Dr. Vaishali Gohil

Professor, Department of Management, University of Technology, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India

Abstract

Organizations around the world are increasingly prioritizing environmental sustainability as a core strategic imperative. However, the critical human-centric link—specifically how leaders’ behaviors drive employees to genuinely identify with and implement an organization’s environmental goals—has not been thoroughly examined in existing theoretical research. This article systematically sorts out the relationship between Green Leadership and Employee Commitment to Environmental Sustainability. All research materials used in this review are sourced from recent relevant literature published in Scopus-indexed journals. Based on the consolidation of these documents, this article integrates existing theoretical frameworks, maps the core transmission pathways through which green leadership influences employee commitment, and proposes an integrative conceptual model that connects scattered research findings into a complete logical chain. Specific analysis results show that green leadership encompasses three dimensions: transformational, servant, and ethical. It does not directly act on employees’ environmental willingness; instead, it ultimately exerts a significant impact on employees’ environmental commitment through psychological transmission factors such as green self-efficacy, organizational identity, and perceived organizational support. The article concludes with a discussion of the value of this research for theoretical development and corporate practice, while proposing future research directions for further exploration.

Keywords: Green Leadership, Employee Commitment, Environmental Sustainability, Green Human Resource Management, Organizational Behavior.

 Introduction

As the climate crisis grows increasingly severe year by year, stakeholders closely tied to enterprises—including upstream and downstream clients, consumers, and regulators—are raising ever-higher environmental requirements. These dual pressures force all enterprises to integrate environmental sustainability into their core strategies and embed it into daily operations (Robertson & Barling, 2026; Alrifae, 2026). While technological upgrades and policy adjustments may seem critical to advancing this goal, the core factor that determines long-term success is people—specifically, whether organizational leaders can take the initiative to make employees genuinely willing to participate in environmental work. This is the core of achieving long-term environmental goals (Chen & Wu, 2022; Mishra, 2017).

The concept of “green leadership”, commonly discussed in academic circles, refers to a category of leadership behaviors specifically designed to drive employees to engage in environmental protection: leaders first articulate the organization’s environmental goals in clear, accessible terms, outline a distinct environmental vision for employees, then back employees’ environmental actions with tangible support such as resources and space, stimulating employees’ motivation to collectively meet the enterprise’s set environmental targets. This concept has gained increasing attention in recent years, generating extensive discussion both in the academic field of internal organizational behavior and in sustainable development research (Chen & Chang, 2013; Robertson & Barling, 2026).

What, then, defines “employee commitment to environmental sustainability”? It does not refer to employees’ superficial compliance with an organization’s environmental projects, but to their heartfelt identification with these projects, their adoption of the projects as their own responsibilities, and the development of genuine a sense of belonging. This commitment translates beyond ideas into concrete actions—such as proactively taking environmentally friendly actions and consistently participating in the organization’s various environmental activities without abandoning them after only a few attempts (K, 2024; Beck-Krala, 2020).

Numerous empirical studies have already confirmed that green leadership does generate multiple positive impacts for employees. However, one key question has remained unresolved: exactly how does green leadership progressively drive employees to develop the commitment to follow the organization’s environmental efforts? Existing studies are fragmented, and no research has connected this process into a complete system, leaving the academic community lacking a systematic understanding. This article aims to fill this gap by integrating various existing theoretical perspectives, clarifying which factors act as mediating variables that transmit influence, and which act as moderating variables that alter the strength of influence, throughout the impact process. Finally, it proposes a unified research framework that integrates all elements, providing clear guidance for future scholars conducting related research and managers seeking to implement environmental protection in enterprises.

Conceptualizing Green Leadership

Green leadership is not a single leadership style, but an umbrella term for a whole category of leadership styles that share a common core: all styles classified under this concept explicitly integrate environmental values into three core management processes. First, the vision planning process that sets the direction for the team; Second, the role modeling process in which leaders set an example through their own actions; and Third, the empowerment process that delegates authority to employees and supports their autonomous work. Relevant academic support is drawn from Robertson & Barling, 2026; Chen & Wu, 2022.

In existing research literature, several distinct branches of green leadership have been clearly defined: Green Transformational Leadership, Environmentally Specific Transformational Leadership (ESTL), Green Servant Leadership, Ecocentric Leadership, Responsible Leadership, and Ethical Leadership. Relevant classification basis is sourced from Robertson & Barling, 2026.

Green Transformational Leadership

Green Transformational Leadership (GTFL) is a sub-type derived from the broader transformational leadership framework. Its core characteristic is the explicit integration of environmental protection values into the organization’s overall development vision; it not only motivates employees to proactively launch various environmental initiatives, but also delegates authority to employees, enabling them to advance sustainable development goals that exceed the formal requirements of their core job responsibilities (Chen & Chang, 2013; Robertson & Barling, 2026).Leaders who practice this Green Transformational Leadership specifically undertake the following actions: first, they communicate the organization’s green vision in a clear, compelling manner that all employees can understand and support; second, they consistently implement environmental behaviors in their daily work to set an example for employees; third, they inspire employees to brainstorm innovative solutions to achieve sustainable development; and at the same time, they provide tailored, demand-aligned support for the specific environmental actions of individual employees or small teams (Chen & Wu, 2022).

Environmentally Specific Transformational Leadership

A more focused green leadership style is Environmentally specific transformational leadership, abbreviated as ESTL. Unlike general Green Transformational Leadership, which covers a wide range of management scenarios, ESTL centers all management actions exclusively around environmental sustainability—whether communicating the organization’s development vision to the team, setting an example through personal conduct, or delegating authority to empower employees to act independently, every core link is closely tied to environmental values (Robertson & Barling, 2026). Leaders who practice this style inspire their followers through ideals-aligned environmental concepts, clearly articulate clear, actionable ecological goals to the team without vague generalities; they also encourage employees to break free from fixed work patterns and brainstorm innovative methods to solve various environmental challenges; at the same time, they genuinely support employees’ long-term growth in the environmental field, rather than only setting requirements without supporting development (Robertson & Barling, 2026).

Green Servant and Eco centric Leadership

One style, Green Servant Leadership, is centered on prioritizing support for the people around them and protecting the local environment, while voluntarily taking responsibility for environmental stewardship, rallying others to engage in environmental protection, and upholding the ethical baseline of respect for nature in all actions. This concept originates from the research of Robertson & Barling, 2026. Another style, Ecocentric Leadership, raises the bar further, extending the previous framework by placing ecological health as the first consideration in all decision-making. It does not separate humans and nature as unrelated entities, instead consistently recognizing that humans are inherently part of the interconnected, interdependent ecological system—a conclusion also drawn from Robertson & Barling, 2026. Both Green Servant Leadership and Eco-centric Leadership can foster employees’ heartfelt, strong identification with the organization’s environmental mission and their willingness to commit to it long-term. The reason is simple: both leadership models tie the organization’s daily practical actions to broader ethical views and ecological values, rather than only paying lip service to environmental slogans, allowing employees to truly perceive the weight of these values.

Employee Commitment to Environmental Sustainability

Employee commitment to environmental sustainability is a concept extended from established organizational commitment theory, and it is broken down into three core dimensions (K, 2024; Beck-Krala, 2020). The first is affective commitment, which refers to employees’ emotional attachment to the organization’s sustainable development goals and their genuine recognition of the value of these goals. The second is normative commitment, which means employees feel morally obligated to support the various environmental projects advanced by the organization. The third is continuance commitment, which refers to employees’ pre-assessment of the various costs they would incur if they left an organization that prioritizes sustainable development (K, 2024).

Pro-Environmental Behavior and OCBE

The environmental commitment that forms in employees’ minds does not remain purely conceptual; it ultimately translates into two categories of concrete actions. One is general Pro-Environmental Behavior, or PEB, and the other is Organizational Citizenship Behavior for the Environment, or OCBE. Both categories of action share the same core: they are all voluntarily initiated by employees, not mandatory tasks assigned by the organization, and all these actions help the organization improve its ecological environmental performance. Relevant research supporting this conclusion is sourced from Robertson & Barling, 2026; Chen & Chang, 2013.

OCBE, in turn, can be divided into three core action dimensions, rather than being a single undifferentiated category. The first is eco-initiatives, or proactively proposing environmental improvements, meaning employees independently develop optimizations and new methods for the organization’s environmental work; the second is eco-citizen participation, or participating in the organization’s environmental projects, referring to proactively signing up to join various environmental activities organized by the enterprise; the third is eco-helping, or supporting colleagues to develop environmental habits, meaning that when colleagues adopt non-environmental practices, employees proactively remind and assist them, guiding everyone to adopt green work methods together. Relevant research for this conclusion is sourced from Robertson & Barling, 2026.

Green Motivation and Engagement

Green motivation refers to the internal drive that leads people to proactively take environmentally responsible actions. Describing it as a mediating variable means it acts as a bridge between green leadership and employees’ environmental commitment: green leadership cannot directly generate employees’ environmental commitment; it must first transmit its influence through the intermediate link of green motivation. This has been confirmed by the research of K, 2024 and Beck-Krala, 2020. Specifically, if employees observe in their daily work that their leader is genuinely committed to implementing sustainable development,. Paying lip service to environmental slogans, employees will develop stronger green motivation themselves, wanting to join in taking actions that benefit the environment. This internal drive is not a passing fad; it pushes employees to consistently participate in various environmental projects launched by the organization, and also reduces employees’ intention to resign from the company—a conclusion also mentioned in K’s 2024 research.

Theoretical Frameworks Linking Green Leadership and Employee Commitment

Several mature theoretical frameworks currently exist specifically to analyze and unpack how green leadership influences employees’ commitment to environmental sustainability through specific pathways and stages. In simple terms, these frameworks exist to clarify the connection between “leaders’ environment-related leadership behaviors” and “employees’ heartfelt willingness to proactively participate in the organization’s environmental work”, sort out the invisible logical mechanisms underlying this connection, and help everyone understand exactly how the former impacts the latter.

Social Exchange Theory (SET)

To explain how environmental actions within an organization transition from a leadership requirement to an employee’s voluntary choice, Social Exchange Theory (SET), a framework for interpreting this process, must first be introduced. The core logic of this theory is simple: human interactions follow a principle of reciprocity, where if someone gives something to you, you will feel compelled to reciprocate. This logic still holds when applied to workplace environmental scenarios: when employees personally observe that real environmental actions have been embedded into the leadership team and the organization’s HRM processes, rather than only being wall-mounted slogans, they will proactively reciprocate the commitment the organization has made to sustainable development (Robertson & Barling, 2026; K, 2024). Green leaders who are truly perceptible to employees—that is, leaders who genuinely care about the environment and are willing to invest tangible resources and provide practical support for the organization’s various environmental projects—will cultivate in employees a sense of obligation to reciprocate, leading employees to contribute more environmental investment and more proactive environmental behaviors to repay the organization’s efforts (K, 2024).

Social Learning Theory (SLT)

Social Learning Theory posits that employees learn environmental concepts and behaviors by observing and imitating leaders who implement environmental practices (Robertson & Barling, 2026). Green leaders within an organization serve as role models for employees, and every action they send signals about what the organization values—for example, who proactively leads efforts to conserve office resources, who genuinely integrates environmental requirements into daily management, these details are all noticed by employees. This process is what is referred to as vicarious learning: employees can acquire knowledge simply by observing others’ actions, rather than needing to learn through personal trial and error. Throughout this process, employees’ confidence in their ability to complete environmental work, as well as their recognition and investment in environmental protection. (Robertson & Barling, 2026).

Self-Determination Theory (SDT)

Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is a mature academic theory used to explain how green leadership drives employees to proactively engage in environmental work. According to this theory, green leadership within an organization must meet employees’ three core psychological needs—autonomy, competence, and relatedness—within the framework of the organization’s environmental work, in order to cultivate employees’ internal drive to take initiative. This conclusion is sourced from Robertson & Barling, 2026.Leaders who can meet these requirements will strengthen employees’ internal driving force and their long-term investment in the organization’s sustainable development goals. Specific actions to achieve this include: communicating a clear, meaning-centered environmental vision to employees, allocating funding for specialized vocational skills development focused on sustainable work methods, and fostering a collaborative, inclusive green collective. This conclusion is sourced from Robertson & Barling, 2026.

Social Identity Theory (SIT)

Social Identity Theory (SIT) can be used to explain how green leadership drives employee action, following this logic: green leadership strengthens employees’ green organizational identity—a concept that refers to the degree to which employees integrate their organization’s environmental values into their own self-definition (Robertson & Barling, 2026). If an organization’s leaders consistently reference sustainable development principles in their communications and practice what they preach in daily work, employees will gradually integrate the organization’s environmental values into their own understanding of “who I am”. In the end, employees will demonstrate higher investment in the organization’s environmental projects and proactively adopt various environmentally friendly behaviors (Robertson & Barling, 2026).

Mechanisms Linking Green Leadership to Employee Commitment

The academic community has identified a series of mediating mechanisms through which green leadership influences employees’ commitment to environmental sustainability. Put simply, green leadership does not directly lead employees to wholeheartedly identify with and implement the organization’s environmental goals; its influence must first pass through these intermediate links to be progressively transmitted to employees, ultimately driving them to voluntarily engage in and implement the organization’s environmental work long-term. These intermediate links are the mediating mechanisms referenced in academic research, which tightly connect leaders’ environment-related actions to employees’ environmental willingness.

 

Green Self-Efficacy

Green self-efficacy refers to an individual’s heartfelt belief that they have the ability to successfully complete environmentally responsible tasks. This psychological state acts as an intermediate transmission variable in the relationship between green leadership and employee commitment (Robertson & Barling, 2026).Specifically, if a company’s leaders can provide employees with environmental skills training, the various resources required to carry out their work, and continuous positive encouragement, they can gradually help employees build this confidence—making them truly believe that they can also contribute to society’s sustainable development. This confidence is not unfounded; it in turn makes employees more willing to dedicate themselves to the organization’s environmental cause, strengthening their commitment to environmental protection (Robertson & Barling, 2026).

Environmental Passion and Autonomous Motivation

Two factors act as intermediate transmission variables in the process through which green leadership influences employees’ environmental commitment: one is holding a strong positive emotional connection to environmental causes, or what is referred to as environmental passion; the other is the internal motivation to engage in environmental work autonomously. This is a research conclusion from Robertson & Barling, 2026. Specifically, if leaders can articulate a sufficiently compelling environmental vision and are willing to reserve sufficient space for employees to arrange their own schedules and autonomously advance sustainable development goals, they can drive all employees to build a deep emotional connection to environmental protection, ultimately fostering employees’ internally derived, voluntary autonomous motivation to engage in environmental work—this conclusion is also sourced from the research of Robertson & Barling, 2026.

Green Organizational Identity and Commitment

Green organizational identity and green commitment are key mediating variables that act as a link between green leadership and employee outcomes (Robertson & Barling, 2026; K, 2024). Put simply, green leadership does not directly impact employees; it must first transmit its influence through these two psychological factors, ultimately altering employees’ states. When leaders consistently practice environmental values, not only mentioning environmental protection in speech but also implementing environmental requirements in their practical actions, employees will gradually adopt the organization’s environmental mission as their own pursuit, and their sense of identification with this mission will grow stronger. This heartfelt identification further transforms into higher employee investment in participating in the organization’s environmental work, while also reducing employees’ intention to resign from the company (K, 2024).

Green Psychological Capital (Gpsy Cap)

Green Psychological Capital encompasses four psychological states: first, green self-efficacy, the belief that one can complete environmental work well; second, green optimism, the maintenance of positive expectations for environmental progress; third, green hope, the firm conviction that environmental goals can be achieved; fourth, green resilience, the ability to persist in the face of obstacles. This concept connects green leadership to employees’ long-term consistent participation in environmental work; in other words, it acts as a mediator between the two, meaning green leadership does not directly influence employees’ participation status; it must first act on employees’ Green Psychological Capital, and this psychological capital then drives employees to sustain their environmental participation. This conclusion is sourced from Robertson & Barling, 2026.

Specifically, if leaders can proactively help employees accumulate these positive psychological resources tied to sustainable development, employees will have the confidence and ability to overcome difficulties when they encounter challenges advancing various environmental initiatives, rather than abandoning their efforts after encountering setbacks, and will gradually make environmental participation a long-term personal commitment. This inference is also sourced from Robertson & Barling, 2026.

Whether green leadership will truly make employees willing to participate in the organization’s environmental work is not fixed. Several categories of environmental and individual factors moderate the strength of the association between green leadership and employees’ environmental commitment—in simple terms, these factors cause green leadership’s influence on employees to sometimes be stronger and sometimes weaker, rather than producing identical effects across all scenarios.

Green Human Resource Management (GHRM)

When a company integrates environmental requirements into a series of human resources management practices—specifically including prioritizing candidates with environmental awareness during recruitment, providing employees with environmental training, incorporating environmental performance into performance reviews, and using compensation and benefits tied to environmental outcomes as incentives—these Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) practices amplify the impact of green leadership on employees’ environmental commitment. Relevant research conclusions are presented in (K, 2024; Robertson & Barling, 2026). If only leaders take the lead in advancing environmental protection, but the company’s human resources systems are completely misaligned, it is difficult for employees to truly believe that the organization is committed to genuine environmental action. Conversely, if green leadership is supported by this human resources system aligned with environmental goals, employees will perceive that the organization’s environmental actions are not empty slogans, but sincere arrangements embedded throughout all links from hiring to compensation. This consistent approach leads employees to identify more strongly with the organization’s environmental goals and be more willing to invest in them, and their sense of commitment will be far stronger than if only leaders act alone. This observation is also sourced from K’s 2024 research. Existing empirical data further confirms the logic of this effect: the interactive impact generated by the combination of GHRM and green leadership can significantly explain more variation in employees’ commitment levels, confirming that GHRM is indeed a key variable that moderates the effect of green leadership. This conclusion is also sourced from (K, 2024).

Power Distance and Cultural Context

Power distance, the degree to which employees accept hierarchical authority between superiors and subordinates, shapes the actual effect of green leadership. In simple terms, this cultural dimension alters the magnitude of influence green leadership can exert, meaning green leadership does not produce identical effects in every context. In cultures with lower power distance, the association between green leadership and employees’ environmental commitment is stronger (Robertson & Barling, 2026). Cultural environments that emphasize collective responsibility and advocate for environmental stewardship also amplify green leadership’s impact on employee commitment (Robertson & Barling, 2026).

Environmental Self-Identity

Employees’ pre-existing environmental self-identity—the degree to which an individual classifies themselves as “an environmentally responsible person”—influences the magnitude of effect green leadership can exert; it moderates the original strength of green leadership’s impact (Robertson & Barling, 2026). Employees who already inherently identify as environmentalists are more sensitive to the green leadership signals emitted by leaders and respond more actively. They not only develop stronger identification and willingness to invest in the organization’s environmental work, but also proactively adopt more environmentally friendly behaviors in their daily work (Robertson & Barling, 2026).

An Integrative Conceptual Model

After sorting through previous relevant literature, this article proposes an integrative theoretical model that connects the two core variables of green leadership and employees’ commitment to environmental sustainability. This model is detailed in Figure 1. All logic within this model can be broken down into four points: First, green leadership itself encompasses three dimensions: transformational, servant, and ethical. It directly acts on employees, influencing their commitment to environmental sustainability—that is, whether employees will genuinely identify with and be willing to participate in the organization’s environmental work. Second, a series of mediating mechanisms transmit the influence of green leadership, enabling it to ultimately impact employees’ environmental commitment. These intermediate transmission factors include green self-efficacy, environmental passion, autonomous motivation, green organizational identity, and Green Psychological Capital; these psychological factors act as necessary bridges for green leadership to influence employees’ willingness. Third, several moderating conditions alter the strength of the entire chain—either tightening the associations between each link or weakening their mutual influence. These conditions include Green HRM practices, power distance, and environmental self-identity, which act as regulators between green leadership, mediating variables, and employees’ environmental commitment .Fourth, the environmental commitment that forms in employees’ minds does not remain purely conceptual; it ultimately translates into concrete actions, divided into two categories: one is Pro-Environmental Behavior PEB, and the other is Organizational Citizenship Behavior for the Environment OCBE. These proactive environmental actions, in turn, drive improvements in the organization’s sustainable development performance. Beyond this, the model integrates multiple established theoretical perspectives, namely SET, SLT, SDT, and SIT, to build a complete, clear analytical framework that helps everyone clarify the complex pathways through which green leadership progressively cultivates employees’ environmental commitment.

Implications for Theory

This conceptual review, which organizes existing research, makes three core contributions to the theoretical development of research on green leadership and employees’ environmental commitment. The first contribution is the integration of previously scattered research outcomes across this field, establishing a logically consistent theoretical foundation for future researchers to build upon, eliminating the need for them to collect and organize fragmented academic resources from scratch. Relevant outcomes are presented in (Robertson & Barling, 2026; K, 2024).The second contribution is the mapping of all intermediate transmission mechanisms in the impact process, as well as the moderating conditions that alter the strength of influence, clearly explaining exactly how green leadership drives employees to develop environmental commitment, and the scenarios in which it is most likely to be effective. Relevant discussion is presented in (Robertson & Barling, 2026).The third contribution is that the theoretical model proposed in this article, which integrates all research findings, connects three previously disconnected academic fields: leadership research, organizational behavior research, and sustainable development research. This enables scholars from different directions to engage in cross-disciplinary dialogue and exchange, further advancing theoretical development across the entire field. Relevant content is sourced from (Robertson & Barling, 2026).

Future related research can advance along several directions: the integrated model proposed in this article must be tested for applicability in different cultural contexts and different industry scenarios using empirical data; the same group of research subjects must be tracked long-term to analyze the long-term impact of green leadership on employees’ environmental commitment, rather than only observing short-term effects; research must also explore whether a non-linear, non-constantly positive relationship exists between green leadership and employees’ environmental commitment. Relevant proposals are presented in (Robertson & Barling, 2026). Additionally, qualitative research methods such as interviews and observations can be used to gain a deeper understanding of how employees perceive and interpret leaders’ green leadership behaviors in their daily corporate work. Relevant discussion is sourced from (Robertson & Barling, 2026).

Implications for Practice

If an enterprise hopes that employees will genuinely identify with and be willing to invest long-term in the organization’s environmental work, the first priority is to develop the green leadership capabilities of middle and senior managers (K, 2024; Robertson & Barling, 2026). Four specific, actionable practical recommendations for this goal are outlined below:

First, implement Leadership Development Programs: develop targeted training content to help team managers master three skills—first, the ability to articulate a clear, compelling environmental vision for employees, so everyone understands the direction to work toward; second, the ability to personally take the lead in adhering to all environmental requirements, setting an example for employees; third, the willingness to delegate authority to employees, confidently supporting them to advance the various environmental projects they propose (Robertson & Barling, 2026).

Second, align with Green Human Resource Management: fully tie the work of developing managers’ green leadership to the entire system of Green HRM to create synergies—from recruiting candidates who identify with environmental values, to providing environmental training for all employees, to incorporating environmental indicators into performance reviews, and rewarding employees with outstanding environmental performance. This allows institutional support to complement managers’ leading actions, jointly amplifying the driving effect on employees’ environmental investment (K, 2024; Robertson & Barling, 2026).

Third, Cultivate Green Organizational Climate: foster a company-wide culture that values environmental stewardship, not treating environmental protection as the responsibility of a single department. Encourage all employees to openly share ideas related to sustainable development, whether proposing improvements or raising questions; also recognize and acknowledge every effort employees make for environmental protection, preventing proactive contributors from feeling their work goes unnoticed (Robertson & Barling, 2026).

 

Fourth, practice Authentic Communication of all environmental goals: require managers to consistently and sincerely communicate the organization’s set environmental targets, avoiding inconsistent words and actions, and never using environmental protection as a mere publicity stunt, to prevent employees from perceiving the organization as engaging in greenwashing. If employees develop this sense of deception, it will not only erode trust in the organization, but also completely undermine their original willingness to invest in environmental work (Robertson & Barling, 2026).

Limitations and Future Research Directions

This conceptual review has several limitations that must be transparently noted. First, the literature it uses for organization and integration is almost exclusively drawn from recent publications in Scopus-indexed journals, which may lead to the omission of two important categories of research: one is the early foundational classic literature that laid the groundwork for this entire research field, and the other is non-English publications not written in English and not indexed in Scopus. Second, the theoretical model proposed in this article, which integrates existing research findings, remains at the stage of theoretical derivation, and requires testing and verification through practical observation and data in different application scenarios and industries to confirm its applicability. Finally, this review focuses exclusively on individual-level employee environmental commitment, and does not consider various dynamic factors at the team level or the entire organizational level, even though these factors also shape the final sustainable development outcomes an enterprise can achieve.

Future related research can address these gaps along several directions. Conduct a systematic meta-analysis to integrate all eligible existing studies and conduct statistical inference; adopt a research design that covers the individual, team, and organizational levels to test whether the integrated model proposed in this review holds; also explore whether the actual effects of green leadership vary across different cultural contexts (Robertson & Barling, 2026). Furthermore, current research in this field almost exclusively centers on the positive effects of green leadership; examining the “dark side” of green leadership—such as leaders who only use environmental rhetoric as a tool to improve their personal image, without holding any genuine environmental commitment—would add a critical counterperspective to the existing one-sided body of positive research, making relevant conclusions more complete and comprehensive (Robertson & Barling, 2026).

Conclusion

Green leadership is a core lever for driving employees to engage in environmental causes; it must first act on employees’ psychological level, then combine with contextual conditions such as the organization’s internal environment and cultural background, to truly mobilize employees’ environmental willingness. It is not enough for leaders to shout a few environmental slogans to get everyone to take action.Qualified green leaders first complete three key tasks: the first is to articulate a sufficiently compelling environmental vision for all employees, so every staff member can clearly see the environmental goals the company aims to achieve and understand the significance of this work; the second is to consistently practice environmentally responsible words and actions, embedding environmental requirements into everything from small daily office tasks to the organization’s major decisions, setting an example for all employees; the third is to delegate authority to employees, not treating environmental work as an exclusive task for senior leadership, but instead enabling frontline employees to access sufficient resources and authority to confidently advance the environmental goals they are responsible for. Through these tangible actions, they gradually foster three types of environmental commitment in employees: affective commitment, or heartfelt identification with the organization’s environmental goals; moral commitment, or the belief that they are obligated to support environmental protection; and continuance commitment, or the cost-based calculation that makes them reluctant to leave this environmentally focused enterprise.

The integrative conceptual model proposed in this article builds a complete analytical framework that can clearly sort out these interlocking complex associations, helping everyone understand how green leadership progressively influences employees, while also providing clear direction for future academic research and practical management work in enterprises, so that subsequent researchers or practitioners do not feel lost.As organizations worldwide rush to address the various challenges brought by environmental protection, to build a workforce that genuinely identifies with environmental protection and is willing to proactively take environmental responsibility, and rely on this group to advance long-term ecological conservation, two unavoidable requirements must be met: first, invest resources to develop managers’ green leadership capabilities; second, build an HRM system that matches this leadership approach. Neither can be omitted.

References

Alrifae, M. (2026). Corporate social responsibility, green human resource management, green   innovation, and sustainable performance. Cogent Business & Management, 13(1), 2656021.         https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2026.2656021

Beck-Krala, E. (2020). Green compensation and rewards: Driving eco-innovation in the workplace.      Performance Analysis, 15(3), 45–62.

Chen, T., & Wu, Y. (2022). Green transformational leadership and pro-environmental behavior: The      mediating role of green self-efficacy. Sustainability, 14(8), 4521. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084521

Chen, Y. S., & Chang, C. H. (2013). The determinants of green product development             performance: Green    dynamic capabilities, green transformational leadership, and green        creativity. Journal of   Business Ethics, 116(1), 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-         012-1460-x

K, S. (2024). Green compensation and employee commitment: Enhancing pro-environmental   behavior    through innovative reward mechanisms. Journal of Sustainable HRM, 9(2), 112–130.

Mishra, P. (2017). Green human resource management: A review and research agenda.    International    Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(10), 1429–1450. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1286011

Robertson, J. L., & Barling, J. (2026). Green leadership and employees’ pro-environmental behavior: A     systematic review and theoretical framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior Review, 8(2),    1933192. https://doi.org/10.5578/jobreview.1933192