, Tapsir, Mansoor, & Farrukh, 2024 ). Meanwhile, structured green HRM practices offer tangible signs of the organization's commitment, strengthening employees' psychological bonds (Abbas, Sarwar, Rehman, Zámečník, & Shoaib, 2022 ). Such supportive climates reinforce job embeddedness, as employees see their values and career paths closely aligned with the organization's green vision (Dumont, Shen, & Deng, 2017 ). In return, employees are motivated to engage voluntarily in actions that promote environmental performance, beyond formal job requirements. This dynamic interplay between leadership, HRM, and employee attitudes fits naturally within the reciprocal framework described by social exchange theory. Therefore, employee perceptions of fairness, trust, and care become critical pathways linking organizational practices to environmental improvements. Green HRM and participative leadership act not just as operational tools, but as catalysts for building social capital oriented toward sustainability. Social exchange theory thus elegantly frames the way internal strategies can trigger broader pro-environmental behaviours in organizations. Hobfoll ( 1989 ) presented the theory of conservation of resource, which highlights human motivation to gain and preserve resources that are valuable. Resources are broadly categorized as not only physical resources, but also psychological resources, identities, and situational resources (Demerouti, 2025 ). In environments rich with opportunity and support, individuals tend to invest more effort to maintain and enhance these resource pools (Spanouli & Hofmans, 2021 ). Organizational practices that prioritize green values, such as participative leadership and HRM interventions, create resource-rich climates for employees. These green-oriented practices can reinforce employees’ sense of security, purpose, and competence, key components of personal resource reservoirs. Within such environments, employees embedded in green values find greater meaning and attachment, fuelling consistent engagement with sustainability efforts. Accordingly, conservation of resource theory provides critical insights into how resource-supported organizational climates promote sustained environmental contributions. Employees are not just reacting to directives; they are actively investing and expanding their psychological and social resources around environmental goals. This perception contributes to a better understanding of the mechanisms through which ingrained employee behaviours lead to environmentally performance over time. Resource-driven perspectives provide powerful insights into how employees interact with green organizational practices (Khanra, Kaur, Joseph, Malik, & Dhir, 2022 ). When green HRM and participative leadership behaviours are perceived as enablers of personal growth, employees are likely to show deeper embeddedness in the organization's sustainability efforts. The accumulation of psychological resources, such as pride in environmental contributions and confidence in green skills, fuels ongoing employee engagement. Those with stronger pro-environmental values magnify these effects by proactively conserving and enhancing organizational resources. Rather than simply responding to organizational mandates, such employees become drivers of innovation and resilience within green systems. The reinforcing cycle between resource gains and environmental engagement strengthens both employee commitment and organizational sustainability outcomes. Consequently, applying conservation of resource theory to this framework highlights how internal resource conservation and growth mechanisms underpin long-term environmental performance. This perspective enriches the study by offering a nuanced understanding of how sustainability practices translate into durable organizational success. Green HRM, green participative leadership, and environmental performance Organizations increasingly recognize that embedding sustainability within human resource management practices can drive significant improvements in environmental performance (Tahir, Umer, Nauman, Abbass, & Song, 2024 ). Green HRM strategies, including green training, eco-friendly performance appraisals, and environmental reward systems, align employee behaviours with broader sustainability goals (Chang, Chiang, Hu, & Hughes, 2024 ). By systematically incorporating environmental criteria into HR functions, organizations reinforce green norms and foster a culture of sustainability (Ehnert, Harry, & Zink, 2013 ). Such practices enhance employees' environmental awareness (Darvishmotevali & Altinay, 2022 ), commitment (Ren, Jiang, & Tang, 2022 ), and responsibility (Malik et al., 2021 ), translating into operational efficiencies and reduced ecological footprints. Moreover, green HRM initiatives encourage proactive engagement, motivating employees to go beyond compliance and actively innovate in sustainable practices (Diaz-Carrion, López‐Fernández, & Romero‐Fernandez, 2018 ). Research in manufacturing sectors shows that firms investing in green HRM consistently outperform others in environmental indicators such as waste reduction and energy conservation So, green HRM not only cultivates internal environmental capabilities but also provides a strategic pathway for achieving superior environmental performance. Given this evidence, it is logical to propose that green HRM practices are positively related to environmental performance in manufacturing organizations. On the other hand, research show that leadership styles play a pivotal role in shaping employee behaviours and organizational outcomes, especially in the context of sustainability (Suriyankietkaew, Krittayaruangroj, & Iamsawan, 2022 ). Green participative leadership, characterized by involving employees in environmental decision-making and encouraging shared ownership, remains an emerging but promising construct (Lili & Rafiq, 2025 ). Lili and Rafiq ( 2025 ) research have focused on green participative leadership effect on pro-environmental behaviour, its influence on broader organizational performance metrics like environmental outcomes remains underexplored. Participative leadership styles foster a sense of psychological empowerment among employees (Huang, Shi, Zhang, & Cheung, 2006), enabling greater creativity and commitment to sustainability initiatives. By inviting employees into environmental conversations, green participative leadership builds collective responsibility for environmental goals and enhances the likelihood of successful implementation. In manufacturing industries, where operational complexities require coordinated environmental efforts, participative leadership becomes especially critical. Employees who feel valued and included in green strategies are more likely to align their efforts with the organization's environmental objectives, leading to stronger performance outcomes (Tahir et al., 2024 ). Based on these arguments, it is proposed that green participative leadership is positively associated with environmental performance in manufacturing organizations. Furthermore the relationship between green participative leadership, green HRM and environmental performance can be elucidated via social exchange theory (Blau, 1964 ). According to Rani and Mishra ( 2014 ), when organizations invest in green HRM practices and adopt green participative leadership approaches, employees perceive these actions as meaningful demonstrations of support and trust. Based on social exchange theory, employees reciprocate favourable treatment by engaging in behaviours that advance organizational goals (Blau, 1964 ). Green HRM practices provides structural and policy-driven support for sustainability, while green participative leadership offers relational and emotional reinforcement. Together, they create a synergistic environment where employees feel both empowered and obligated to contribute toward achieving environmental performance. Such reciprocal exchanges foster not only commitment to organizations values but also proactive behaviours aimed at enhancing environmental performance. The alignment of HRM systems and leadership behaviours thus strengthens employees' motivation to innovate, conserve resources, and minimize environmental impact. Social exchange theory thereby offers a robust framework for understanding. Hypothesis 1 Green HRM is significantly and positively related to environmental performance. Hypothesis 2 Green participative leadership is significantly and positively related to environmental performance. Green HRM, green participative leadership, and green job embeddedness The concept of job embeddedness has been pivotal in explaining employee retention and organizational attachment since its introduction by Mitchell et al. ( 2001 ). Succeeding research expanded the framework by highlighting the influence of organizational practices, particularly human resource strategies, on enhancing employee embeddedness (Crossley et al., 2007b ). Green HRM practices, focused on aligning employees with environmental values, create a supportive context that strengthens employees’ emotional and cognitive bonds with the organization (Dumont et al., 2017 ). They further argued that employees who perceive alignment between their personal environmental values and organizational initiatives are more likely to develop deeper psychological attachment. Green training, eco-friendly rewards, and sustainability-focused career development opportunities nurture a sense of belonging and shared mission among employees (Paillé & Valéau, 2021 ). Similarly, leadership behaviours that involve employees in environmental decision-making reinforce employees’ identification with organizational green initiatives (Yan & Rafiq, 2025 ). The integration of employees in the development of environment strategies makes it more personally relevant for them to become environmentally committed and, hence, embedded in the company. These findings indicate that green HRM and green participative leadership have a positive impact on employees’ attachment by encouraging identification with ecologically oriented values. The social exchange theory (Blau, 1964 ) provides a theoretical justification to link the green HRM, participative leadership with the green job embeddedness. The social exchange theory posits that when organizations demonstrate care and investment in employees' values and well-being, employees reciprocate by deepening their organizational attachment. Green HRM initiatives, perceived as organizational support for sustainability values, encourage employees to embed themselves within the organization’s green mission (Luu, 2018 ). Participative leadership, by fostering mutual respect and inclusion, strengthens trust and reinforces the sense of belonging among employees (Chen, Wadei, Bai, & Liu, 2020 ). Employees internalize organizational support as a relational obligation, motivating them to sustain long-term relationships with the organization. Green-focused HRM policies and leadership behaviours act as positive signals, validating employees’ environmental identities and enhancing their embeddedness. Through the lens of social exchange theory, it becomes evident that reciprocal exchanges driven by sustainability initiatives foster stronger psychological ties between employees and the organization. Accordingly, the theoretical logic supports that both green HRM and participative leadership are positively related to green job embeddedness. Hypothesis 3 Green HRM is significantly and positively related to green job embeddedness. Hypothesis 4 Green participative leadership is significantly and positively related to green job embeddedness. Green job embeddedness and environmental performance Employee attachment to organizational values and missions has long been associated with enhanced performance across multiple domains (Johnson & Jackson, 2009 ). Scholars have demonstrated that employees who feel a strong psychological connection with their organization tend to invest greater discretionary effort toward achieving organizational goals (Kundi, Aboramadan, Elhamalawi, & Shahid, 2021 ). In sustainability contexts, such attachments are critical, as employees aligned with green missions are more likely to support eco-friendly initiatives and operational practices. Although traditional job embeddedness research primarily focused on turnover reduction, recent shifts in HRM scholarship recognize embeddedness as a driver of positive work behaviours (Wu, Rafiq, & Chin, 2017 ). When employees internalize environmental values through their organizational attachment, they are more willing to advocate, innovate, and act in ways that promote environmental goals (Yasir, Babar, Mehmood, Xie, & Guo, 2023 ). Green job embeddedness captures this evolving dynamic, linking psychological commitment not only to retention but to active environmental contribution. Employees deeply embedded in green-oriented organizations are likely to embrace initiatives such as waste minimization, energy conservation, and resource optimization. Building on insights from employee engagement and sustainability behaviour research, it is plausible that green job embeddedness enhances environmental performance outcomes. Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964 ) offers a compelling foundation for understanding how green job embeddedness translates into environmental performance. According to the Ogiemwonyi and Jan ( 2023 ) employees perceive that their organization shares and supports their environmental values, they experience a sense of indebtedness and moral obligation. This psychological obligation fosters behaviours aimed at reciprocating the organization investment in environmental stewardship. Employees embedded through shared sustainability values view environmental contribution not as an obligation but as a reciprocal gesture within the social exchange dynamic. Such reciprocal relationships encourage employees to initiate, support, and sustain green initiatives without external pressure. Through the lens of social exchange theory, embedded employees invest their time, creativity, and energy into environmental practices, reinforcing the organization’s green objectives. This voluntary engagement strengthens organizational sustainability strategies and directly contributes to measurable environmental performance improvements. Social exchange theory effectively captures the motivational pathways linking green job embeddedness to enhanced environmental outcomes. Hypothesis 5 Green job embeddedness is significantly and positively related to environmental performance. Mediating role of green job embeddedness Previous research has ascertained that employee psychological process is a significant linking factor between an organizational practice and performance outcomes (Kundi et al., 2021 ). According to the Din, Yang, and Zhang ( 2025 ) research findings the employee engagement and sustainability highlights that strong emotional attachment amplifies the effectiveness of green organizational strategies. Green HRM practices create a context where employees feel deeply connected to the organization's environmental mission, enhancing the likelihood of behavioural alignment (Chang et al., 2024 ). Similarly, participative leadership fosters a collaborative environment that reinforces employees’ sense of ownership and commitment toward sustainability initiatives (Lili & Rafiq, 2025 ). Green job embeddedness is a critical mediator, which explains how workers’ environmental linkages pull organizational initiatives through to substantive results. Individuals with higher embeddedness in green schemes are also more likely to behave congruently with organizational green goals. Both green HRM and participative leadership increase the likelihood of achieving superior environmental performance by increased embedded in their green jobs. Based on this background, it can be logically inferred that green job embeddedness mediates the relationship between green HRM, green participative leadership, and environmental performance. According to the conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989 ), individuals will attempt to gain and maintain resources that contribute to their occupational and personal well-being. Green HRM practices and participative leadership behaviours enhance employee psychological resources including perceived empowerment and environmental identity. Employees who work in organizations that value sustainability report more resource gains, such as having an enhanced purpose and self-belief (Ispiryan, Pakeltiene, Ispiryan, & Giedraitis, 2024 ). This accumulation of environmental resources motivates employees to invest greater effort into sustainability initiatives, linking their embeddedness to organizational outcomes. When employees perceive environmental support structures, they are more resilient and proactive in promoting green practices within the organization. Green job embeddedness acts as an internal reservoir of environmental commitment, channelling organizational investments into improved environmental performance. The mediating role of embeddedness, viewed through conservation of resources theory, highlights the dynamic interplay between resource gain and sustained green behaviours. These theoretical insights support the argument that green job embeddedness mediates the effects of green HRM and green participative leadership on environmental performance. Hypothesis 6 Mediating role of green job embeddedness in the relationship between green HRM and environmental performance. Hypothesis 7 Mediating role of green job embeddedness in the relationship between green participative leadership and environmental performance. Moderating role of pro-environmental behaviour Employees’ personal values and orientations toward the environment significantly shape their reactions to organizational sustainability practices (Rickaby, Glass, & Fernie, 2020 ). Research on environmental behaviour indicates that individuals with strong pro-environmental values are more sensitive and responsive to green organizational initiatives (Pyo, Chung, Ma, & Oh, 2024 ). Organizational strategies such as green HRM or participative leadership may offer similar sustainability signals to employees, yet the degree of internalization often depends on employees’ environmental predispositions. Those who inherently prioritize environmental goals are more likely to perceive green HRM initiatives as personally meaningful and deeply embed themselves within the organization. Similarly, employees with strong environmental orientations are better positioned to interpret participative leadership actions as authentic commitments to sustainability (Lili & Rafiq, 2025 ). Higher levels of pro-environmental behaviour among employees can thus magnify the effectiveness of green HRM and leadership interventions in strengthening job embeddedness. Conversely, employees with weaker environmental orientations may not fully align their attitudes and behaviours with the organization's green mission despite structural support. Accordingly, pro-environmental behaviour is proposed to moderate the relationships between green HRM, green participative leadership, and green job embeddedness. Conservation of resources theory posits that individuals are more motivated to conserve and invest resources that align with their personal values and goals (Hobfoll, 1989 ). Employees with a stronger inclination toward environmental values perceive green HRM practices and participative leadership behaviours as valuable resources supporting their personal goals. This alignment fosters greater willingness to invest emotional and cognitive energies into organizational initiatives focused on sustainability (Voß, Cordes, & Lueg, 2025 ). Pro-environmental behaviour thus acts as a catalyst that strengthens the resource acquisition and conservation processes triggered by green HRM and participative leadership. When employees’ environmental values are congruent with organizational practices, resource gain cycles become more powerful and self-reinforcing. These cycles enhance employees’ psychological attachment to the organization, leading to deeper embeddedness within the green organizational framework. Moderation through pro-environmental behaviour highlights the conditional nature of how internal and external resources interact to shape employee outcomes. Based on conservation of resources theory, it is expected that pro-environmental behaviour strengthens the positive relationships between green HRM, participative leadership, and green job embeddedness. Hypothesis 8 Moderating role of pro-environmental behaviour in the relationship between green HRM and green job embeddedness. Hypothesis 9 Moderating role of pro-environmental behaviour in the relationship between green participative leadership and green job embeddedness. Methods Sample procedures This study employed a cross-sectional survey methodology to collect data from employees working in the manufacturing sector across three major cities in China: Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou. These cities were selected due to their strategic significance in China’s economic development, high concentration of manufacturing enterprises, and strong orientation toward sustainability practices. Beijing, as the capital city, represents administrative leadership and policy implementation; Shanghai serves as a global financial and innovation hub; and Guangzhou is a key manufacturing and logistics center in southern China. The manufacturing industries in these cities are rapidly adopting sustainability strategies, making them ideal settings for examining the interplay between green HRM, green participative leadership, green job embeddedness, pro environmental behaviour, environmental performance. Data were collected from employees in medium and large-scale manufacturing organizations, specifically targeting individuals directly involved in innovation projects, digital initiatives, or sustainability-related practices. Eligibility criteria required participants to have at least one year of work experience in their current organization and hold roles such as middle managers, team leaders, or operational staff with innovation-related responsibilities. Data collection was carried out over a two-month period through both physical distribution and secure online links. A total of 390 questionnaires were distributed across participating manufacturing organizations, and 368 were returned. After screening for incomplete or invalid responses, a final sample of 364 valid responses was retained for data analysis, resulting in an effective response rate of 93.33%. Measures Green job embeddedness, the study’s mediating variable, was measured using an adapted version of Crossley, Bennett, Jex, and Burnfield ( 2007a ) validated job embeddedness scale, focusing on seven items related to leader behaviours and employee adaptability to environmental changes. The revised adopted items are ‘It would be difficult for me to leave this organization due to its commitment to sustainability’, ‘I feel attached to this organization because of its environmental values’; ‘I am tightly connected to this organization because of its strong environmental commitment’; ‘I'm too caught up in this organization's green initiatives to leave’; ‘I simply could not leave the organization that I work for because of its environmental mission’; ‘It would be easy for me to leave this organization if it abandoned its green practices’ and ‘I feel tied to this organization because of its environmental efforts’. To establish the validity of our measure, the authors performed an exploratory factor analysis on a different sample, and then supported this examination by conducting a confirmatory factor analysis in this study in accordance with the procedures outlined by Gerbing and Hamilton ( 1996 ). The completely independent sample had 228 active workers in Chinese enterprises, and the participants were recruited on a famous Chinese online social media plate form (WeChat). The sample, portraying a broad demographic spectrum, was composed of 54.2% males, an average age of 34.9 years, 61% boasting a graduate degree. A careful selection process was employed, limiting the sample to 214 participants who presented complete data relevant to the measure. A principal axis factor analysis, complemented with oblique rotation, exhibited the formation of a single factor by the seven items, accounting the standardized shared variance, and factor loadings that ranged from 0.61 to 0.82. The measure rendered a reliability coefficient, Cronbach’s alpha, of 0.84, and corrected item-total correlations spanning from 0.43 to 0.69. Furthermore, green HRM is measured using a 6-item scale by Dumont et al. ( 2017 ). Green participative leadership is evaluated through 6-item scale developed by Lili and Rafiq ( 2025 ). Pro environmental behaviour is measured using 3-item scale by Bissing-Olson, Iyer, Fielding, and Zacher ( 2013 ). Finally, environmental performance is evaluated through 7-item scale developed by Nisar et al. ( 2021 ). All items used a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree), with higher scores reflecting greater construct levels. Common method bias testing The current study used self-reported questionnaires, which may have potential CMB or validity. Procedural and statistical methods for minimizing CMB were implemented on the attempt to reduce this problem (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003 ). Procedurally, the survey was designed to use simple and plain language, short items that are general and non-specific, but without clear correct answers that could minimize social desirability bias. Statistical analysis Harman single-factor test method was used to analyse the development of CMB. Principal component analysis showed the first factor explained 47.002% of variance, below the 50% threshold (Podsakoff et al., 2003 ), indicating acceptable CMB (Fuller, Simmering, Atinc, Atinc, & Babin, 2016 ). The study applied common method factor analysis (Liang, Li, & Kim, 2007) to assess CMB. As shown in Table 1 , no CMB was detected—average Ra² was significantly higher than Rb², with a high ratio of 23.24. These results confirm the robustness and validity of the analysis. Table 1 Common method factor analysis. Latent Variable Latent Indicator Substantive factor loading (Ra) Substantial variance square (Ra²) Method factor loading (Rb) Method variance square (Rb²) Green Job Embeddedness GJE-GJE1 0.762 0.580644 -0.322 0.103684 GJE-GJE2 0.829 0.687241 -0.209 0.043681 GJE-GJE3 0.825 0.680625 0.234 0.054756 GJE-GJE4 0.857 0.734449 -0.018 0.000324 GJE-GJE5 0.829 0.687241 -0.066 0.004356 GJE-GJE6 0.855 0.731025 -0.066 0.004356 GJE-GJE7 0.737 0.543169 0.098 0.009604 Pro environmental behaviour PEB-PEB1 0.856 0.732736 0.007 0.000049 PEB-PEB2 0.900 0.810000 -0.041 0.001681 PEB-PEB3 0.865 0.748225 0.035 0.001225 Green participative leadership GPL-GP1 0.828 0.685584 0.073 0.005329 GPL-GPL2 0.816 0.665856 -0.114 0.012996 GPL-GPL3 0.893 0.797449 -0.152 0.023104 GPL-GPL4 0.88 0.774400 -0.070 0.004900 GPL-GPL5 0.852 0.725904 0.169 0.028561 GPL-GPL6 0.823 0.677329 0.096 0.009216 Green HRM GHRM-GHRM1 0.822 0.675684 0.287 0.082369 GHRM-GHRM2 0.770 0.592900 0.071 0.005041 GHRM-GHRM3 0.859 0.737881 -0.100 0.010000 GHRM-GHRM4 0.750 0.562500 -0.193 0.037249 GHRM-GHRM5 0.829 0.687241 -0.041 0.001681 GHRM-GHRM6 0.722 0.521284 -0.051 0.002601 Environmental performance EP-E1 0.823 0.677329 -0.103 0.010609 EP-EP2 0.803 0.644809 -0.192 0.036864 EP-EP3 0.791 0.625681 -0.307 0.094249 EP-EP4 0.881 0.776161 -0.093 0.008649 EP-EP5 0.898 0.806404 -0.016 0.000256 EP-EP6 0.796 0.633616 0.355 0.126025 EP-EP7 0.808 0.652864 0.362 0.131044 Average 0.684698 0.0294641 Notes : n = 364, GHRM = Green HRM, GPL = Green participative leadership, GJE = Green job embeddedness, PEB = Pro environmental behaviour, EP = Environmental performance. Data analysis Partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was used in this study and serves as a way of obtaining inferential statistics, using the procedures that were outlined by Tan, Lee, Hew, Ooi, and Wong ( 2018 ). PLS-SEM is especially beneficial for prediction and theory building because it is aimed at predicting and understanding causality among the variables by optimizing for explained variance (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2022 ). Unlike Covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) that is generally used to test for the adequacy and consistency of the proposed model assumes normal distribution (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988 ). As PLS-SEM can be used for data set not normally distributed, we performed normality test in SPSS and the p < 0.001 < 5% of significance. This demonstrated rejection of the null hypothesis that the data followed a normal distribution. For this reason, PLS-SEM was selected for analysing the study objectives. The reflective measurement model was assessed for reliability and validity following Jihad Mohammad, Farzana Quoquab, Siti Halimah, and Ramayah Thurasamy (2019). With respect to reliability, measure’s reliability composite reliability CR values of greater than 0.7 indicate acceptable reliability (Hair et al., 2022 ). Results Descriptive analysis of the variables This correlation Table 2 presents correlation analysis among five variables: green HRM, green participative leadership, green job embeddedness, pro environmental behaviour, environmental performance, based on data from 364 respondents. All correlations are statistically significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), indicating strong relationships across variables. Table 2 Correlations analysis GPL GHRM GJE EP PEB GPL 1 GHRM .711 ** 1 GJE .648 ** .697 ** 1 EP .684 ** .689 ** .682 ** 1 PEB .321 ** .471 ** .540 ** .477 ** 1 Mean 4.905 5.033 4.941 5.090 5.304 SD 0.696 0.575 0.637 0.650 0.643 Notes : n = 364, GHRM = Green HRM, GPL = Green participative leadership, GJE = Green job embeddedness, PEB = Pro environmental behaviour, EP = Environmental performance. Assessment of model utilizing PLS-SEM In our study, the PLS-SEM approach was employed to conduct inferential statistics. As suggested by Tan et al. ( 2018 ), PLS-SEM is suitable for studies that violate the assumption of normality in the distribution of data. The normality test was applied, by SPSS, where a p- value (<. 001) by less than .05. This result rejected the null hypothesis of normal distribution. Besides, such mediation analysis can better be conducted in PLS‑SEM (Nitzl, Roldan, & Cepeda, 2016 ). As such, SmartPLS 4 is suitable for use in this study because it has fewer normality requirements. Measurement model assessment For testing the reflective measurement model, we need to determine the reliability of the indicators and constructs, as well as the convergent and discriminant validity (J. Mohammad, F. Quoquab, S. Halimah, & R. Thurasamy, 2019 ). Internal consistency reliability can be examined based on Cronbach’s Alpha and CR, with values exceeding 0.7 (Hair et al., 2022 ). all Cronbach’s Alpha and CR are greater than the required threshold which is the sign of reliability of the measurement items of the constructs (Table 3 ). Convergent validity of the construct is checked through the measurement of AVE and factor loadings which should exceed 0.5 and 0.7 (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988 ). This study investigated discriminant validity using the Fornell-Larcker criterion and Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations (Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2015 ). As depicted in Table 4 , the square root AVE for each variable surpasses its correlation with other variables, and all HTMT values fall below the established threshold of 0.85, thereby affirming discriminant validity. Table 3 Measurement model assessment Constructs Items Loadings Cronbach’s alpha Composite reliability (rho_c) Average Variance Extracted Green Job Embeddedness GJE1 0.750 0.915 0.932 0.663 GJE 2 0.821 GJE 3 0.830 GJE 4 0.853 GJE 5 0.824 GJE 6 0.860 GJE 7 0.755 Pro environmental behaviour PEB1 0.839 0.845 0.905 0.762 PEB2 0.891 PEB 3 0.887 Green participative leadership GPL1 0.828 0.922 0.939 0.721 GPL2 0.809 GPL3 0.887 GPL4 0.876 GPL5 0.861 GPL6 0.832 Green HRM GHRM 1 0.834 0.881 0.91 0.629 GHRM2 0.778 GHRM3 0.855 GHRM4 0.740 GHRM5 0.825 GHRM6 0.719 Environmental performance EP1 0.810 0.924 0.939 0.687 EP2 0.786 EP3 0.773 EP4 0.880 EP5 0.900 EP6 0.816 EP7 0.827 Notes : n = 364, GHRM = Green HRM, GPL = Green participative leadership, GJE = Green job embeddedness, PEB = Pro environmental behaviour, EP = Environmental performance. Table 4 Fornell-Larcker criterion and HTMT criterion GJE PEB GHRM GPL EP GJE 0.814 0.613 0.791 0.714 0.737 PEB 0.547 0.873 0.545 0.364 0.538 GHRM 0.723 0.471 0.793 0.792 0.761 GPL 0.664 0.321 0.717 0.849 0.73 EP 0.691 0.475 0.698 0.686 0.829 Notes : n = 364, GHRM = Green HRM, GPL = Green participative leadership, GJE = Green job embeddedness, PEB = Pro environmental behaviour, EP = Environmental performance. Upper diagonal represents HTMT criterion, Lower diagonal represents Fornell-Larcker criterion Structural model assessment The results presented in Table 5 demonstrate that total nine hypothesized relationships are statistically supported. Specifically, green HRM and green participative leadership have significant direct effect on environmental performance (H1: β = 0.271, t = 3.297; H2: β = 0.293, t = 2.899) and green job embeddedness (H3: β = 0.381, t = 6.200; H4: β = 0.271, t = 4.783). Green job embeddedness, in turn, strongly predicts environmental performance (H5: β = 0.301, t = 3.798). Additionally, green job embeddedness mediates the relationship between green HRM and environmental performance (H6: β = 0.115, t = 3.291) and green participative leadership and environmental performance (H7: β = 0.082, t = 2.788), confirming mediation mechanism. Furthermore, we propose that pro-environmental behaviour serve as moderating mechanism. Specifically, the interaction effect of pro-environmental behaviour × green HRM→environmental performance (H8: β = 0.080, t = 2.098) is significant, the interaction effect of pro-environmental behaviour × green participative leadership→environmental performance (H9: β = 0.074, t = 2.027) is also significant, confirming moderation mechanism. Table 5 Structural model results Hypotheses Relationship β SD t -values BC95%LL BC95%UL Decision H1 GHRM→EP 0.271 0.082 3.297 0.098 0.424 Support H2 GPL→EP 0.293 0.101 2.899 0.091 0.492 Support H3 GHRM→GJE 0.381 0.061 6.200 0.254 0.494 Support H4 GPL→GJE 0.271 0.057 4.783 0.162 0.382 Support H5 GJE→EP 0.301 0.079 3.798 0.144 0.457 Support H6 GHRM→GJE→EP 0.115 0.035 3.291 0.054 0.192 Support H7 GPL→GJE→EP 0.082 0.029 2.788 0.037 0.153 Support H8 PEB × GHRM →GJE 0.080 0.038 2.098 0.004 0.155 Support H9 PEB × GPL →GJE 0.074 0.036 2.027 0.145 0.011 Support Notes : n = 364, GHRM = Green HRM, GPL = Green participative leadership, GJE = Green job embeddedness, PEB = Pro environmental behaviour, EP = Environmental performance. Discussion Environmental sustainability has become a crucial organizational priority in the face of intensifying ecological challenges. Manufacturing organizations, in particular, are increasingly aligning internal practices with green initiatives to ensure competitiveness and compliance. Human resource management strategies and leadership approaches are recognized as vital internal mechanisms to embed sustainability values. This study focused on how green HRM and green participative leadership influence environmental performance through employee-based mechanisms. This study explains the relationship between green job embeddedness and pro-environmental behaviour in the literature and contributes to the theoretical development of how employees influence sustainability outcomes. The findings show that green HRM has a positive and significant effect on environmental performance and this is consistent with the establishing of structured green programs that integrate employee behaviours with the attainment of a sustainability objective (Tahir et al., 2024 ). It also in line with previous research that systematic green practices enhance employees' environmental awareness and responsibility (Darvishmotevali & Altinay, 2022 ). In the same way, green participative leadership reveals a positive association with environmental performance, in line with the findings that green participative leadership is positively related pro-environmental behaviour (Lili & Rafiq, 2025 ). The findings support the recently developed perspective that leadership struggles and fostering collaboration will boost the employees' environmental actions (Suriyankietkaew et al., 2022 ). In addition, green HRM is positively related to green job embeddedness, suggesting that green human resource practices generate employees’ connection to the green orientation of the organization (Dumont et al., 2017 ). This is alike with the finding that HRM drives psychological attachments which are important for the engagement in sustainability by highlighting the environmental values (Paillé & Valéau, 2021 ). Green participative leadership also exhibits a significant positive influence on green job embeddedness, suggesting that involving employees in environmental decision-making enhances emotional commitment (Yan & Rafiq, 2025 ). Leadership behaviours that validate employees’ environmental contributions strengthen their embeddedness and sustainability identification (Chen et al., 2020 ). To end, green job embeddedness directly relates to environmental performance, indicating that the employees who are highly embedded in green mission collaborate to achieve the environmental outcomes (Yasir et al., 2023 ). The significant effect of green job embeddedness on environmental performance indicates psychological fit with green objectives as a relevant factor toward achieving sustainable behaviour (Wu et al., 2017 ). This is in line with the previous results showing that embedded employees display greater innovation, advocacy, and initiative in eco-friendly practices (Kundi et al., 2021 ). Employees who internalize green values through organizational embeddedness demonstrate proactive efforts such as resource conservation and waste minimization (Yasir et al., 2023 ). The emotional and psychological bonds of employees to environmental goals can thus help organizations achieve more sustainable outcomes (Johnson & Jackson, 2009 ). Therefore, green job embeddedness acts not merely as a retention mechanism but as an active driver of environmental performance. The empirical support for these direct relationships advances the understanding of how internal HR and leadership systems impact broader sustainability success. Manufacturing organizations, operating under intense environmental scrutiny, can leverage these findings to design more effective green engagement strategies (Hoogendoorn et al., 2015 ). This finding consequently contributes meaningful insights into how employee attachment mechanisms can translate into measurable organizational environmental gains. This knowledge is also especially useful for sectors in transition towards more sustainable production processes (Jan et al., 2024 ). Next (H6 and H7) the mediating role of green job embeddedness as an intermediary bridge between green HRM and environmental performance was supported significantly, which was in line with prior studies suggesting the importance of employees' psychological attachment (Chang et al., 2024 ). Green HRM practices create environments where employees feel connected to sustainability objectives, facilitating a deeper transfer of green initiatives into performance outcomes (Dumont et al., 2017 ). The same, the mediation of green participative leadership and environmental performance, supports that leadership-induced embeddedness mechanism strengthens the resulting environmental outputs (Lili & Rafiq, 2025 ). Leadership behaviours that emphasize participation and shared ownership further cultivate embeddedness, reinforcing the success of environmental strategies (Yan & Rafiq, 2025 ). This mediation effect underscores the need for developing emotional and value-based relationships in order to translate organizations’ strategies in environmental success. Rather than relying solely on structural HR practices or top-down leadership, embedding sustainability within employees’ psychological frameworks proves essential. These results build upon employee-cantered sustainability research by confirming the intermediary importance of environmental commitment (Setthakorn et al., 2024 ). The results thereby provide a broader perspective on the mechanisms of the relationship between green HRM and leadership perceptions and environmental performance. Finally, green job embeddedness is proposed as the immaterial bridge to translate intentions into sustained outcomes. Finally, the findings about the moderating effect (H8 and H9) reveals that pro-environmental behaviour additional augments the verdicts, indicating that employees’ environmental values strengthen the effects of green HRM and participative leadership (Rickaby et al., 2020 ). Employees with strong pro-environmental attitudes become more sensitive to organization green activities and thus becoming more embedded (Pyo et al., 2024 ). As per Lili and Rafiq ( 2025 ) green HRM acts are more meaningful for highly environmentally concerned employees, and they enhance emotional attachment to green causes. In the same way, participative leadership behaviours are more impactful when employees already prioritize environmental stewardship (Pyo et al., 2024 ). This moderating mechanism implies that employee-level environmental attitudes strongly moderate the likelihood of the success of firms’ sustainability strategies. To maximize embeddedness outcomes in organizations, investment in green HRM and leadership, as well as the cultivation of a more pro-environment work force, is also warranted. This type of verdict is consistent with the increasingly loud demands to develop a more nuanced understanding of employee user agency in the context of sustainable integration (Carfora et al., 2017 ). The results extend current literature by positioning pro-environmental behaviour as an active enabler of sustainability-enhancing employee outcomes. Hence, pro-environmental behaviour attenuates the green HRM and leadership relationships with embeddedness, thereby underscoring the existence of people-centred approach of sustainable performance. Theoretical contribution This research contributes to social exchange theory by showing that organizational investments in green HRM practices and participative leadership enhance employee attachment and engagement. It also demonstrates the importance of psychological reciprocation, as the results verify that HRM and leadership behaviours with a sustainability focus enhance employees’ environmental commitment (Dumont et al., 2017 ; Lili & Rafiq, 2025 ). The research also contributes to the application of social exchange theory, since it proves that not only in traditional job performances but also in sustainability-based behaviours, a reciprocal relations can be made. Green HRM and participative leadership are situated not only as operational processes, but as symbolic acts of organisational care, a process of symbolic signification, catalysing employee embeddedness and pro-environmental behaviour. This theoretical contribution argues that employees see green organizational strategies as social currencies deserving commitment and discretionary effort. In this sense, the research identifies green practices as playing a key role in the process of bonding the human society that is required to maintain environmental integrity. The results fill a void in social exchange theory research and show how employee sustainability engagement develops in the realm of relational exchange with the organization. The rational has led to extension of the use of social exchange theory by incorporating its use to explain the effect on the outcomes of environmental performance, introducing a new perspective for understanding green HRM and leadership effects. Extending conservation of resources theory, the present study contributes in revealing the underlying mechanisms of green job embeddedness and pro-environmental behaviour as critical resources to strengthen environmental performance. Green HRM and participative leadership contribute to the psychological resource pools of employees, thus enabling them to engage with organizational sustainability initiatives (Chang et al., 2024 ; Hobfoll, 1989 ). The findings demonstrate that environmental support systems enable employees to preserve and expand valuable resources, such as environmental identity and efficacy. Through embedding sustainability within personal resource structures, employees are empowered to consistently contribute to green organizational outcomes. Mediation results show that green job embeddedness channels organizational investments into meaningful environmental actions, validating resource-driven engagement models. Moderation results further reveal that employees’ pro-environmental tendencies enhance resource accumulation effects, reinforcing green job embeddedness. These insights extend conservation of resources theory by emphasizing the dynamic interaction between organizational resource provision and individual resource mobilization for sustainability. Thus, the study provides a refined understanding of how green HRM and leadership practices shape long-term environmental performance through resource conservation mechanisms. Practical contribution Manufacturing organizations should prioritize the integration of green HRM practices to embed sustainability deeply within daily operations. Offering regular environmental training and embedding eco-friendly criteria into performance evaluations can strengthen employees’ commitment to green goals. Organizations can enhance employee engagement by designing green career development paths that reward sustainable contributions. Leaders in manufacturing settings need to actively involve employees in environmental decision-making to foster shared ownership of green initiatives. Empowering employees to co-create sustainability strategies further underscores the notion that it is everyone's responsibility to contribute to environmental goals. Leaders should develop open spaces to encourage employees to contribute new green ideas. Introducing recognition schemes for environmental acts can also help to increase the perceived value of pro-environmental acts. By taking these practical steps, this study concludes that manufacturing organizations can enhance personnel embeddedness and realize performance gains in environmental performance. Manufacturing managers must also recognize the strategic advantage of cultivating pro-environmental attitudes among their workforce. Recruitment strategies should prioritize candidates who demonstrate strong environmental values and a passion for sustainability. Internal communication campaigns can emphasize the organization's commitment to environmental stewardship, reinforcing employee alignment. Organizations can organize sustainability workshops, volunteer programs, and eco-challenges to boost employee involvement in green activities. Strengthening pro-environmental behaviour internally ensures that HRM and leadership initiatives resonate more effectively across organizational levels. Supervisors and team leaders should be trained to model and reinforce pro-environmental behaviours in everyday practices. Adopting a holistic approach to employee engagement around environmental themes maximizes green job embeddedness. Such efforts not only improve operational sustainability but also position manufacturing firms as leaders in green innovation. Limitations and future recommendations This study is subject to certain limitations that offer opportunities for future research. The cross-sectional research design restricts the ability to draw firm causal inferences between green HRM, leadership, and environmental outcomes. Self-reported data from employees could introduce social desirability bias, potentially inflating associations among variables. The research sample was limited to manufacturing organizations in China, which may affect the generalizability of findings to other sectors or cultural contexts. Moreover, the study focused primarily on employee-level perceptions without incorporating managerial or organizational-level perspectives. Only a few green leadership constructs were explored, leaving room for examining alternative leadership styles like ethical or transformational leadership. Additionally, potential industry-specific factors influencing green job embeddedness and environmental performance were not explicitly modelled. Future studies should employ longitudinal designs to better understand the causal mechanisms linking green HRM and leadership with sustainability outcomes. "Researchers could incorporate multi-source data, including supervisor ratings and organizational metrics, to minimize potential bias. Expanding investigations to different industries such as hospitality, energy, or healthcare would enhance the external validity of the findings. Comparative cross-country research could provide insights into cultural influences on green job embeddedness and pro-environmental behaviour. Future research could explore the role of alternative leadership styles in fostering employee environmental commitment and performance. Introducing firm-level moderators such as organizational climate, culture, or environmental strategy could deepen theoretical insights. Researchers might also develop and validate new measurement tools tailored specifically for green job embeddedness. Finally, examining the dynamic evolution of green job embeddedness over time would provide a richer understanding of sustainability integration in organizations. Conclusion This study reveals that both green participative leadership and Green HRM significantly contribute to improved environmental performance in industrial settings. The mediating role of green job embeddedness is evident in linking organizational initiatives with employee involvement. Furthermore, pro-environmental behaviour amplifies these relationships, underscoring the importance of employee values in shaping outcomes. Anchored in social exchange theory and conservation of resources theory, the findings present an integrated view of how internal mechanisms and employee engagement drive sustainability. Therefore, this study advances research and offers strategic pathways for enhancing green commitment and sustaining high levels of environmental performance within manufacturing organizations. Declarations Competing Interests The authors declare no competing interests. Informed Consent Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. Participants were informed about the study’s purpose, confidentiality, voluntary participation, and their right to withdraw at any time. No identifying information was collected, ensuring anonymity. Ethical Approval This study received ethical approval from the relevant institutional ethics committee (approval details withheld for peer review). The research involved a self-administered, anonymous questionnaire with no physical or psychological intervention, posing minimal risk to participants. All participants were over 18 years of age, and their participation was voluntary and anonymous. Author Contribution The authors confirm their contribution to the paper as follows: MR: conceptualization; DC: data curation; resources; software; MR: writing-original draft; formal analysis. MR: supervision; validation; writing—review & DC: editing; funding acquisition. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript. Acknowledgements This research was supported by an institutional research grant (details withheld for peer review). Data Availability The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. References Abbas Z, Sarwar S, Rehman MA, Zámečník R, Shoaib M (2022) Green HRM promotes higher education sustainability: a mediated-moderated analysis. Int J Manpow 43(3):827–843 Ahmad I, Ullah K, Khan A (2022) The impact of green HRM on green creativity: mediating role of pro-environmental behaviors and moderating role of ethical leadership style. Int J Hum resource Manage 33(19):3789–3821 Amrutha VN, Geetha SN (2020) A systematic review on green human resource management: Implications for social sustainability. J Clean Prod 247:119131 Anderson JC, Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull 103(3):411–423. 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 Bissing-Olson MJ, Iyer A, Fielding KS, Zacher H (2013) Relationships between daily affect and pro‐environmental behavior at work: The moderating role of pro‐environmental attitude. J organizational Behav 34(2):156–175 Blau PM (1964) Justice in Social Exchange. Sociol Inq 34(2):193–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1964.tb00583.x Carfora V, Caso D, Sparks P, Conner M (2017) Moderating effects of pro-environmental self-identity on pro-environmental intentions and behaviour: A multi-behaviour study. J Environ Psychol 53:92–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.07.001 Chang Y-Y, Chiang F-Y, Hu Q, Hughes M (2024) From green HRM to SDG success: pathways through exploratory innovation and developmental culture. RMS, 1–31 Chen L, Wadei KA, Bai S, Liu J (2020) Participative leadership and employee creativity: A sequential mediation model of psychological safety and creative process engagement. Leadersh Organ Dev J 41(6):741–759. 10.1108/LODJ-07-2019-0319 Cropanzano R, Mitchell MS (2005) Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. J Manag 31(6):874–900 Crossley CD, Bennett RJ, Jex SM, Burnfield JL (2007a) Development of a global measure of job embeddedness and integration into a traditional model of voluntary turnover. J Appl Psychol 92(4):1031–1042 Crossley CD, Bennett RJ, Jex SM, Burnfield JL (2007b) Development of a global measure of job embeddedness and integration into a traditional model of voluntary turnover. J Appl Psychol 96(6):1316–1316. 10.1037/a0025569 Darvishmotevali M, Altinay L (2022) Green HRM, environmental awareness and green behaviors: The moderating role of servant leadership. Tour Manag 88:104401 Demerouti E (2025) Job demands-resources and conservation of resources theories: How do they help to explain employee well-being and future job design? J Bus Res 192:115296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115296 Diaz-Carrion R, López‐Fernández M, Romero‐Fernandez PM (2018) Developing a sustainable HRM system from a contextual perspective. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 25(6):1143–1153 Din AU, Yang Y, Zhang Y (2025) The psychological benefits of green HRM: A study of employee well-being, engagement, and green behavior in the healthcare sector. Acta Psychol 254:104823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.104823 Dirani KM, Abadi M, Alizadeh A, Barhate B, Garza RC, Gunasekara N, Majzun Z (2020) Leadership competencies and the essential role of human resource development in times of crisis: a response to Covid-19 pandemic. Hum resource Dev Int 23(4):380–394 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. Hum Resour Manag 56(4):613–627 Ehnert I, Harry W, Zink KJ (2013) Sustainability and HRM: An introduction to the field. Sustainability and human resource management: Developing sustainable business organizations. Springer, pp 3–32 Frenkel SJ, Bednall T (2016) How training and promotion opportunities, career expectations, and two dimensions of organizational justice explain discretionary work effort. Hum Perform 29(1):16–32 Fuller CM, Simmering MJ, Atinc G, Atinc Y, Babin BJ (2016) Common methods variance detection in business research. J Bus Res 69(8):3192–3198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008 Gerbing DW, Hamilton JG (1996) Viability of exploratory factor analysis as a precursor to confirmatory factor analysis. Struct equation modeling: multidisciplinary J 3(1):62–72 Ghosh M (2019) Determinants of green procurement implementation and its impact on firm performance. J Manuf Technol Manage 30(2):462–482 Hair J, Hult GTM, Ringle C, Sarstedt M (2022) A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2015) A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci 43(1):115–135. 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8 Hobfoll SE (1989) Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am Psychol 44(3):513–524. 10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513 Hoogendoorn B, Guerra D, Van Der Zwan P (2015) J. S. B. E. What drives environmental practices of SMEs? 44 , 759–781 Huang X, Shi K, Zhang Z, Cheung YL, J. A. (2006) P. J. o. M. The impact of participative leadership behavior on psychological empowerment and organizational commitment in Chinese state-owned enterprises: The moderating role of organizational tenure. 23 , 345–367 Ispiryan A, Pakeltiene R, Ispiryan O, Giedraitis A (2024) Fostering Organizational Sustainability Through Employee Collaboration: An Integrative Approach to Environmental, Social, and Economic Dimensions. 4(4):1806–1826 Jan A, Salameh AA, Rahman HU, Alasiri MM (2024) Can blockchain technologies enhance environmental sustainable development goals performance in manufacturing firms? Potential mediation of green supply chain management practices. Bus Strategy Environ 33(3):2004–2019 Johnson RE, Jackson EM (2009) Appeal of organizational values is in the eye of the beholder: The moderating role of employee identity. J Occup Organizational Psychol 82(4):915–933. 10.1348/096317908X373914 Khanra S, Kaur P, Joseph RP, Malik A, Dhir A (2022) A resource-based view of green innovation as a strategic firm resource: Present status and future directions. Bus Strategy Environ 31(4):1395–1413 Kundi YM, Aboramadan M, Elhamalawi EMI, Shahid S (2021) Employee psychological well-being and job performance: exploring mediating and moderating mechanisms. Int J Organizational Anal 29(3):736–754. 10.1108/IJOA-05-2020-2204 Lili Z, Rafiq M (2025) The impact of green participative leadership on pro-environmental behavior: mediating role of green self-efficacy and moderating role of environmental awareness. J Hospitality Tourism Insights 8(5):1783–1802. 10.1108/JHTI-06-2024-0537 Luu TT (2018) Employees’ green recovery performance: the roles of green HR practices and serving culture. J Sustainable Tourism 26(8):1308–1324 Malik SY, Mughal H, Azam Y, Cao T, Wan Y, Zhu Z, H., Thurasamy R (2021) Corporate social responsibility, green human resources management, and sustainable performance: is organizational citizenship behavior towards environment the missing link? Sustainability 13(3):1044 Manuti A, Giancaspro ML (2019) People make the difference: An explorative study on the relationship between organizational practices, employees’ resources, and organizational behavior enhancing the psychology of sustainability and sustainable development. Sustainability 11(5):1499 Mitchell TR, Holtom BC, Lee TW, Sablynski CJ, Erez M (2001) Why People Stay: Using Job Embeddedness to Predict Voluntary Turnover. Acad Manag J 44(6):1102–1121. 10.2307/3069391 Mohammad J, Quoquab F, Halimah S, Thurasamy R (2019) Workplace internet leisure and employees' productivity The mediating role of employee satisfaction. Internet Res 29(4):725–748. 10.1108/IntR-05-2017-0191 Mohammad J, Quoquab F, Halimah S, Thurasamy R (2019) Workplace internet leisure and employees’ productivity. Internet Res 29(4):725–748. 10.1108/IntR-05-2017-0191 Nisar QA, Haider S, Ali F, Jamshed S, Ryu K, Gill SS (2021) Green human resource management practices and environmental performance in Malaysian green hotels: The role of green intellectual capital and pro-environmental behavior. J Clean Prod 311:127504 Nitzl C, Roldan JL, Cepeda G (2016) Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modeling Helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models. Industrial Manage Data Syst 116(9):1849–1864. 10.1108/imds-07-2015-0302 Ogiemwonyi O, Jan MT (2023) The correlative influence of consumer ethical beliefs, environmental ethics, and moral obligation on green consumption behavior. Resour Conserv Recycling Adv 19:200171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcradv.2023.200171 Paillé P, Valéau P (2021) I don’t owe you, but I am committed: Does felt obligation matter on the effect of green training on employee environmental commitment? Organ Environ 34(1):123–144 Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88(5):879–903. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 Pyo S, Chung SG, Ma HR, Oh DH (2024) Firms for Sustainable Manufacturing: Understanding the Key Determinants of Pro-environmental Behaviour. 29(2):262–281. 10.1177/09717218241238265 Rafiq M, Cham T-H, Tapsir SH, Mansoor A, Farrukh M (2024) How does globally responsible leadership promotes pro-environmental behavior through green management initiatives? J Global Responsib 15(4):466–484. 10.1108/JGR-06-2023-0093 Rafiq M, Xiuqing D (2025) Green inclusive leadership at the helm: pro-environmental behavior and environmental strategy in steering environmental performance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, ahead-of -print(ahead-of-print ). 10.1108/LODJ-08-2023-0417 Rani S, Mishra K (2014) Green HRM: Practices and strategic implementation in the organizations. Int J Recent Innov Trends Comput Communication 2(11):3633–3639 Ren S, Jiang K, Tang G (2022) Leveraging green HRM for firm performance: The joint effects of CEO environmental belief and external pollution severity and the mediating role of employee environmental commitment. Hum Resour Manag 61(1):75–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22079 Rickaby MA, Glass J, Fernie S (2020) Conceptualizing the Relationship between Personal Values and Sustainability—A TMO Case Study. 10(1):15 Scott C, Myers K (2010) Toward an integrative theoretical perspective on organizational membership negotiations: Socialization, assimilation, and the duality of structure. Communication Theory 20(1):79–105 Setthakorn KP, Rostiani R, Schreier C (2024) A Meta-Analytic Review of Job Embeddedness and Turnover Intention: Evidence from South-East Asia. 14(2):21582440241260092. 10.1177/21582440241260092 Spanouli A, Hofmans J (2021) A Resource-Based Perspective on Organizational Citizenship and Counterproductive Work Behavior: The Role of Vitality and Core Self-Evaluations. 70(4):1435–1462. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12281 Suriyankietkaew S, Krittayaruangroj K, Iamsawan N (2022) Sustainable Leadership Practices and Competencies of SMEs for Sustainability and Resilience: A Community-Based Social Enterprise Study. Sustainability 14(10):5762 Tahir AH, Umer M, Nauman S, Abbass K, Song H (2024) Sustainable development goals and green human resource management: A comprehensive review of environmental performance. J Environ Manage 370:122495 Tan GW-H, Lee V-H, Hew J-J, Ooi K-B, Wong L-W (2018) The interactive mobile social media advertising: An imminent approach to advertise tourism products and services? Telematics Inform 35(8):2270–2288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.09.005 Voß L, Cordes H, Lueg R (2025) The impact of environmental sustainability on willingness to invest in startups: A survey among private investors. 33(2):2672–2695. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3254 Wu W, Rafiq M, Chin T (2017) Employee well-being and turnover intention. Career Dev Int 22(7):797–815. 10.1108/CDI-04-2017-0072 Yan W, Rafiq M (2025) How and when green agile leadership influence on pro-environmental behaviour. Work 0(0):10519815251320273. 10.1177/10519815251320273 Yasir N, Babar M, Mehmood HS, Xie R, Guo G (2023) The Environmental Values Play a Role in the Development of Green Entrepreneurship to Achieve. Sustainable Entrepreneurial Intent 15(8):6451 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 12 Sep, 2025 Reviews received at journal 15 Jul, 2025 Reviews received at journal 01 Jul, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 26 Jun, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 26 Jun, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 26 Jun, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 26 Jun, 2025 Editor invited by journal 21 Jun, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 18 Jun, 2025 First submitted to journal 18 Jun, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6742874","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":478546649,"identity":"e89ea761-97b5-4d70-a64b-7bed340484ae","order_by":0,"name":"Muhammad Rafiq","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"UCSI University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Muhammad","middleName":"","lastName":"Rafiq","suffix":""},{"id":478546650,"identity":"c68a3af0-7201-468c-9933-518259c7b63e","order_by":1,"name":"Ding Weichao","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"UCSI University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ding","middleName":"","lastName":"Weichao","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-05-25 09:23:41","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6742874/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6742874/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":85796944,"identity":"4e9be007-ad7e-4328-8f47-3f8ce2628439","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-01 20:07:18","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1413773,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6742874/v1/62bbdec1-a3f6-417b-94b2-2dd78ea08067.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Impact of Green HRM and Green Participative Leadership on Environmental Performance: The Role of Green Job Embeddedness and Pro-environmental Behaviour","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eAs environmental challenges intensify globally, organizations are under increasing pressure to align their operations with sustainable development goals (Jan, Salameh, Rahman, \u0026amp; Alasiri, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In the manufacturing sector, where resource-intensive operations prevail, adopting green practices has become not only a regulatory requirement but a competitive necessity (Hoogendoorn, Guerra, \u0026amp; Van Der Zwan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Research in green management has emphasized external drivers such as regulations and customer expectations but has paid comparatively less attention to internal enablers (Ghosh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Internal organizational elements, particularly human resource practices and leadership approaches, are pivotal in embedding sustainability into daily operations (Dirani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Green human resource management (Green HRM) practices are designed to align employee behaviours with environmental objectives, but their full potential remains underexplored (Amrutha \u0026amp; Geetha, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). In the same way, leadership styles that encourage participation and collaboration in green initiatives can significantly influence organizational environmental outcomes (Ahmad, Ullah, \u0026amp; Khan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Yet empirical studies directly connecting green participative leadership behaviours with environmental performance are scarce (Lili \u0026amp; Rafiq, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The limited evidence suggests a pressing need to explore how green participative leadership and HRM practices together drive environmental success. Therefore, this study specifically focuses on examining the roles of Green HRM and green participative leadership in enhancing environmental performance within manufacturing settings. By targeting these internal mechanisms, the study aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of sustainability integration at the organizational level.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile leadership and HR practices form the structural backbone of organizational sustainability, employee attachment to green values offers a psychological anchor crucial for long-term success (Manuti \u0026amp; Giancaspro, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). The theory of job embeddedness, initially developed by Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, and Erez (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e) and later operationalized by Crossley, Bennett, Jex, and Burnfield (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007b\u003c/span\u003e), explains why employees stay committed to organizations. However, the original construct focuses on general retention factors like community links, fit, and sacrifice, without integrating sustainability-related motivations (Setthakorn, Rostiani, \u0026amp; Schreier, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In today context, where green missions are becoming core organizational values, it is essential to expand the embeddedness concept to capture environmental alignment. To fill this gap, this study introduces green job embeddedness by adapting the established seven-item scale from Crossley et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007b\u003c/span\u003e) into a sustainability framework. Green job embeddedness reflects an employee's deep psychological connection to the organization\u0026rsquo;s environmental goals and initiatives. This adaptation maintains theoretical rigor while offering contemporary relevance by incorporating environmental commitment as a core attachment driver. By positioning green job embeddedness as a mediating mechanism, the study proposes that employees embedded in green values are more likely to translate leadership and HRM initiatives into environmental performance. Hence, the introduction of green job embeddedness provides a novel until now theoretically grounded advancement to the sustainability and HRM literature.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to organization\u0026ensp;structures and personal attachment, employee behaviours are regarded as less being significant to organizations advancing an environmental agenda (Scott \u0026amp; Myers, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). The\u0026ensp;construct of pro-environmental behaviour, which is defined as voluntary behaviours used to help reduce the environmental harm (Rafiq \u0026amp; Xiuqing, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), has become a major focus in the study of environmental sustainability. Still, past scholarship has largely treated pro-environmental behaviour as an consequence of green initiatives rather than a dynamic enabler or moderator (Carfora, Caso, Sparks, \u0026amp; Conner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). In reality, employees with stronger pro-environmental tendencies may respond more positively to green HRM practices and participative leadership, enhancing their embeddedness. This behavioural reinforcement can amplify the impact of organizational strategies on environmental outcomes, especially in manufacturing sectors where operational engagement is key. Therefore, this study conceptualizes pro-environmental behaviour not merely as an outcome but as a moderating factor strengthening the links between green practices and employee embeddedness. By considering pro-environmental behaviour as a moderator, the model acknowledges the active role of employee agency in sustainability integration. This way provides a richer and behaviourally nuanced understanding of how green initiatives translate into environmental performance. Consequently, integrating pro-environmental behaviour as a moderator contributes to bridging theoretical gaps and enhancing the practical relevance of green management strategies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study makes several key contributions to the green management and organizational behaviour literature. First, it introduces the construct of green job embeddedness by adapting the traditional job embeddedness framework of Mitchell et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e) and Crossley et al. (2007) to an environmental context. Green job embeddedness highlights how employees\u0026rsquo; psychological attachment to their organization can be driven by shared environmental values and sustainability initiatives. Second, the study expands leadership research by examining green participative leadership, a concept recently introduced by Lili and Rafiq (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Unlike prior work focusing mainly on pro-environmental behaviours, this study investigates the direct relationship between green participative leadership, and environmental performance. Third, it conceptualizes pro-environmental behaviour not merely as an outcome but as a moderating factor that strengthens the influence of green HRM and leadership practices. Fourth, the theoretical framework combines social exchange theory for direct relationships and conservation of resources theory for explaining mediation and moderation mechanisms. This dual-theory approach enriches the theoretical rigor and provides a comprehensive understanding of the processes linking leadership, HR practices, employee embeddedness, and sustainability outcomes. It contributes to practical implications to improve environmental performance through employee-centred green activities in manufacturing\u0026ensp;enterprises.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTheoretical framework and hypotheses development\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSocial exchange theory and conservation of resource theory\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBlau (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1964\u003c/span\u003e) developed the social exchange theory, which highlights the importance of mutual relationships between people and\u0026ensp;organization in modulating individual and organizational behaviour. The core idea of social exchange theory is that social interactions are governed by the expectation of mutual benefits and trust over time (Cropanzano \u0026amp; Mitchell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). In organizational life, employees respond positively to supportive environments, reinforcing the organization through discretionary efforts (Frenkel \u0026amp; Bednall, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). When firms prioritize environmental sustainability through HR practices and leadership behaviours, employees interpret these as valuable investments in their well-being. This perceived support cultivates an obligation to reciprocate, often leading to enhanced engagement in organizational sustainability goals. This is especially the case\u0026ensp;for manufacturing, where there is a strong environmental cause, aspiring to create open markets for such exchanges to lead to meaningful, measurable environmental results. Staff members who are exposed to green HRM practices and participative leadership may\u0026ensp;perceive a moral and professional obligation to support in green outcomes. These internal dynamics rooted in social exchange help explain how organizational actions translate into employee-driven environmental behaviours. Understanding employee reciprocation mechanisms provides a strong foundation for linking leadership, HRM strategies, and sustainability performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe notion of reciprocity embedded in social exchange theory helps clarify why employees internalize environmental values when nurtured through green HRM and leadership support. Leaders who foster open dialogue and include employees in green initiatives encourage a stronger identification with organizational environmental missions (Rafiq, Cham, Tapsir, Mansoor, \u0026amp; Farrukh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Meanwhile, structured green HRM practices offer tangible signs of the organization's commitment, strengthening employees' psychological bonds (Abbas, Sarwar, Rehman, Z\u0026aacute;mečn\u0026iacute;k, \u0026amp; Shoaib, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Such supportive climates reinforce job embeddedness, as employees see their values and career paths closely aligned with the organization's green vision (Dumont, Shen, \u0026amp; Deng, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). In return, employees are motivated to engage voluntarily in actions that promote environmental performance, beyond formal job requirements. This dynamic interplay between leadership, HRM, and employee attitudes fits naturally within the reciprocal framework described by social exchange theory. Therefore, employee perceptions of fairness, trust, and care become critical pathways linking organizational practices to environmental improvements. Green HRM and participative leadership act not just as operational tools, but as catalysts for building social capital oriented toward sustainability. Social exchange theory thus elegantly frames the way internal strategies can trigger broader pro-environmental behaviours in organizations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHobfoll (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e) presented the theory of conservation of resource, which highlights human motivation to\u0026ensp;gain and preserve resources that are valuable. Resources are broadly categorized as not only physical resources,\u0026ensp;but also psychological resources, identities, and situational resources (Demerouti, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). In environments rich with opportunity and support, individuals tend to invest more effort to maintain and enhance these resource pools (Spanouli \u0026amp; Hofmans, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Organizational practices that prioritize green values, such as participative leadership and HRM interventions, create resource-rich climates for employees. These green-oriented practices can reinforce employees\u0026rsquo; sense of security, purpose, and competence, key components of personal resource reservoirs. Within such environments, employees embedded in green values find greater meaning and attachment, fuelling consistent engagement with sustainability efforts. Accordingly, conservation of resource theory provides critical insights into how resource-supported organizational climates promote sustained environmental contributions. Employees are not just reacting to directives; they are actively investing and expanding their psychological and social resources around environmental goals. This perception contributes to a better understanding of the mechanisms through which ingrained employee behaviours lead to environmentally performance over time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResource-driven perspectives provide powerful insights into how employees interact with green organizational practices (Khanra, Kaur, Joseph, Malik, \u0026amp; Dhir, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). When green HRM and participative leadership behaviours are perceived as enablers of personal growth, employees are likely to show deeper embeddedness in the organization's sustainability efforts. The accumulation of psychological resources, such as pride in environmental contributions and confidence in green skills, fuels ongoing employee engagement. Those with stronger pro-environmental values magnify these effects by proactively conserving and enhancing organizational resources. Rather than simply responding to organizational mandates, such employees become drivers of innovation and resilience within green systems. The reinforcing cycle between resource gains and environmental engagement strengthens both employee commitment and organizational sustainability outcomes. Consequently, applying conservation of resource theory to this framework highlights how internal resource conservation and growth mechanisms underpin long-term environmental performance. This perspective enriches the study by offering a nuanced understanding of how sustainability practices translate into durable organizational success.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eGreen HRM, green participative leadership, and environmental performance\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOrganizations increasingly recognize that embedding sustainability within human resource management practices can drive significant improvements in environmental performance (Tahir, Umer, Nauman, Abbass, \u0026amp; Song, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Green HRM strategies, including green training, eco-friendly performance appraisals, and environmental reward systems, align employee behaviours with broader sustainability goals (Chang, Chiang, Hu, \u0026amp; Hughes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). By systematically incorporating environmental criteria into HR functions, organizations reinforce green norms and foster a culture of sustainability (Ehnert, Harry, \u0026amp; Zink, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Such practices enhance employees' environmental awareness (Darvishmotevali \u0026amp; Altinay, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), commitment (Ren, Jiang, \u0026amp; Tang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), and responsibility (Malik et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), translating into operational efficiencies and reduced ecological footprints. Moreover, green HRM initiatives encourage proactive engagement, motivating employees to go beyond compliance and actively innovate in sustainable practices (Diaz-Carrion, L\u0026oacute;pez‐Fern\u0026aacute;ndez, \u0026amp; Romero‐Fernandez, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Research in manufacturing sectors shows that firms investing in green HRM consistently outperform others in environmental indicators such as waste reduction and energy conservation So, green HRM not only cultivates internal environmental capabilities but also provides a strategic pathway for achieving superior environmental performance. Given this evidence, it is logical to propose that green HRM practices are positively related to environmental performance in manufacturing organizations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, research show that leadership styles play a pivotal role in shaping employee behaviours and organizational outcomes, especially in the context of sustainability (Suriyankietkaew, Krittayaruangroj, \u0026amp; Iamsawan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Green participative leadership, characterized by involving employees in environmental decision-making and encouraging shared ownership, remains an emerging but promising construct (Lili \u0026amp; Rafiq, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Lili and Rafiq (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) research have focused on green participative leadership effect on pro-environmental behaviour, its influence on broader organizational performance metrics like environmental outcomes remains underexplored. Participative leadership styles foster a sense of psychological empowerment among employees (Huang, Shi, Zhang, \u0026amp; Cheung, 2006), enabling greater creativity and commitment to sustainability initiatives. By inviting employees into environmental conversations, green participative leadership builds collective responsibility for environmental goals and enhances the likelihood of successful implementation. In manufacturing industries, where operational complexities require coordinated environmental efforts, participative leadership becomes especially critical. Employees who feel valued and included in green strategies are more likely to align their efforts with the organization's environmental objectives, leading to stronger performance outcomes (Tahir et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Based on these arguments, it is proposed that green participative leadership is positively associated with environmental performance in manufacturing organizations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore the relationship between green participative leadership, green HRM and environmental performance can be elucidated via social exchange theory (Blau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1964\u003c/span\u003e). According to Rani and Mishra (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), when organizations invest in green HRM practices and adopt green participative leadership approaches, employees perceive these actions as meaningful demonstrations of support and trust. Based on social exchange theory, employees reciprocate favourable treatment by engaging in behaviours that advance organizational goals (Blau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1964\u003c/span\u003e). Green HRM practices provides structural and policy-driven support for sustainability, while green participative leadership offers relational and emotional reinforcement. Together, they create a synergistic environment where employees feel both empowered and obligated to contribute toward achieving environmental performance. Such reciprocal exchanges foster not only commitment to organizations values but also proactive behaviours aimed at enhancing environmental performance. The alignment of HRM systems and leadership behaviours thus strengthens employees' motivation to innovate, conserve resources, and minimize environmental impact. Social exchange theory thereby offers a robust framework for understanding.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 1\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eGreen HRM is significantly and positively related to environmental performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 2\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eGreen participative leadership is significantly and positively related to environmental performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eGreen HRM, green participative leadership, and green job embeddedness\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe concept of job embeddedness has been pivotal in explaining employee retention and organizational attachment since its introduction by Mitchell et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). Succeeding research expanded the framework by highlighting the influence of organizational practices, particularly human resource strategies, on enhancing employee embeddedness (Crossley et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007b\u003c/span\u003e). Green HRM practices, focused on aligning employees with environmental values, create a supportive context that strengthens employees\u0026rsquo; emotional and cognitive bonds with the organization (Dumont et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). They further argued that employees who perceive alignment between their personal environmental values and organizational initiatives are more likely to develop deeper psychological attachment. Green training, eco-friendly rewards, and sustainability-focused career development opportunities nurture a sense of belonging and shared mission among employees (Paill\u0026eacute; \u0026amp; Val\u0026eacute;au, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, leadership behaviours that involve employees in environmental decision-making reinforce employees\u0026rsquo; identification with organizational green initiatives (Yan \u0026amp; Rafiq, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The integration of employees in the development of\u0026ensp;environment strategies makes it more personally relevant for them to become environmentally committed and, hence, embedded in the company. These findings indicate that green HRM and green participative leadership have a positive impact\u0026ensp;on employees\u0026rsquo; attachment by encouraging identification with ecologically oriented values.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe social exchange theory (Blau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1964\u003c/span\u003e) provides a theoretical justification to link the green\u0026ensp;HRM, participative leadership with the green job embeddedness. The social exchange theory posits that when organizations demonstrate care and investment in employees' values and well-being, employees reciprocate by deepening their organizational attachment. Green HRM initiatives, perceived as organizational support for sustainability values, encourage employees to embed themselves within the organization\u0026rsquo;s green mission (Luu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Participative leadership, by fostering mutual respect and inclusion, strengthens trust and reinforces the sense of belonging among employees (Chen, Wadei, Bai, \u0026amp; Liu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Employees internalize organizational support as a relational obligation, motivating them to sustain long-term relationships with the organization. Green-focused HRM policies and leadership behaviours act as positive signals, validating employees\u0026rsquo; environmental identities and enhancing their embeddedness. Through the lens of social exchange theory, it becomes evident that reciprocal exchanges driven by sustainability initiatives foster stronger psychological ties between employees and the organization. Accordingly, the theoretical logic supports that both green HRM and participative leadership are positively related to green job embeddedness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 3\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eGreen HRM is significantly and positively related to green job embeddedness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 4\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eGreen participative leadership is significantly and positively related to green job embeddedness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eGreen job embeddedness and\u003c/em\u003e environmental performance\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmployee attachment to organizational values and missions has long been associated with enhanced performance across multiple domains (Johnson \u0026amp; Jackson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Scholars have demonstrated that employees who feel a strong psychological connection with their organization tend to invest greater discretionary effort toward achieving organizational goals (Kundi, Aboramadan, Elhamalawi, \u0026amp; Shahid, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In sustainability contexts, such attachments are critical, as employees aligned with green missions are more likely to support eco-friendly initiatives and operational practices. Although traditional job embeddedness research primarily focused on turnover reduction, recent shifts in HRM scholarship recognize embeddedness as a driver of positive work behaviours (Wu, Rafiq, \u0026amp; Chin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). When employees internalize environmental values through their organizational attachment, they are more willing to advocate, innovate, and act in ways that promote environmental goals (Yasir, Babar, Mehmood, Xie, \u0026amp; Guo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Green job embeddedness captures this evolving dynamic, linking psychological commitment not only to retention but to active environmental contribution. Employees deeply embedded in green-oriented organizations are likely to embrace initiatives such as waste minimization, energy conservation, and resource optimization. Building on insights from employee engagement and sustainability behaviour research, it is plausible that green job embeddedness enhances environmental performance outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial exchange theory (Blau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1964\u003c/span\u003e) offers a compelling foundation for understanding how green job embeddedness translates into environmental performance. According to the Ogiemwonyi and Jan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) employees perceive that their organization shares and supports their environmental values, they experience a sense of indebtedness and moral obligation. This psychological obligation fosters behaviours aimed at reciprocating the organization investment in environmental stewardship. Employees embedded through shared sustainability values view environmental contribution not as an obligation but as a reciprocal gesture within the social exchange dynamic. Such reciprocal relationships encourage employees to initiate, support, and sustain green initiatives without external pressure. Through the lens of social exchange theory, embedded employees invest their time, creativity, and energy into environmental practices, reinforcing the organization\u0026rsquo;s green objectives. This voluntary engagement strengthens organizational sustainability strategies and directly contributes to measurable environmental performance improvements. Social exchange theory effectively captures the motivational pathways linking green job embeddedness to enhanced environmental outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 5\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eGreen job embeddedness is significantly and positively related to environmental performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMediating role of green job embeddedness\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrevious research has ascertained\u0026ensp;that employee psychological process is a significant linking factor between an organizational practice and performance outcomes (Kundi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). According to the Din, Yang, and Zhang (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) research findings the employee engagement and sustainability highlights that strong emotional attachment amplifies the effectiveness of green organizational strategies. Green HRM practices create a context where employees feel deeply connected to the organization's environmental mission, enhancing the likelihood of behavioural alignment (Chang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, participative leadership fosters a collaborative environment that reinforces employees\u0026rsquo; sense of ownership and commitment toward sustainability initiatives (Lili \u0026amp; Rafiq, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Green job embeddedness is\u0026ensp;a critical mediator, which explains how workers\u0026rsquo; environmental linkages pull organizational initiatives through to substantive results. Individuals with higher embeddedness in green schemes are also more likely to behave congruently with\u0026ensp;organizational green goals. Both green HRM and participative leadership increase the likelihood of achieving superior environmental performance\u0026ensp;by increased embedded in their green jobs. Based on this background, it can be\u0026ensp;logically inferred that green job embeddedness mediates the relationship between green HRM, green participative leadership, and environmental performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording\u0026ensp;to the conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e), individuals will attempt to gain and maintain resources that contribute to their occupational and personal well-being. Green HRM practices and participative leadership\u0026ensp;behaviours enhance employee psychological resources including perceived empowerment and environmental identity. Employees who work in organizations that value sustainability report more resource gains,\u0026ensp;such as having an enhanced purpose and self-belief (Ispiryan, Pakeltiene, Ispiryan, \u0026amp; Giedraitis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). This accumulation of environmental resources motivates employees to invest greater effort into sustainability initiatives, linking their embeddedness to organizational outcomes. When employees perceive environmental support structures, they are more resilient and proactive in promoting green practices within the organization. Green job embeddedness acts as an internal reservoir of environmental commitment, channelling organizational investments into improved environmental performance. The mediating role of embeddedness, viewed through conservation of resources theory, highlights the dynamic interplay between resource gain and sustained green behaviours. These theoretical insights support the argument that green job embeddedness mediates the effects of green HRM and green participative leadership on environmental performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 6\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eMediating role of green job embeddedness in the relationship between green HRM and environmental performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 7\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eMediating role of green job embeddedness in the relationship between green participative leadership and environmental performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eModerating role of pro-environmental behaviour\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmployees\u0026rsquo; personal values and orientations toward the environment significantly shape their reactions to organizational sustainability practices (Rickaby, Glass, \u0026amp; Fernie, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Research on environmental behaviour indicates that individuals with strong pro-environmental values are more sensitive and responsive to green organizational initiatives (Pyo, Chung, Ma, \u0026amp; Oh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Organizational strategies such as green HRM or participative leadership may offer similar sustainability signals to employees, yet the degree of internalization often depends on employees\u0026rsquo; environmental predispositions. Those who inherently prioritize environmental goals are more likely to perceive green HRM initiatives as personally meaningful and deeply embed themselves within the organization. Similarly, employees with strong environmental orientations are better positioned to interpret participative leadership actions as authentic commitments to sustainability (Lili \u0026amp; Rafiq, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Higher levels of pro-environmental behaviour among employees can thus magnify the effectiveness of green HRM and leadership interventions in strengthening job embeddedness. Conversely, employees with weaker environmental orientations may not fully align their attitudes and behaviours with the organization's green mission despite structural support. Accordingly, pro-environmental behaviour is proposed to moderate the relationships between green HRM, green participative leadership, and green job embeddedness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConservation of resources theory posits that individuals are more motivated to conserve and invest resources that align with their personal values and goals (Hobfoll, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e). Employees with a stronger inclination toward environmental values perceive green HRM practices and participative leadership behaviours as valuable resources supporting their personal goals. This alignment fosters greater willingness to invest emotional and cognitive energies into organizational initiatives focused on sustainability (Vo\u0026szlig;, Cordes, \u0026amp; Lueg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Pro-environmental behaviour thus acts as a catalyst that strengthens the resource acquisition and conservation processes triggered by green HRM and participative leadership. When employees\u0026rsquo; environmental values are congruent with organizational practices, resource gain cycles become more powerful and self-reinforcing. These cycles enhance employees\u0026rsquo; psychological attachment to the organization, leading to deeper embeddedness within the green organizational framework. Moderation through pro-environmental behaviour highlights the conditional nature of how internal and external resources interact to shape employee outcomes. Based on conservation of resources theory, it is expected that pro-environmental behaviour strengthens the positive relationships between green HRM, participative leadership, and green job embeddedness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 8\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerating role of pro-environmental behaviour in the relationship between green HRM and green job embeddedness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 9\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerating role of pro-environmental behaviour in the relationship between green participative leadership and green job embeddedness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSample procedures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study employed a cross-sectional survey methodology to collect data from employees working in the manufacturing sector across three major cities in China: Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou. These cities were selected due to their strategic significance in China\u0026rsquo;s economic development, high concentration of manufacturing enterprises, and strong orientation toward sustainability practices. Beijing, as the capital city, represents administrative leadership and policy implementation; Shanghai serves as a global financial and innovation hub; and Guangzhou is a key manufacturing and logistics center in southern China. The manufacturing industries in these cities are rapidly adopting sustainability strategies, making them ideal settings for examining the interplay between green HRM, green participative leadership, green job embeddedness, pro environmental behaviour, environmental performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eData were collected from employees in medium and large-scale manufacturing organizations, specifically targeting individuals directly involved in innovation projects, digital initiatives, or sustainability-related practices. Eligibility criteria required participants to have at least one year of work experience in their current organization and hold roles such as middle managers, team leaders, or operational staff with innovation-related responsibilities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eData collection was carried out over a two-month period through both physical distribution and secure online links. A total of 390 questionnaires were distributed across participating manufacturing organizations, and 368 were returned. After screening for incomplete or invalid responses, a final sample of 364 valid responses was retained for data analysis, resulting in an effective response rate of 93.33%.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMeasures\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGreen job embeddedness, the study\u0026rsquo;s mediating variable, was measured using an adapted version of Crossley, Bennett, Jex, and Burnfield (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007a\u003c/span\u003e) validated job embeddedness scale, focusing on seven items related to leader behaviours and employee adaptability to environmental changes. The revised adopted items are \u0026lsquo;It would be difficult for me to leave this organization due to its commitment to sustainability\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;I feel attached to this organization because of its environmental values\u0026rsquo;; \u0026lsquo;I am tightly connected to this organization because of its strong environmental commitment\u0026rsquo;; \u0026lsquo;I'm too caught up in this organization's green initiatives to leave\u0026rsquo;; \u0026lsquo;I simply could not leave the organization that I work for because of its environmental mission\u0026rsquo;; \u0026lsquo;It would be easy for me to leave this organization if it abandoned its green practices\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;I feel tied to this organization because of its environmental efforts\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo establish the validity of our measure, the authors performed an\u0026ensp;exploratory factor analysis on a different sample, and then supported this examination by conducting a confirmatory factor analysis in this study in accordance with the procedures outlined by Gerbing and Hamilton (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). The completely independent sample had 228 active workers in Chinese enterprises, and the participants were recruited on\u0026ensp;a famous Chinese online social media plate form (WeChat). The sample, portraying a broad demographic spectrum, was composed of 54.2% males, an average age of 34.9 years, 61% boasting a graduate degree. A careful selection process was employed, limiting the sample to 214 participants who presented complete data relevant to the measure. A principal axis factor analysis, complemented with oblique rotation, exhibited the formation of a single factor by the seven items, accounting the standardized shared variance, and factor loadings that ranged from 0.61 to 0.82. The measure rendered a reliability coefficient, Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha, of 0.84, and corrected item-total correlations spanning from 0.43 to 0.69.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, green HRM is measured using a 6-item scale by Dumont et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Green participative leadership is evaluated through 6-item scale developed by Lili and Rafiq (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Pro environmental behaviour is measured using 3-item scale by Bissing-Olson, Iyer, Fielding, and Zacher (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Finally, environmental performance is evaluated through 7-item scale developed by Nisar et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). All items used a 7-point Likert scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Strongly Disagree to 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Strongly Agree), with higher scores reflecting greater construct levels.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCommon method bias testing\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe current study used self-reported questionnaires, which may have potential\u0026ensp;CMB or validity. Procedural and statistical methods for minimizing CMB were implemented on the attempt to reduce\u0026ensp;this problem (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, \u0026amp; Podsakoff, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Procedurally, the survey was designed to use simple and\u0026ensp;plain language, short items that are general and non-specific, but without clear correct answers that could minimize social desirability bias. Statistical analysis\u0026ensp;Harman single-factor test method was used to analyse the development of CMB. Principal component analysis showed the first factor explained 47.002% of variance, below the 50% threshold (Podsakoff et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e), indicating acceptable CMB (Fuller, Simmering, Atinc, Atinc, \u0026amp; Babin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). The study applied common method factor analysis (Liang, Li, \u0026amp; Kim, 2007) to assess CMB. As shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, no CMB was detected\u0026mdash;average Ra\u0026sup2; was significantly higher than Rb\u0026sup2;, with a high ratio of 23.24. These results confirm the robustness and validity of the analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommon method factor analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLatent Variable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLatent Indicator\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSubstantive \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003efactor loading (Ra)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSubstantial variance square (Ra\u0026sup2;)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMethod factor \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eloading (Rb)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMethod variance square (Rb\u0026sup2;)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"6\" rowspan=\"7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGreen Job Embeddedness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGJE-GJE1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.762\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.580644\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.322\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.103684\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGJE-GJE2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.829\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.687241\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.209\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.043681\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGJE-GJE3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.825\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.680625\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.234\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.054756\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGJE-GJE4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.857\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.734449\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.018\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.000324\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGJE-GJE5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.829\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.687241\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.066\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.004356\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGJE-GJE6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.855\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.731025\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.066\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.004356\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGJE-GJE7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.737\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.543169\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.098\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.009604\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePro environmental behaviour\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePEB-PEB1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.856\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.732736\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.007\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.000049\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePEB-PEB2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.900\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.810000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.041\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.001681\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePEB-PEB3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.865\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.748225\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.035\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.001225\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGreen participative leadership\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGPL-GP1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.828\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.685584\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.073\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.005329\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGPL-GPL2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.816\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.665856\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.114\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.012996\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGPL-GPL3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.893\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.797449\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.152\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.023104\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGPL-GPL4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.88\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.774400\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.070\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.004900\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGPL-GPL5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.852\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.725904\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.169\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.028561\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGPL-GPL6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.823\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.677329\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.096\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.009216\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGreen HRM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGHRM-GHRM1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.822\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.675684\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.287\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.082369\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGHRM-GHRM2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.770\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.592900\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.071\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.005041\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGHRM-GHRM3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.859\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.737881\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.010000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGHRM-GHRM4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.750\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.562500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.193\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.037249\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGHRM-GHRM5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.829\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.687241\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.041\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.001681\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGHRM-GHRM6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.722\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.521284\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.051\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.002601\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"6\" rowspan=\"7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnvironmental performance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEP-E1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.823\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.677329\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.103\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.010609\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEP-EP2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.803\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.644809\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.192\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.036864\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEP-EP3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.791\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.625681\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.307\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.094249\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEP-EP4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.881\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.776161\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.093\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.008649\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEP-EP5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.898\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.806404\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.016\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.000256\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEP-EP6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.796\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.633616\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.355\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.126025\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEP-EP7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.808\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.652864\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.362\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.131044\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAverage\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.684698\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.0294641\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eNotes\u003c/b\u003e: n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;364, GHRM\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Green HRM, GPL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Green participative leadership, GJE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Green job embeddedness, PEB\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Pro environmental behaviour, EP\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Environmental performance.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePartial least squares structural equation\u0026ensp;modelling (PLS-SEM) was used in this study and serves as a way of obtaining inferential statistics, using the procedures that were outlined by Tan, Lee, Hew, Ooi, and Wong (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). PLS-SEM\u0026ensp;is especially beneficial for prediction and theory building because it is aimed at predicting and understanding causality among the variables by optimizing for explained variance (Hair, Hult, Ringle, \u0026amp; Sarstedt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Unlike Covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) that is generally used to test for the adequacy and consistency of the proposed model assumes normal distribution (Anderson \u0026amp; Gerbing, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e). As PLS-SEM can be used for data set not\u0026ensp;normally distributed, we performed normality test in SPSS and the p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;5% of significance. This demonstrated rejection of the\u0026ensp;null hypothesis that the data followed a normal distribution. For this reason, PLS-SEM was selected for analysing\u0026ensp;the study objectives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe reflective measurement model was assessed for reliability and validity following Jihad Mohammad, Farzana Quoquab, Siti Halimah, and Ramayah Thurasamy (2019). With respect to reliability, measure\u0026rsquo;s reliability\u0026ensp; composite reliability CR values of greater than 0.7 indicate acceptable reliability (Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDescriptive analysis of the variables\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis correlation Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e presents correlation analysis among five variables: green HRM, green participative leadership, green job embeddedness, pro environmental behaviour, environmental performance, based on data from 364 respondents. All correlations are statistically significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), indicating strong relationships across variables.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCorrelations analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGPL\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGHRM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGJE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePEB\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGPL\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGHRM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.711\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGJE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.648\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.697\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.684\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.689\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.682\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePEB\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.321\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.471\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.540\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.477\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.905\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.033\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.941\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.090\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.304\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.696\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.575\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.637\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.650\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.643\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eNotes\u003c/b\u003e: n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;364, GHRM\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Green HRM, GPL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Green participative leadership, GJE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Green job embeddedness, PEB\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Pro environmental behaviour, EP\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Environmental performance.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAssessment of model utilizing PLS-SEM\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn our study,\u0026ensp;the PLS-SEM approach was employed to conduct inferential statistics. As suggested by Tan et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), PLS-SEM is suitable for\u0026ensp;studies that violate the assumption of normality in the distribution of data. The normality test was\u0026ensp;applied, by SPSS, where a p- value (\u0026lt;. 001) by less than\u0026ensp;.05. This result rejected the null\u0026ensp;hypothesis of normal distribution. Besides, such mediation analysis can\u0026ensp;better be conducted in PLS‑SEM (Nitzl, Roldan, \u0026amp; Cepeda, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). As such, SmartPLS 4 is suitable for use in this study because it has fewer\u0026ensp;normality requirements.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMeasurement model assessment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor testing the reflective measurement model, we need to determine the reliability of the\u0026ensp;indicators and constructs, as well as the convergent and discriminant validity (J. Mohammad, F. Quoquab, S. Halimah, \u0026amp; R. Thurasamy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Internal\u0026ensp;consistency reliability can be examined based on Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha and CR, with values exceeding 0.7 (Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). all Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha and CR are greater than the required threshold which is the sign\u0026ensp;of reliability of the measurement items of the constructs (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Convergent validity of the construct is checked through the measurement of AVE and factor\u0026ensp;loadings which should exceed 0.5 and 0.7 (Anderson \u0026amp; Gerbing, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e). This study\u0026ensp;investigated discriminant validity using the Fornell-Larcker criterion and Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations (Henseler, Ringle, \u0026amp; Sarstedt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). As depicted in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, the square root AVE for each variable surpasses its correlation with other variables, and all HTMT values fall below the established threshold of 0.85, thereby affirming discriminant validity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeasurement model assessment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstructs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItems\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLoadings\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComposite reliability (rho_c)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAverage Variance Extracted\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"6\" rowspan=\"7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGreen Job Embeddedness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGJE1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.750\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"6\" rowspan=\"7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.915\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"6\" rowspan=\"7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.932\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"6\" rowspan=\"7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.663\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGJE 2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.821\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGJE 3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.830\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGJE 4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.853\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGJE 5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.824\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGJE 6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.860\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGJE 7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.755\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePro environmental behaviour\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePEB1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.839\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.845\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.905\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.762\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePEB2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.891\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePEB 3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.887\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGreen participative leadership\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGPL1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.828\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.922\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.939\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.721\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGPL2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.809\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGPL3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.887\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGPL4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.876\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGPL5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.861\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGPL6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.832\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGreen HRM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGHRM 1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.834\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.881\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.91\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.629\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGHRM2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.778\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGHRM3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.855\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGHRM4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.740\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGHRM5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.825\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGHRM6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.719\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"6\" rowspan=\"7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnvironmental performance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEP1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.810\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"6\" rowspan=\"7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.924\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"6\" rowspan=\"7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.939\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"6\" rowspan=\"7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.687\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEP2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.786\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEP3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.773\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEP4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.880\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEP5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.900\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEP6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.816\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEP7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.827\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eNotes\u003c/b\u003e: n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;364, GHRM\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Green HRM, GPL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Green participative leadership, GJE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Green job embeddedness, PEB\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Pro environmental behaviour, EP\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Environmental performance.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFornell-Larcker criterion and HTMT criterion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGJE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePEB\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGHRM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGPL\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGJE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.814\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.613\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.791\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.714\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.737\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePEB\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.547\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.873\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.545\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.364\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.538\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGHRM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.723\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.471\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.793\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.792\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.761\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGPL\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.664\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.321\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.717\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.849\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.691\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.475\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.698\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.686\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.829\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eNotes\u003c/b\u003e: n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;364, GHRM\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Green HRM, GPL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Green participative leadership, GJE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Green job embeddedness, PEB\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Pro environmental behaviour, EP\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Environmental performance. Upper diagonal represents HTMT criterion, Lower diagonal represents Fornell-Larcker criterion\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStructural model assessment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e demonstrate that total nine hypothesized relationships are statistically supported. Specifically, green HRM and green participative leadership have significant direct effect on environmental performance (H1: \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.271, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.297; H2: \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.293, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.899) and green job embeddedness (H3: \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.381, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.200; H4: \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.271, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.783). Green job embeddedness, in turn, strongly predicts environmental performance (H5: \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.301, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.798). Additionally, green job embeddedness mediates the relationship between green HRM and environmental performance (H6: \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.115, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.291) and green participative leadership and environmental performance (H7: \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.082, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.788), confirming mediation mechanism. Furthermore, we propose that pro-environmental behaviour serve as moderating mechanism. Specifically, the interaction effect of pro-environmental behaviour \u0026times; green HRM\u0026rarr;environmental performance (H8: \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.080, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.098) is significant, the interaction effect of pro-environmental behaviour \u0026times; green participative leadership\u0026rarr;environmental performance (H9: \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.074, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.027) is also significant, confirming moderation mechanism.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStructural model results\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHypotheses\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelationship\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e-values\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBC95%LL\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBC95%UL\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDecision\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGHRM\u0026rarr;EP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.271\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.082\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.297\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.098\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.424\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupport\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGPL\u0026rarr;EP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.293\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.101\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.899\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.091\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.492\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupport\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGHRM\u0026rarr;GJE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.381\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.061\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.200\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.254\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.494\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupport\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGPL\u0026rarr;GJE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.271\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.057\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.783\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.162\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.382\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupport\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGJE\u0026rarr;EP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.301\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.079\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.798\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.144\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.457\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupport\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGHRM\u0026rarr;GJE\u0026rarr;EP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.115\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.035\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.291\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.054\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.192\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupport\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGPL\u0026rarr;GJE\u0026rarr;EP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.082\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.029\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.788\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.037\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.153\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupport\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePEB \u0026times; GHRM \u0026rarr;GJE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.080\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.038\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.098\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.004\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.155\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupport\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePEB \u0026times; GPL \u0026rarr;GJE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.074\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.036\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.027\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.145\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.011\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupport\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"8\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eNotes\u003c/b\u003e: n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;364, GHRM\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Green HRM, GPL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Green participative leadership, GJE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Green job embeddedness, PEB\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Pro environmental behaviour, EP\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Environmental performance.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eEnvironmental sustainability has become a crucial organizational priority in the face of intensifying ecological challenges. Manufacturing organizations, in particular, are increasingly aligning internal practices with green initiatives to ensure competitiveness and compliance. Human resource management strategies and leadership approaches are recognized as vital internal mechanisms to embed sustainability values. This study focused on how green HRM and green participative leadership influence environmental performance through employee-based mechanisms. This study explains the relationship between green job embeddedness and pro-environmental behaviour\u0026ensp;in the literature and contributes to the theoretical development of how employees influence sustainability outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings show that green HRM has a positive and significant effect on environmental performance and this is\u0026ensp;consistent with the establishing of structured green programs that integrate employee behaviours with the attainment of a sustainability objective (Tahir et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). It also in line with previous research that systematic green practices enhance employees' environmental awareness and responsibility (Darvishmotevali \u0026amp; Altinay, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In the same way, green participative leadership reveals a positive association with environmental performance, in line with the findings that green participative leadership is positively related pro-environmental behaviour (Lili \u0026amp; Rafiq, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The findings\u0026ensp;support the recently developed perspective that leadership struggles and fostering collaboration will boost the employees' environmental actions (Suriyankietkaew et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, green HRM is positively related to green\u0026ensp;job embeddedness, suggesting that green human resource practices generate employees\u0026rsquo; connection to the green orientation of the organization (Dumont et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This is alike with the finding that HRM drives psychological attachments which are important for the engagement in sustainability\u0026ensp;by highlighting the environmental values (Paill\u0026eacute; \u0026amp; Val\u0026eacute;au, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Green participative leadership also exhibits a significant positive influence on green job embeddedness, suggesting that involving employees in environmental decision-making enhances emotional commitment (Yan \u0026amp; Rafiq, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Leadership behaviours that validate employees\u0026rsquo; environmental contributions strengthen their embeddedness and sustainability identification (Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). To end, green job embeddedness directly relates to environmental performance,\u0026ensp;indicating that the employees who are highly embedded in green mission collaborate to achieve the environmental outcomes (Yasir et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe significant effect of green job embeddedness on environmental performance indicates psychological fit with green\u0026ensp;objectives as a relevant factor toward achieving sustainable behaviour (Wu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This is in line with the previous results showing that embedded employees display greater innovation, advocacy, and initiative in eco-friendly practices (Kundi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Employees who internalize green values through organizational embeddedness demonstrate proactive efforts such as resource conservation and waste minimization (Yasir et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The emotional and psychological bonds of employees to environmental goals can thus help organizations achieve more sustainable outcomes (Johnson \u0026amp; Jackson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, green job embeddedness acts not merely as a retention mechanism but as an active driver of environmental performance. The empirical support for these direct relationships advances the understanding of how internal HR and leadership systems impact broader sustainability success. Manufacturing organizations, operating under intense environmental scrutiny, can leverage these findings to design more effective green engagement strategies (Hoogendoorn et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). This finding consequently contributes meaningful insights into how employee attachment mechanisms can translate into measurable organizational environmental gains. This knowledge is\u0026ensp;also especially useful for sectors in transition towards more sustainable production processes (Jan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNext (H6 and H7) the mediating role of green job embeddedness as an intermediary bridge between green HRM and environmental performance was supported significantly, which was in line with prior studies suggesting the importance of employees' psychological attachment (Chang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Green HRM practices create environments where employees feel connected to sustainability objectives, facilitating a deeper transfer of green initiatives into performance outcomes (Dumont et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). The same, the mediation of green participative leadership and environmental performance, supports that leadership-induced\u0026ensp;embeddedness mechanism strengthens the resulting environmental outputs (Lili \u0026amp; Rafiq, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Leadership behaviours that emphasize participation and shared ownership further cultivate embeddedness, reinforcing the success of environmental strategies (Yan \u0026amp; Rafiq, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). This mediation effect underscores the need for developing emotional and value-based relationships\u0026ensp;in order to translate organizations\u0026rsquo; strategies in environmental success. Rather than relying solely on structural HR practices or top-down leadership, embedding sustainability within employees\u0026rsquo; psychological frameworks proves essential. These results build upon employee-cantered sustainability research by confirming the intermediary importance of environmental commitment (Setthakorn et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). The results thereby provide\u0026ensp;a broader perspective on the mechanisms of the relationship between green HRM and leadership perceptions and environmental performance. Finally, green job embeddedness is proposed as\u0026ensp;the immaterial bridge to translate intentions into sustained outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, the findings about the moderating effect (H8 and H9) reveals that pro-environmental behaviour additional augments the verdicts, indicating that employees\u0026rsquo; environmental values strengthen the effects of green HRM and participative leadership (Rickaby et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Employees with\u0026ensp;strong pro-environmental attitudes become more sensitive to organization green activities and thus becoming more embedded (Pyo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). As per Lili and Rafiq (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) green HRM acts are more meaningful for highly environmentally concerned employees, and they\u0026ensp;enhance emotional attachment to green causes. In the same way, participative leadership behaviours are more impactful when employees already prioritize environmental stewardship (Pyo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). This moderating mechanism implies that employee-level environmental attitudes strongly moderate the likelihood of\u0026ensp;the success of firms\u0026rsquo; sustainability strategies. To maximize embeddedness outcomes in organizations, investment in green HRM and leadership, as well as the cultivation of\u0026ensp;a more pro-environment work force, is also warranted. This type of verdict is consistent with the increasingly loud demands\u0026ensp;to develop a more nuanced understanding of employee user agency in the context of sustainable integration (Carfora et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). The results extend current literature by positioning pro-environmental behaviour as an active enabler of sustainability-enhancing employee outcomes. Hence, pro-environmental behaviour attenuates the green HRM and leadership relationships with embeddedness, thereby underscoring the existence of people-centred approach\u0026ensp;of sustainable performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTheoretical contribution\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research contributes to social exchange theory by showing\u0026ensp;that organizational investments in green HRM practices and participative leadership enhance employee attachment and engagement. It also demonstrates the importance of psychological reciprocation, as the results verify that HRM and leadership behaviours with a sustainability focus enhance employees\u0026rsquo; environmental commitment (Dumont et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Lili \u0026amp; Rafiq, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The research also contributes to the application\u0026ensp;of social exchange theory, since it proves that not only in traditional job performances but also in sustainability-based behaviours, a reciprocal relations can be made. Green HRM and participative\u0026ensp;leadership are situated not only as operational processes, but as symbolic acts of organisational care, a process of symbolic signification, catalysing employee embeddedness and pro-environmental behaviour. This theoretical contribution\u0026ensp;argues that employees see green organizational strategies as social currencies deserving commitment and discretionary effort. In this sense, the research identifies green\u0026ensp;practices as playing a key role in the process of bonding the human society that is required to maintain environmental integrity. The results fill a void in social exchange theory research and show how employee sustainability\u0026ensp;engagement develops in the realm of relational exchange with the organization. The rational has led to extension of the use of social exchange theory by incorporating its use to explain the effect on the outcomes of environmental performance, introducing\u0026ensp;a new perspective for understanding green HRM and leadership effects.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExtending conservation of resources theory, the present study contributes in revealing the\u0026ensp;underlying mechanisms of green job embeddedness and pro-environmental behaviour as critical resources to strengthen environmental performance. Green HRM and participative leadership contribute to the psychological resource pools of employees, thus enabling them to engage with organizational sustainability initiatives (Chang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Hobfoll, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e). The findings demonstrate that environmental support systems enable employees to preserve and expand valuable resources, such as environmental identity and efficacy. Through embedding sustainability within personal resource structures, employees are empowered to consistently contribute to green organizational outcomes. Mediation results show that green job embeddedness channels organizational investments into meaningful environmental actions, validating resource-driven engagement models. Moderation results further reveal that employees\u0026rsquo; pro-environmental tendencies enhance resource accumulation effects, reinforcing green job embeddedness. These insights extend conservation of resources theory by emphasizing the dynamic interaction between organizational resource provision and individual resource mobilization for sustainability. Thus, the study provides a refined understanding of how green HRM and leadership practices shape long-term environmental performance through resource conservation mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePractical contribution\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eManufacturing organizations should prioritize the integration of green HRM practices to embed sustainability deeply within daily operations. Offering regular environmental training and embedding eco-friendly criteria into performance evaluations can strengthen employees\u0026rsquo; commitment to green goals. Organizations can enhance employee engagement by designing green career development paths that reward sustainable contributions. Leaders in manufacturing settings need to actively involve employees in environmental decision-making to foster shared ownership of green initiatives. Empowering employees to co-create sustainability strategies further underscores the notion that it is everyone's responsibility to contribute to environmental goals. Leaders should develop open spaces to encourage employees to\u0026ensp;contribute new green ideas. Introducing recognition schemes for environmental acts\u0026ensp;can also help to increase the perceived value of pro-environmental acts. By taking these practical steps, this study concludes\u0026ensp;that manufacturing organizations can enhance personnel embeddedness and realize performance gains in environmental performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eManufacturing managers must also recognize the strategic advantage of cultivating pro-environmental attitudes among their workforce. Recruitment strategies should prioritize candidates who demonstrate strong environmental values and a passion for sustainability. Internal communication campaigns can emphasize the organization's commitment to environmental stewardship, reinforcing employee alignment. Organizations can organize sustainability workshops, volunteer programs, and eco-challenges to boost employee involvement in green activities. Strengthening pro-environmental behaviour internally ensures that HRM and leadership initiatives resonate more effectively across organizational levels. Supervisors and team leaders should be trained to model and reinforce pro-environmental behaviours in everyday practices. Adopting a holistic approach to employee engagement around environmental themes maximizes green job embeddedness. Such efforts not only improve operational sustainability but also position manufacturing firms as leaders in green innovation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations and future recommendations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study is subject to certain limitations that offer opportunities for future research. The cross-sectional research design restricts the ability to draw firm causal inferences between green HRM, leadership, and environmental outcomes. Self-reported data from employees could introduce social desirability bias, potentially inflating associations among variables. The research sample was limited to manufacturing organizations in China, which may affect the generalizability of findings to other sectors or cultural contexts. Moreover, the study focused primarily on employee-level perceptions without incorporating managerial or organizational-level perspectives. Only a few green leadership constructs were explored, leaving room for examining alternative leadership styles like ethical or transformational leadership. Additionally, potential industry-specific factors influencing green job embeddedness and environmental performance were not explicitly modelled.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFuture studies should employ longitudinal designs to better understand the causal mechanisms linking green HRM and leadership with sustainability outcomes. \"Researchers could incorporate multi-source data, including supervisor ratings and organizational metrics, to minimize potential bias. Expanding investigations to different industries such as hospitality, energy, or healthcare would enhance the external validity of the findings. Comparative cross-country research could provide insights into cultural influences on green job embeddedness and pro-environmental behaviour. Future research could explore the role of alternative leadership styles in fostering employee environmental commitment and performance. Introducing firm-level moderators such as organizational climate, culture, or environmental strategy could deepen theoretical insights. Researchers might also develop and validate new measurement tools tailored specifically for green job embeddedness. Finally, examining the dynamic evolution of green job embeddedness over time would provide a richer understanding of sustainability integration in organizations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study reveals that both green participative leadership and Green HRM significantly contribute to improved environmental performance in industrial settings. The mediating role of green job embeddedness is evident in linking organizational initiatives with employee involvement. Furthermore, pro-environmental behaviour amplifies these relationships, underscoring the importance of employee values in shaping outcomes. Anchored in social exchange theory and conservation of resources theory, the findings present an integrated view of how internal mechanisms and employee engagement drive sustainability. Therefore, this study advances research and offers strategic pathways for enhancing green commitment and sustaining high levels of environmental performance within manufacturing organizations.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eInformed Consent\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003e Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. Participants were informed about the study\u0026rsquo;s purpose, confidentiality, voluntary participation, and their right to withdraw at any time. No identifying information was collected, ensuring anonymity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eEthical Approval\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study received ethical approval from the relevant institutional ethics committee (approval details withheld for peer review). The research involved a self-administered, anonymous questionnaire with no physical or psychological intervention, posing minimal risk to participants. All participants were over 18 years of age, and their participation was voluntary and anonymous.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors confirm their contribution to the paper as follows: MR: conceptualization; DC: data curation; resources; software; MR: writing-original draft; formal analysis. MR: supervision; validation; writing\u0026mdash;review \u0026amp; DC: editing; funding acquisition. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research was supported by an institutional research grant (details withheld for peer review).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbbas Z, Sarwar S, Rehman MA, Z\u0026aacute;mečn\u0026iacute;k R, Shoaib M (2022) Green HRM promotes higher education sustainability: a mediated-moderated analysis. Int J Manpow 43(3):827\u0026ndash;843\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAhmad I, Ullah K, Khan A (2022) The impact of green HRM on green creativity: mediating role of pro-environmental behaviors and moderating role of ethical leadership style. Int J Hum resource Manage 33(19):3789\u0026ndash;3821\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmrutha VN, Geetha SN (2020) A systematic review on green human resource management: Implications for social sustainability. J Clean Prod 247:119131\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnderson JC, Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull 103(3):411\u0026ndash;423. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBissing-Olson MJ, Iyer A, Fielding KS, Zacher H (2013) Relationships between daily affect and pro‐environmental behavior at work: The moderating role of pro‐environmental attitude. J organizational Behav 34(2):156\u0026ndash;175\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlau PM (1964) Justice in Social Exchange. Sociol Inq 34(2):193\u0026ndash;206. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1964.tb00583.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1475-682X.1964.tb00583.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarfora V, Caso D, Sparks P, Conner M (2017) Moderating effects of pro-environmental self-identity on pro-environmental intentions and behaviour: A multi-behaviour study. J Environ Psychol 53:92\u0026ndash;99. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.07.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.07.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChang Y-Y, Chiang F-Y, Hu Q, Hughes M (2024) From green HRM to SDG success: pathways through exploratory innovation and developmental culture. RMS, 1\u0026ndash;31\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen L, Wadei KA, Bai S, Liu J (2020) Participative leadership and employee creativity: A sequential mediation model of psychological safety and creative process engagement. Leadersh Organ Dev J 41(6):741\u0026ndash;759. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1108/LODJ-07-2019-0319\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/LODJ-07-2019-0319\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCropanzano R, Mitchell MS (2005) Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. J Manag 31(6):874\u0026ndash;900\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCrossley CD, Bennett RJ, Jex SM, Burnfield JL (2007a) Development of a global measure of job embeddedness and integration into a traditional model of voluntary turnover. J Appl Psychol 92(4):1031\u0026ndash;1042\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCrossley CD, Bennett RJ, Jex SM, Burnfield JL (2007b) Development of a global measure of job embeddedness and integration into a traditional model of voluntary turnover. J Appl Psychol 96(6):1316\u0026ndash;1316. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1037/a0025569\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/a0025569\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDarvishmotevali M, Altinay L (2022) Green HRM, environmental awareness and green behaviors: The moderating role of servant leadership. Tour Manag 88:104401\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDemerouti E (2025) Job demands-resources and conservation of resources theories: How do they help to explain employee well-being and future job design? J Bus Res 192:115296. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115296\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115296\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDiaz-Carrion R, L\u0026oacute;pez‐Fern\u0026aacute;ndez M, Romero‐Fernandez PM (2018) Developing a sustainable HRM system from a contextual perspective. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 25(6):1143\u0026ndash;1153\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDin AU, Yang Y, Zhang Y (2025) The psychological benefits of green HRM: A study of employee well-being, engagement, and green behavior in the healthcare sector. Acta Psychol 254:104823. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.104823\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.104823\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDirani KM, Abadi M, Alizadeh A, Barhate B, Garza RC, Gunasekara N, Majzun Z (2020) Leadership competencies and the essential role of human resource development in times of crisis: a response to Covid-19 pandemic. Hum resource Dev Int 23(4):380\u0026ndash;394\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDumont 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. Hum Resour Manag 56(4):613\u0026ndash;627\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEhnert I, Harry W, Zink KJ (2013) Sustainability and HRM: An introduction to the field. Sustainability and human resource management: Developing sustainable business organizations. Springer, pp 3\u0026ndash;32\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFrenkel SJ, Bednall T (2016) How training and promotion opportunities, career expectations, and two dimensions of organizational justice explain discretionary work effort. Hum Perform 29(1):16\u0026ndash;32\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFuller CM, Simmering MJ, Atinc G, Atinc Y, Babin BJ (2016) Common methods variance detection in business research. J Bus Res 69(8):3192\u0026ndash;3198. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGerbing DW, Hamilton JG (1996) Viability of exploratory factor analysis as a precursor to confirmatory factor analysis. Struct equation modeling: multidisciplinary J 3(1):62\u0026ndash;72\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGhosh M (2019) Determinants of green procurement implementation and its impact on firm performance. J Manuf Technol Manage 30(2):462\u0026ndash;482\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHair J, Hult GTM, Ringle C, Sarstedt M (2022) \u003cem\u003eA Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHenseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2015) A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci 43(1):115\u0026ndash;135. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHobfoll SE (1989) Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am Psychol 44(3):513\u0026ndash;524. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHoogendoorn B, Guerra D, Van Der Zwan P (2015) J. S. B. E. What drives environmental practices of SMEs? \u003cem\u003e44\u003c/em\u003e, 759\u0026ndash;781\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuang X, Shi K, Zhang Z, Cheung YL, J. A. (2006) P. J. o. M. The impact of participative leadership behavior on psychological empowerment and organizational commitment in Chinese state-owned enterprises: The moderating role of organizational tenure. \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e, 345\u0026ndash;367\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIspiryan A, Pakeltiene R, Ispiryan O, Giedraitis A (2024) Fostering Organizational Sustainability Through Employee Collaboration: An Integrative Approach to Environmental, Social, and Economic Dimensions. 4(4):1806\u0026ndash;1826\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJan A, Salameh AA, Rahman HU, Alasiri MM (2024) Can blockchain technologies enhance environmental sustainable development goals performance in manufacturing firms? Potential mediation of green supply chain management practices. Bus Strategy Environ 33(3):2004\u0026ndash;2019\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJohnson RE, Jackson EM (2009) Appeal of organizational values is in the eye of the beholder: The moderating role of employee identity. J Occup Organizational Psychol 82(4):915\u0026ndash;933. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1348/096317908X373914\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1348/096317908X373914\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhanra S, Kaur P, Joseph RP, Malik A, Dhir A (2022) A resource-based view of green innovation as a strategic firm resource: Present status and future directions. Bus Strategy Environ 31(4):1395\u0026ndash;1413\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKundi YM, Aboramadan M, Elhamalawi EMI, Shahid S (2021) Employee psychological well-being and job performance: exploring mediating and moderating mechanisms. Int J Organizational Anal 29(3):736\u0026ndash;754. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1108/IJOA-05-2020-2204\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/IJOA-05-2020-2204\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLili Z, Rafiq M (2025) The impact of green participative leadership on pro-environmental behavior: mediating role of green self-efficacy and moderating role of environmental awareness. J Hospitality Tourism Insights 8(5):1783\u0026ndash;1802. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1108/JHTI-06-2024-0537\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/JHTI-06-2024-0537\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLuu TT (2018) Employees\u0026rsquo; green recovery performance: the roles of green HR practices and serving culture. J Sustainable Tourism 26(8):1308\u0026ndash;1324\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMalik SY, Mughal H, Azam Y, Cao T, Wan Y, Zhu Z, H., Thurasamy R (2021) Corporate social responsibility, green human resources management, and sustainable performance: is organizational citizenship behavior towards environment the missing link? Sustainability 13(3):1044\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eManuti A, Giancaspro ML (2019) People make the difference: An explorative study on the relationship between organizational practices, employees\u0026rsquo; resources, and organizational behavior enhancing the psychology of sustainability and sustainable development. Sustainability 11(5):1499\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMitchell TR, Holtom BC, Lee TW, Sablynski CJ, Erez M (2001) Why People Stay: Using Job Embeddedness to Predict Voluntary Turnover. Acad Manag J 44(6):1102\u0026ndash;1121. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.2307/3069391\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2307/3069391\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMohammad J, Quoquab F, Halimah S, Thurasamy R (2019) Workplace internet leisure and employees' productivity The mediating role of employee satisfaction. Internet Res 29(4):725\u0026ndash;748. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1108/IntR-05-2017-0191\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/IntR-05-2017-0191\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMohammad J, Quoquab F, Halimah S, Thurasamy R (2019) Workplace internet leisure and employees\u0026rsquo; productivity. Internet Res 29(4):725\u0026ndash;748. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1108/IntR-05-2017-0191\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/IntR-05-2017-0191\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNisar QA, Haider S, Ali F, Jamshed S, Ryu K, Gill SS (2021) Green human resource management practices and environmental performance in Malaysian green hotels: The role of green intellectual capital and pro-environmental behavior. J Clean Prod 311:127504\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNitzl C, Roldan JL, Cepeda G (2016) Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modeling Helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models. Industrial Manage Data Syst 116(9):1849\u0026ndash;1864. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1108/imds-07-2015-0302\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/imds-07-2015-0302\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOgiemwonyi O, Jan MT (2023) The correlative influence of consumer ethical beliefs, environmental ethics, and moral obligation on green consumption behavior. Resour Conserv Recycling Adv 19:200171. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcradv.2023.200171\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.rcradv.2023.200171\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePaill\u0026eacute; P, Val\u0026eacute;au P (2021) I don\u0026rsquo;t owe you, but I am committed: Does felt obligation matter on the effect of green training on employee environmental commitment? Organ Environ 34(1):123\u0026ndash;144\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePodsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88(5):879\u0026ndash;903. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePyo S, Chung SG, Ma HR, Oh DH (2024) Firms for Sustainable Manufacturing: Understanding the Key Determinants of Pro-environmental Behaviour. 29(2):262\u0026ndash;281. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1177/09717218241238265\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/09717218241238265\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRafiq M, Cham T-H, Tapsir SH, Mansoor A, Farrukh M (2024) How does globally responsible leadership promotes pro-environmental behavior through green management initiatives? J Global Responsib 15(4):466\u0026ndash;484. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1108/JGR-06-2023-0093\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/JGR-06-2023-0093\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRafiq M, Xiuqing D (2025) Green inclusive leadership at the helm: pro-environmental behavior and environmental strategy in steering environmental performance. \u003cem\u003eLeadership \u0026amp; Organization Development Journal, ahead-of\u003c/em\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e-print(ahead-of-print\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://-print(ahead-of-print\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1108/LODJ-08-2023-0417\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/LODJ-08-2023-0417\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRani S, Mishra K (2014) Green HRM: Practices and strategic implementation in the organizations. Int J Recent Innov Trends Comput Communication 2(11):3633\u0026ndash;3639\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRen S, Jiang K, Tang G (2022) Leveraging green HRM for firm performance: The joint effects of CEO environmental belief and external pollution severity and the mediating role of employee environmental commitment. Hum Resour Manag 61(1):75\u0026ndash;90. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22079\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/hrm.22079\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRickaby MA, Glass J, Fernie S (2020) Conceptualizing the Relationship between Personal Values and Sustainability\u0026mdash;A TMO Case Study. 10(1):15\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eScott C, Myers K (2010) Toward an integrative theoretical perspective on organizational membership negotiations: Socialization, assimilation, and the duality of structure. Communication Theory 20(1):79\u0026ndash;105\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSetthakorn KP, Rostiani R, Schreier C (2024) A Meta-Analytic Review of Job Embeddedness and Turnover Intention: Evidence from South-East Asia. 14(2):21582440241260092. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1177/21582440241260092\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/21582440241260092\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpanouli A, Hofmans J (2021) A Resource-Based Perspective on Organizational Citizenship and Counterproductive Work Behavior: The Role of Vitality and Core Self-Evaluations. 70(4):1435\u0026ndash;1462. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12281\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/apps.12281\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSuriyankietkaew S, Krittayaruangroj K, Iamsawan N (2022) Sustainable Leadership Practices and Competencies of SMEs for Sustainability and Resilience: A Community-Based Social Enterprise Study. Sustainability 14(10):5762\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTahir AH, Umer M, Nauman S, Abbass K, Song H (2024) Sustainable development goals and green human resource management: A comprehensive review of environmental performance. J Environ Manage 370:122495\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTan GW-H, Lee V-H, Hew J-J, Ooi K-B, Wong L-W (2018) The interactive mobile social media advertising: An imminent approach to advertise tourism products and services? Telematics Inform 35(8):2270\u0026ndash;2288. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.09.005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.tele.2018.09.005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVo\u0026szlig; L, Cordes H, Lueg R (2025) The impact of environmental sustainability on willingness to invest in startups: A survey among private investors. 33(2):2672\u0026ndash;2695. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3254\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/sd.3254\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWu W, Rafiq M, Chin T (2017) Employee well-being and turnover intention. Career Dev Int 22(7):797\u0026ndash;815. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1108/CDI-04-2017-0072\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/CDI-04-2017-0072\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYan W, Rafiq M (2025) How and when green agile leadership influence on pro-environmental behaviour. Work 0(0):10519815251320273. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1177/10519815251320273\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/10519815251320273\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYasir N, Babar M, Mehmood HS, Xie R, Guo G (2023) The Environmental Values Play a Role in the Development of Green Entrepreneurship to Achieve. Sustainable Entrepreneurial Intent 15(8):6451\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Green HRM, Green participative leadership, Green job embeddedness, Pro environmental behaviour, Environmental performance","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6742874/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6742874/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study aims to investigate how green human resource management (Green HRM) and green participative leadership influence environmental performance through the mediating role of green job embeddedness. Additionally, it examines the moderating role of pro-environmental behaviour on the relationship between Green HRM, green participative leadership, and green job embeddedness. A structured questionnaire was to collect data from employees in manufacturing organizations across Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou. SmartPLS 4.0 was utilized to analyse the data and test the proposed direct, mediating, and moderating hypotheses. The results indicate that both Green HRM and green participative leadership have significant positive effects on environmental performance, with green job embeddedness playing a partial mediating role. Furthermore, pro-environmental behaviour significantly moderates the relationship between Green HRM, green participative leadership, and green job embeddedness. The findings provide practical insights for manufacturing organizations to foster environmental performance through strategic HRM practices and participative leadership styles. Organizations are encouraged to promote pro-environmental behaviour among employees to strengthen green job embeddedness and sustainability outcomes. This study extends the emerging research on green job embeddedness, introducing it as a critical mechanism linking leadership and HRM practices to environmental outcomes. It also contributes by investigating the relatively unexplored role of green participative leadership within the sustainability and HRM domain.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Impact of Green HRM and Green Participative Leadership on Environmental Performance: The Role of Green Job Embeddedness and Pro-environmental Behaviour","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-01 19:51:13","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6742874/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-09-12T15:49:34+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-07-15T09:17:17+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-07-02T03:12:02+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"81783336990674805955217512957519265653","date":"2025-06-26T09:54:27+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"244911639790581348694254744499323901688","date":"2025-06-26T09:50:00+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-06-26T09:38:17+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-06-26T07:20:14+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-06-22T03:47:34+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-06-18T13:55:41+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","date":"2025-06-18T13:25:07+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"541e91c1-6648-4f69-bfe7-6de1e099a592","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 1st, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[{"id":50809358,"name":"Business and commerce/Business and management"},{"id":50809359,"name":"Social science/Business and management"},{"id":50809360,"name":"Social science/Environmental studies"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-10T06:23:16+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-01 19:51:13","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6742874","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6742874","identity":"rs-6742874","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}