This study proposes and tests the nexus between climate for green initiatives, green innovative behaviour, organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment, green work engagement, and individual green values.
The study adopted the explanatory research design, where data were gathered from 374 star-rated frontline employees at two different waves within a one-month interval. The data retrieved from the respondents were analysed using descriptive and inferential (partial least squares structural equation modelling) statistics.
The study revealed that a climate for green initiatives positively and significantly relates to green innovative behaviour and organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment. Also, the results revealed that green work engagement mediates the said relationships. In addition, individual green values significantly moderate the nexus between climate for green initiatives and organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment, but do not moderate the nexus between a climate for green initiatives and green innovative behaviour.
Managers should cultivate a strong green climate and actively engage employees in sustainability efforts, as doing so drives pro-environmental behaviours, especially among those with strong green values.
To the best of our knowledge, this study presents a pioneering investigation into the behavioural dynamics underpinning employee green behaviours, as well as brings to bear original insights that challenge the conventional wisdom and existing assumptions in the hospitality industry literature.
1. Introduction
The hospitality industry has witnessed increasing pressure to integrate environmentally sustainable practices to enhance service quality, meet evolving guest expectations, and improve operational efficiency (Suleman et al., 2025). Among the various mechanisms supporting this transition, the development of a climate for green initiatives has emerged as a key driver. This climate reflects employees’ shared perception that environmentally responsible behaviours are supported, valued, and encouraged by the organisation (Henriques et al., 2024; Raza and Khan, 2022). In hotels, such climates are cultivated through initiatives like energy-saving technologies, waste minimization programs, and the pursuit of eco-certifications (Suleman et al., 2025). Given the labour-intensive and service-driven nature of hospitality, frontline employee behaviour is vital to achieving sustainability objectives (Lathabhavan and Bharti, 2024). However, while organisational initiatives promoting green practices have received increasing attention, limited empirical research has examined how such climates shape specific pro-environmental behaviours among hotel employees. In this regard, green innovative behaviour and organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment warrant deeper investigation (Aboramadan, 2022).
Green innovative behaviour involves proactive efforts by employees to develop and implement novel solutions for environmental sustainability (Bhutto et al., 2021), while organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment refers to voluntary, extra-role actions that support the organisation’s environmental goals (Henriques et al., 2024). These behaviours are particularly relevant in hotel settings, where teamwork and discretionary effort significantly influence both operational sustainability and guest satisfaction (Zhang et al., 2024). Guided by social exchange theory (SET) (Blau, 1964), this study posits that when employees perceive organisational support for sustainability, they are more likely to reciprocate through voluntary and innovative green behaviours (Mughal et al., 2024). Addressing this gap is essential, given the labour-intensive nature of the hospitality industry and its dependence on employee engagement to achieve sustainability goals.
One promising pathway through which green climates may foster such behaviours is green work engagement, defined as employees’ psychological involvement and motivation towards sustainability efforts (Renwick et al., 2013). Employees who are engaged with green work are more likely to invest cognitive and emotional resources into eco-friendly practices (Mughal et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2024). In hospitality contexts, such engagement may manifest in staff participation in green campaigns, guest education on sustainable practices, or external environmental advocacy (Henriques et al., 2024). From the lens of SET, a supportive green climate serves as a signal of organisational commitment, which can foster green work engagement and motivate employees to reciprocate through green innovative behaviours and organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment. Despite this theoretical reasoning, the mediating role of green work engagement in linking green climate to behavioural outcomes remains underexplored in hospitality research. This is a significant gap, given that employee engagement is a well-known driver of service quality and sustainability in hotels (Aboramadan, 2022).
Beyond internal motivation, individual characteristics may also shape how employees respond to a green climate. One such factor is individual green values, defined as employees’ personal beliefs and commitment towards environmental sustainability, may shape how green climate is perceived and acted upon (Cheema et al., 2020). Employees who strongly endorse green values are more likely to view organisational sustainability efforts as aligned with their values, thereby increasing their motivation to engage in pro-environmental behaviours (Roy, 2023). According to the social exchange theory, such value congruence enhances the perceived quality of the employee–organisation relationship, encouraging employees to engage in voluntary and innovative green behaviours (Islam et al., 2021a, b). Yet, the moderating role of individual green values in the relationship between green climate and employee behaviour remains largely untested in hospitality settings.
By examining the role of green work engagement and individual green values, this study addresses these critical gaps through a conceptual model (Figure 1) grounded in SET. The study makes several novel contributions to hospitality literature. First, it positions climate for green initiatives as a common antecedent to both green innovative behaviour and organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment, two distinct yet complementary constructs that have often been studied in isolation (Bissing-Olson et al., 2013; Norton et al., 2012, 2015). Second, it adapts Baer and Frese’s (2003) scale of climate for initiative to the environmental context, a novel operationalisation scarcely used in green HRM research, except for Thabet et al. (2023). Third, it explores both green work engagement as a mediating variable and individual green values as a moderator, relationships that remain underexplored in the hospitality literature.
The flowchart begins on the left with an oval labeled “Climate for green initiatives (C G I).” Diagonally on the bottom right side of this oval, an oval is labeled “Individual green values (I G V).” Horizontally on the right of “Climate for green initiatives (C G I)” oval, another oval is labeled “Green work engagement (G W E)” is positioned. Below “G W E” oval, the text “H 3 to H 4” is written. On the far right, two ovals are positioned on the top right and bottom right of “G W E,” oval, labeled “Green innovative behavior (G I B)” and “Organisational citizenship behavior for the environment (O C B E).” Two individual ovals labeled “H 1” and “H 2” point to “Green innovative behavior (G I B)” and “Organisational citizenship behavior for the environment (O C B E),” respectively. A rightward arrow points from “C G I” oval to “G W E” oval. Two individual rightward arrows from “G W E” oval also point to “Green innovative behavior (G I B)” and “Organisational citizenship behavior for the environment (O C B E),” respectively. Two individual dashed upward arrows labeled “H 5” and “H 6” from “I G V” oval point to arrow “H 1” and “H 2,” respectively.Research model. Source: Developed by authors
The flowchart begins on the left with an oval labeled “Climate for green initiatives (C G I).” Diagonally on the bottom right side of this oval, an oval is labeled “Individual green values (I G V).” Horizontally on the right of “Climate for green initiatives (C G I)” oval, another oval is labeled “Green work engagement (G W E)” is positioned. Below “G W E” oval, the text “H 3 to H 4” is written. On the far right, two ovals are positioned on the top right and bottom right of “G W E,” oval, labeled “Green innovative behavior (G I B)” and “Organisational citizenship behavior for the environment (O C B E).” Two individual ovals labeled “H 1” and “H 2” point to “Green innovative behavior (G I B)” and “Organisational citizenship behavior for the environment (O C B E),” respectively. A rightward arrow points from “C G I” oval to “G W E” oval. Two individual rightward arrows from “G W E” oval also point to “Green innovative behavior (G I B)” and “Organisational citizenship behavior for the environment (O C B E),” respectively. Two individual dashed upward arrows labeled “H 5” and “H 6” from “I G V” oval point to arrow “H 1” and “H 2,” respectively.Research model. Source: Developed by authors
Accordingly, the study seeks to achieve the following objectives; (1) examine the nexus between climate for green initiatives and both green innovative behaviour and organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment; (2) investigate the mediating role of green work engagement between climate for green initiatives and both green innovative behaviour and organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment; (3) examine the moderating role of individual green values between climate for green initiatives and both green innovative behaviour and organisationalorganisational citizenship behaviour for the environment.
2. Theory and hypotheses development
2.1 Climate for green initiatives and green innovative behaviour
Organisational climate represents employees’ shared perceptions of which behaviours are valued, supported, and rewarded in their workplace (Schneider et al., 1975). Researchers distinguish between general work climates and “focused climates” by highlighting specific organisational priorities, such as safety, service, or innovation (e.g. Norton et al., 2017). Thus, a climate for initiative captures the degree to which proactivity, change-oriented actions, and persistence are encouraged (Baer and Frese, 2003). Extending this to environmental sustainability, a climate for green initiatives reflects collective beliefs about the organisation’s support for eco-friendly behaviours, ranging from waste reduction to energy conservation (Norton et al., 2017). In the hospitality industry, this concept takes on practical salience as hotels and restaurants operate under intense environmental scrutiny: a green-initiative climate manifests in visible recycling stations, management endorsement of guest towel-reuse programs, and recognition of staff who suggest water-saving measures (Han and Hyun, 2018). Such a focused green climate differs from a broader psychological green climate by its explicit link to structured environmental programs and hospitality-specific practices that directly shape frontline behaviours (Norton et al., 2017).
Organisations with a supportive green climate provide resources, incentives, and a sense of shared responsibility for achieving sustainability goals (Robertson and Barling, 2013). Scholars assert that such an environment fosters employee engagement in environmentally conscious behaviours (e.g. Linnenluecke and Griffiths, 2010). Also, organisational climates that emphasise green initiatives are instrumental in embedding sustainability in the workplace culture, thereby encouraging employees to take ownership of environmental challenges (Chang et al., 2019). Green innovative behaviour reflects an employee’s proactive involvement in environmental problem-solving and the creation of innovative solutions to mitigate environmental impacts (Song and Yu, 2018). Dangelico and Pujari (2010) assert that fostering green innovative behaviour requires an alignment of organisational goals with employee creativity. In furtherance, Dumont et al. (2017) contend that a significant positive nexus exists between green organisational climates and employee-driven innovations in environmental practices. Similarly, Renwick et al. (2013) found that organisations with well-defined green initiative programs witnessed higher employee involvement in sustainability projects. Drawing on SET, we argue that when employees perceive that their organisations prioritise green initiatives, it strengthens their psychological attachment to the organisation, motivating them to engage in green innovative work behaviour as a form of repayment for the organisation’s green focus. Therefore, we hypothesise that.
Climate for green initiatives positively and significantly relates to green innovative behaviour.
2.2 Climate for green initiatives and organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment
Organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment refers to voluntary, discretionary employee actions aimed at improving environmental performance within an organisation (Iqbal and Piwowar-Sulej, 2023). These behaviours extend beyond formal job requirements and contribute significantly to an organisation’s sustainability efforts. The existing body of literature establishes that a green organisational climate significantly influences employees’ pro-environmental behaviours, including organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment (Amrutha and Geetha, 2021). Likewise, Henriques et al. (2024) contend that a strong green organisational climate fosters a shared understanding of environmental values and priorities among managers and employees, which in turn enhances organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment. Similarly, Iqbal and Piwowar-Sulej (2023) demonstrated that a strong green climate not only motivates organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment but also reinforces the alignment of individual values with organisational goals. In furtherance, Andoh et al. (2024) suggest that a supportive green climate enhances employees’ access to resources and knowledge necessary for engaging in environmental citizenship behaviours. Additionally, Fawehinmi et al. (2024) identified green initiatives as a significant predictor of organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment. Similarly, Thabet et al. (2023) demonstrated that climate for green initiatives positively and significantly relates to organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment. Given the discussion above, it can be deduced that climate for green initiatives influences organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment. Thus, the establishment of green initiatives enables employees to not only become aware of but are more inclined to engage in both obligatory and voluntary behaviours to achieve sustainability objectives. Within the context of the SET, we argue that by offering support for environmental sustainability, organisations foster a green organisational climate which enhances the formation of positive social exchanges, resulting in organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment. Therefore, we hypothesise that.
Climate for green initiatives positively and significantly relates to organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment.
2.3 Mediating role of green work engagement
Prior research indicates that a robust climate for green initiatives enhances green work engagement by providing employees with a sense of purpose and alignment with organisational values (Aboramadan, 2022). Employees in such climates perceive their work as meaningful, which fosters intrinsic motivation and higher engagement in sustainability-related tasks. More so, Karatepe et al. (2022) demonstrated that management’s commitment to ecological initiatives significantly predicts green work engagement in the hospitality industry. Likewise, Bhutto et al. (2021) found that organisations with a green climate indirectly influence green innovative behaviour through green work engagement, with engaged employees more likely to innovate in eco-friendly practices. Similarly, Mughal et al. (2024) reported that green servant leadership enhances green innovative behaviour by fostering a supportive climate and high green work engagement. On the other hand, Zhang et al. (2024) reported that employees in organisations with strong green climates are more likely to demonstrate altruistic behaviours, such as mentoring peers in green practices or participating in eco-friendly initiatives. More so, Koroglu and Ozmen (2022) highlighted that employees with high engagement levels perceive greater organisational support, motivating them to exceed formal expectations in their environmental contributions. Given the above, we argue that green work engagement acts as a psychological bridge that connects climate for green initiatives to green innovative behaviour and organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment. Thus, engaged employees are more likely to exhibit innovative behaviours and engage in extra roles because they feel empowered and supported in their roles. Also, we draw on SET to postulate that climate for green initiatives serves as the organisational investment, while green innovative behaviour and organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment serve as the employee reciprocation, and green work engagement mediates this process by translating organisational support into psychological engagement, innovative and extra-role behaviours. Therefore, we hypothesise that.
Green work engagement mediates the nexus between climate for green initiatives and green innovative behaviour.
Green work engagement mediates the nexus between climate for green initiatives and organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment.
2.4 Individual green values as a moderator between climate for green initiatives and organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment
Previous research indicates that various human values influence environmental behaviours (e.g. Kothe et al., 2019; Tamar et al., 2021). Consequently, Cheema et al. (2020) assert that green values promote extra-role behaviours and foster alignment between individual and institutional values, thereby enhancing organisations’ green initiatives and practices. In addition, prior theoretical and empirical studies suggest that employees’ competence, values, motivations, and dynamism contribute to green creativity (e.g. Ogbeibu et al., 2021). Furthermore, strong environmental values are believed to channel employees’ focus towards tasks they find meaningful and compelling (Steg, 2016). Likewise, Ansari et al. (2023) contend that employees with high green values exhibit greater intrinsic motivation, which amplifies their engagement in green innovative behaviour when organisational green initiatives are evident. Also, Raza and Khan (2022) postulate that when employees perceive that their green values align with organisational priorities, they are more likely to contribute to green innovation. Al-Hawari et al. (2021) suggest that the effectiveness of green initiatives in fostering green innovative behaviour is contingent on individual-level factors, including values and perceptions of meaningful engagement. Thus, employees with strong green values are more likely to perceive their contributions as meaningful when their organisation supports green initiatives, further enhancing their engagement in green innovative behaviour. Drawing on SET, we argue that a supportive climate for green initiatives creates a foundation for employees to reciprocate through behaviours that align with organisational goals, such as green innovation. Thus, employees with strong green values are more likely to interpret green initiatives as congruent with their ideals, leading to a stronger reciprocal exchange relationship. Moreover, employees who perceive green initiatives as an extension of their personal environmental values experience enhanced psychological ownership of green initiatives, fostering innovative behaviours aimed at sustainability. Based on the above, we hypothesise that.
Individual green values moderate the nexus between climate for green initiatives and green innovative behaviour.
2.5 Individual green values as a moderator between climate for green initiatives and organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment
Research shows that personal values significantly influence how employees perceive and respond to an organisational climate that promotes green initiatives, particularly in fostering voluntary, discretionary behaviours that contribute to environmental goals (Dumont et al., 2017). In addition, Woo and Kang (2020) identified a positive association between green values and organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment, while Liu et al. (2021) observed that employees with stronger green values were more inclined to engage in organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment in Taiwan. Likewise, Islam et al. (2021a, b) demonstrated that employees with strong green values were more responsive to organisational green initiatives, as these employees are more likely to translate organisational support into organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment. Similarly, Roy (2023) brings to bear the broader applicability of green values in shaping pro-environmental behaviours across organisational settings. By inference, Dalvi-Esfahani et al. (2017) contend that employees with strong green values are more likely to perceive climate for green initiatives as a resource that aligns with their personal beliefs, leading to heightened engagement in organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment. In furtherance, Islam et al. (2021a, b) highlighted that employees with strong green values amplify the positive effects of organisational green initiatives by fostering a deeper psychological connection between employees and the organisation’s sustainability objectives. More so, Hooi et al. (2022) found that employees in organisations with strong green cultures were more likely to demonstrate organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment, particularly when their green values were congruent with organisational green goals. Singh et al. (2023) contend that employees with robust green values were more inclined to view organisational green initiatives as opportunities for personal and professional growth, thereby engaging more actively in organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment. Drawing on SET, we argue that employees with strong green values are more likely to internalise the goals of climate for green initiatives and align their behaviours with organisational sustainability objectives, thereby enhancing their engagement in organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment. Hence, we hypothesise that.
Individual green values moderate the nexus between climate for green initiatives and organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment.
3. Method
3.1 Sample and data collection
We employed an explanatory research design to investigate the relationships under study. The explanatory research design is well-suited for exploring causal relationships and understanding the mechanisms through which variables interact (Slater and Hasson, 2025). The population for the study comprised frontline employees in star-rated hotels in both the Greater Accra and Western regions of Ghana, as these employees directly interact with customers and are pivotal in implementing green initiatives. This is because these regions are hubs for tourism and hospitality, driven by their rich cultural heritage, coastal attractions, and increasing investment in infrastructure and hospitality services (Mensah and Blankson, 2013). This growth has heightened environmental pressures, making the adoption of green practices particularly relevant and timely. Moreover, hotels in these regions operate in ecologically sensitive environments such as coastal zones and forested areas where sustainable practices are essential to preserving natural resources and ensuring long-term viability. The regions' increasing exposure to international tourists and corporate clients also places higher expectations on hotels to meet global environmental standards and deliver eco-conscious services.
A stratified random sampling technique was employed to ensure representation across different hotel ratings (1-star, 2-star, 3-star, 4-star, and 5-star hotels). This stratification was based on hotel ratings, which served as the strata, allowing for a proportional representation of employees from each category. Within each stratum, employees were randomly selected to participate, ensuring that every individual had an equal chance of inclusion regardless of the hotel’s classification. This method allowed for the inclusion of diverse perspectives while maintaining the generalisability of the findings (Etikan and Bala, 2017).
Out of the 405 questionnaires distributed, 374 data (representing 92.3%) were retrieved from frontline employees working in star-rated hotels. The study utilised a standardised questionnaire that was pretested and piloted to ensure reliability and validity. Internal consistency was assessed through Cronbach’s alpha, with all constructs exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2017).
To mitigate the effects of common method bias, this study adopted both procedural and statistical approaches. Procedurally, data collection was structured into two waves with a one-month interval to create temporal separation between independent and dependent variables. During Time 1, data on climate for green initiatives and individual green values were collected. One month later, Time 2 captured data on green work engagement, green innovative behaviour, and organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment. Additionally, the survey instrument included clear and neutral language to minimise socially desirable responses. Anonymity was ensured to reduce social desirability bias and encourage honest responses, as anonymity decreases the likelihood of participants tailoring their answers to align with perceived expectations (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Statistically, Kock’s (2015) full collinearity test was utilised in this study to address concerns regarding common method bias. The results revealed that the variance inflation factor (VIF) values for the latent constructs were all below the recommended threshold of 3.3. This indicates that CMB is not a significant issue in this research, thereby ensuring the validity of the findings.
In terms of ethical considerations, every effort was made to ensure ethical compliance in the research as far as the use of human participants is concerned. All participants provided informed consent before their participation. They were briefed on the study’s objectives, their rights to withdraw at any time without penalty, and the measures taken to ensure confidentiality and anonymity of their responses. Participation was entirely voluntary, and no identifying information was collected, thereby protecting participants’ identities and adhering to ethical research practices. Following the ethical guidelines, data was securely stored in password-protected systems accessible only to the research team. The collected data were used solely for academic purposes, and all findings were reported in aggregate form to preserve participant anonymity.
3.2 Measures
Table 1 presents a description of the scales used in measuring the constructs under study.
Summary of measurement instruments
| Construct | Role | Mode of assessment | Sample item |
|---|---|---|---|
| Climate for green initiatives (Baer and Frese, 2003) | Independent variable | All anchored on; 1 = Strongly Disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree | People in our hotel are particularly good at realising environmental ideas |
| Green innovative behaviour (Aboramadan, 2022) | Dependent variable | This employee develops adequate plans and schedules for the implementation of new green ideas | |
| Organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment (Boiral and Paillé, 2012) | Dependent variable | I undertake environmental actions that contribute positively to the company’s image | |
| Green work engagement (Aboramadan, 2022) | Mediating variable | I am proud of the environmental work I do | |
| Individual green values (Chou, 2014) | Moderating variable | The earth is like a spaceship with limited room and resources, or on the contrary, the so-called ‘ecological crisis’ facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated |
3.3 Data analysis
The study employed structural equation modelling (SEM) to explore and assess the relationships between the research constructs under study (Hair and Alamer, 2022). The use of PLS-SEM was deemed appropriate to test the study’s hypotheses due to the study’s focus on forecasting key constructs and addressing a complex research model (Hair et al., 2017). A bootstrapping technique with 5,000 iterations was utilised to determine the statistical significance of the path coefficients and construct weights. Following Hair et al. (2017) guidelines, a two-stage analysis procedure was adopted, which involved an initial assessment of the measurement model, followed by the evaluation of the structural model in the subsequent phase.
4. Results
4.1 Measurement model
To evaluate the adequacy of the model used in our study, several metrics were considered, including factor loadings, construct reliability (i.e. Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability), convergent validity, and discriminant validity. The results in Table 2 indicate that the factor loading values significantly surpass the recommended threshold of 0.70. As noted by Hair et al. (2017), composite reliability and Cronbach’s alpha values exceeding 0.7 reflect strong internal consistency, while an average variance extracted value above 0.5 confirms convergent validity. Discriminant validity was assessed using the Fornell-Larcker (1981) criterion and the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT). Table 3 shows that all HTMT ratio values are well below the threshold of 0.85, as suggested by Kline (2015). In sum, the results presented in Tables 2 and 3 demonstrate that the study achieved satisfactory levels of both convergent and discriminant validity.
Reliability and validity of constructs
| Constructs | Factor loadings (λ) | Cronbach alpha | Composite reliability (CR) | Average variance extracted (AVE) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Climate for green initiatives | 0.945 | 0.955 | 0.753 | |
| CGI1 | 0.892 | |||
| CGI2 | 0.872 | |||
| CGI3 | 0.877 | |||
| CGI4 | 0.903 | |||
| CGI5 | 0.818 | |||
| CGI6 | 0.883 | |||
| CGI7 | 0.828 | |||
| Green innovative behaviour | 0.952 | 0.962 | 0.808 | |
| GIB1 | 0.865 | |||
| GIB2 | 0.937 | |||
| GIB3 | 0.901 | |||
| GIB4 | 0.901 | |||
| GIB5 | 0.903 | |||
| GIB6 | 0.887 | |||
| Green work engagement | 0.948 | 0.959 | 0.794 | |
| GWE1 | 0.892 | |||
| GWE2 | 0.869 | |||
| GWE3 | 0.901 | |||
| GWE4 | 0.941 | |||
| GWE5 | 0.888 | |||
| GWE6 | 0.856 | |||
| Organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment | 0.964 | 0.969 | 0.799 | |
| OCBE1 | 0.901 | |||
| OCBE2 | 0.899 | |||
| OCBE3 | 0.831 | |||
| OCBE4 | 0.886 | |||
| OCBE5 | 0.918 | |||
| OCBE6 | 0.910 | |||
| OCBE7 | 0.902 | |||
| OCBE8 | 0.899 | |||
| Individual green values | 0.870 | 0.920 | 0.794 | |
| IGV4 | 0.900 | |||
| IGV5 | 0.891 | |||
| IGV6 | 0.882 |
Discriminant validity results
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fornell-Larcker criterion | ||||||
| 1 | Climate for green initiative | 0.868 | ||||
| 2 | Green innovative behaviour | 0.777 | 0.899 | |||
| 3 | Green work engagement | 0.691 | 0.777 | 0.891 | ||
| 4 | Individual green values | 0.570 | 0.676 | 0.669 | 0.891 | |
| 5 | Organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment | 0.831 | 0.868 | 0.809 | 0.656 | 0.894 |
| Heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) - matrix | ||||||
| 1 | Climate for green initiative | |||||
| 2 | Green innovative behaviour | 0.714 | ||||
| 3 | Green work engagement | 0.627 | 0.712 | |||
| 4 | Individual green values | 0.520 | 0.640 | 0.633 | ||
| 5 | Organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment | 0.766 | 0.705 | 0.743 | 0.614 | |
The coefficient of determination (R2) was utilised to evaluate the adequacy of the structural model. As reported in Table 5 and Figure 2, climate for green initiatives accounted for 47.7% of the variance in green work engagement. Additionally, climate for green initiatives combined with green work engagement accounted for 74.0% and 82.6% of the variance in green innovative behaviour and organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment, respectively. These results suggest that the model demonstrates a strong explanatory capacity. Also, to evaluate model fit in PLS-SEM, the Stone-Geisser Q2 (Geisser, 1975; Stone, 1974) and the standardised root mean square residual were calculated. The Q2 statistic assesses how accurately the model’s estimated parameters replicate observed values, with values above zero indicating predictive relevance. Findings from this study demonstrated predictive relevance, as the Q2 values for green innovative behaviour, green work engagement, and organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment were 0.637, 0.469, and 0.714, respectively. Following the approach recommended by Henseler et al. (2015), the standardised root mean square residuals (SRMR) were evaluated, with a maximum threshold of 0.080. The SRMR value in this study was 0.054, indicating a high level of model fit and robust goodness of fit.
The descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis) and correlation analysis among the constructs are presented in Table 4. The results revealed that climate for green initiatives positively and significantly relates to green work engagement (r = 0.452, p < 0.01), organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment (r = 0.514, p < 0.01), and green innovative behaviour (r = 0.529, p < 0.01). Also, the results revealed that green work engagement positively and significantly relates to organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment (r = 0.419, p < 0.01) and green innovative behaviour (r = 0.381, p < 0.01). Finally, the results revealed that individual green values positively and significantly relate to organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment (r = 0.680, p < 0.01) and green innovative behaviour (r = 0.492, p < 0.01).
Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis
| Mean | SD | CGI | GWE | OCBE | GIWB | IGV | SK | KURT | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CG1 | 3.942 | 1.018 | – | −1.206 | 0.724 | ||||
| 2 | GWE | 3.702 | 0.965 | 0.452** | – | −0.797 | 0.087 | |||
| 3 | OCBE | 3.786 | 1.001 | 0.514** | 0.419** | – | −0.735 | −0.346 | ||
| 4 | GIB | 3.899 | 0.939 | 0.529** | 0.381** | 0.069 | – | −1.164 | 0.873 | |
| 5 | IGV | 4.002 | 0.928 | 0.035 | 0.005 | 0.680** | 0.492** | – | −1.257 | 0.892 |
Note(s): CGI = Climate for green initiatives; GIWB = Green innovative behaviour; OCBE = Organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment; GWE = Green work engagement; IGV = Individual green values; **p < 0.01
The path diagram begins on the left with a circle labeled “C G I.” From “C G I,” seven individual leftward arrows connect to seven vertically arranged rectangles labeled from top to bottom as follows: The first arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.892, points to the rectangle labeled “C G I 1.” The second arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.872, points to the rectangle labeled “C G I 2.” The third arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.877, points to the rectangle labeled “C G I 3.” The fourth arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.903, points to the rectangle labeled “C G I 4.” The fifth arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.818, points to the rectangle labeled “C G I 5.” The sixth arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.883, points to the rectangle labeled “C G I 6.” The seventh arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.828, points to the rectangle labeled “C G I 7.” Diagonally on the bottom right side of “C G I”, a circle is labeled “I G V.” From “I G V,” three individual downward arrows connect to three horizontally arranged rectangles labeled from left to right as follows: The first arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.900, points to the rectangle labeled “S I 4.” The second arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.891, points to the rectangle labeled “S I 5.” The third arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.882, points to the rectangle labeled “S I 6.” On the top right of “C G I,” the circle labeled “G W E” is positioned. A rightward arrow labeled 0.691 connects “C G I” to “G W E.” The number 0.477 is written inside “G W E.” From “G W E,” six individual upward arrows connect to six horizontally arranged rectangles labeled from left to right as follows: The first arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.892, points to “G W E 2.” The second arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.869, points to “G W E 3.” The third arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.901, points to “G W E 4.” The fourth arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.941, points to “G W E 5.” The fifth arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.888, points to “G W E 6.” The sixth arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.856, points to “G W E 1.” A circle labeled “G I W B” is positioned on the far right, almost in a horizontal line with “G W E.” The number 0.740 is written inside “G I W B.” From “G I W B,” six individual rightward arrows connect to six vertically arranged rectangles labeled from top to bottom as follows: The first arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.865, points to the rectangle labeled “G I W B 1.” The second arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.937, points to the rectangle labeled “G I W B 2.” The third arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.901, points to the rectangle labeled “G I W B 3.” The fourth arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.901, points to the rectangle labeled “G I W B 4.” The fifth arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.903, points to the rectangle labeled “G I W B 5.” The sixth arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.887, points to the rectangle labeled “G I W B 6.” A circle labeled “O C B E” is positioned vertically below “G I W B.” The number 0.826 is written inside “O C B E.” From “O C B E,” six individual rightward arrows connect to six vertically arranged rectangles labeled from top to bottom as follows: The first arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.901, points to the rectangle labeled “O C B E 1.” The second arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.899, points to the rectangle labeled “O C B E 2.” The third arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.831, points to the rectangle labeled “O C B E 3.” The fourth arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.886, points to the rectangle labeled “O C B E 4.” The fifth arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.918, points to the rectangle labeled “O C B E 5.” The sixth arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.910, points to the rectangle labeled “O C B E 6.” The seventh arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.902, points to the rectangle labeled “O C B E 7.” The eighth arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.899, points to the rectangle labeled “O C B E 8.” The various connections between these circles are as follows: A right-pointing upward diagonal arrow labeled 0.691 points from “C G I” to “G W E.” A right-pointing upward diagonal arrow labeled 0.382 points from “C G I” to “G I W B.” A right-pointing downward diagonal arrow labeled 0.403 points from “C G I” to “O C B E.” A right-pointing downward diagonal arrow labeled 0.417 points from “G W E” to “O C B E.” A right-pointing arrow labeled 0.363 points from “G W E” to “G I W B.” A right-pointing upward diagonal dotted arrow labeled negative 0.058 points from “I G V” to the arrow between “C G I” and “G I W B.” A right-pointing upward diagonal dotted arrow labeled negative 0.149 points from “I G V” to the arrow between “C G I” and “O C B E.”Result of the structural model assessment. Source: Developed by authors
The path diagram begins on the left with a circle labeled “C G I.” From “C G I,” seven individual leftward arrows connect to seven vertically arranged rectangles labeled from top to bottom as follows: The first arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.892, points to the rectangle labeled “C G I 1.” The second arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.872, points to the rectangle labeled “C G I 2.” The third arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.877, points to the rectangle labeled “C G I 3.” The fourth arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.903, points to the rectangle labeled “C G I 4.” The fifth arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.818, points to the rectangle labeled “C G I 5.” The sixth arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.883, points to the rectangle labeled “C G I 6.” The seventh arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.828, points to the rectangle labeled “C G I 7.” Diagonally on the bottom right side of “C G I”, a circle is labeled “I G V.” From “I G V,” three individual downward arrows connect to three horizontally arranged rectangles labeled from left to right as follows: The first arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.900, points to the rectangle labeled “S I 4.” The second arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.891, points to the rectangle labeled “S I 5.” The third arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.882, points to the rectangle labeled “S I 6.” On the top right of “C G I,” the circle labeled “G W E” is positioned. A rightward arrow labeled 0.691 connects “C G I” to “G W E.” The number 0.477 is written inside “G W E.” From “G W E,” six individual upward arrows connect to six horizontally arranged rectangles labeled from left to right as follows: The first arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.892, points to “G W E 2.” The second arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.869, points to “G W E 3.” The third arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.901, points to “G W E 4.” The fourth arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.941, points to “G W E 5.” The fifth arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.888, points to “G W E 6.” The sixth arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.856, points to “G W E 1.” A circle labeled “G I W B” is positioned on the far right, almost in a horizontal line with “G W E.” The number 0.740 is written inside “G I W B.” From “G I W B,” six individual rightward arrows connect to six vertically arranged rectangles labeled from top to bottom as follows: The first arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.865, points to the rectangle labeled “G I W B 1.” The second arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.937, points to the rectangle labeled “G I W B 2.” The third arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.901, points to the rectangle labeled “G I W B 3.” The fourth arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.901, points to the rectangle labeled “G I W B 4.” The fifth arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.903, points to the rectangle labeled “G I W B 5.” The sixth arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.887, points to the rectangle labeled “G I W B 6.” A circle labeled “O C B E” is positioned vertically below “G I W B.” The number 0.826 is written inside “O C B E.” From “O C B E,” six individual rightward arrows connect to six vertically arranged rectangles labeled from top to bottom as follows: The first arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.901, points to the rectangle labeled “O C B E 1.” The second arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.899, points to the rectangle labeled “O C B E 2.” The third arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.831, points to the rectangle labeled “O C B E 3.” The fourth arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.886, points to the rectangle labeled “O C B E 4.” The fifth arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.918, points to the rectangle labeled “O C B E 5.” The sixth arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.910, points to the rectangle labeled “O C B E 6.” The seventh arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.902, points to the rectangle labeled “O C B E 7.” The eighth arrow, with a path coefficient of 0.899, points to the rectangle labeled “O C B E 8.” The various connections between these circles are as follows: A right-pointing upward diagonal arrow labeled 0.691 points from “C G I” to “G W E.” A right-pointing upward diagonal arrow labeled 0.382 points from “C G I” to “G I W B.” A right-pointing downward diagonal arrow labeled 0.403 points from “C G I” to “O C B E.” A right-pointing downward diagonal arrow labeled 0.417 points from “G W E” to “O C B E.” A right-pointing arrow labeled 0.363 points from “G W E” to “G I W B.” A right-pointing upward diagonal dotted arrow labeled negative 0.058 points from “I G V” to the arrow between “C G I” and “G I W B.” A right-pointing upward diagonal dotted arrow labeled negative 0.149 points from “I G V” to the arrow between “C G I” and “O C B E.”Result of the structural model assessment. Source: Developed by authors
4.2 Test of research hypotheses
The study has six hypotheses, with two direct relationships, two mediating, and two moderating effects. Evident from Table 5 are the results of hypothesis testing. The results revealed that climate for green initiatives positively and significantly relates to green innovative behaviour (β = 0.382, t-statistic = 3.225, p < 0.001), supporting H1. Also, the results revealed that climate for green initiatives positively and significantly relates to organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment (β = 0.403, t-statistic = 3.772, p < 0.001), supporting H2. Following Hayes (2013) and MacKinnon et al. (2004) criteria for testing mediation effects, our results revealed that green work engagement partially mediated the nexus between climate for green initiatives and green innovative behaviour (β = 0.251, t-statistic = 2.524, p < 0.01), supporting H3. Likewise, the results revealed green work engagement as a partial mediator between climate for green initiatives and organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment (β = 0.288, t-statistic = 3.444, p < 0.001), supporting H4. In terms of the moderating effects, the results revealed that individual green values do not significantly moderate the nexus between climate for green initiatives and green innovative behaviour (β = −0.149, t-statistic = 2.752, p < 0.01), indicating support for H5. Finally, the results revealed that individual green values significantly moderate the nexus between climate for green initiatives and organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment (β = −0.149, t-statistic = 2.752, p < 0.01), supporting H6 (see Figure 3).
Results of hypotheses testing
| Original sample (O) | Sample means (M) | Standard deviation (STDEV) | t-statistics (|O/STDEV|) | p-values | Decision | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct path | ||||||
| CGI → GIB | 0.382 | 0.376 | 0.119 | 3.225 | 0.001 | Supported |
| CGI → GWE | 0.691 | 0.691 | 0.073 | 9.488 | 0.000 | Supported |
| CGI → OCBE | 0.403 | 0.394 | 0.107 | 3.772 | 0.000 | Supported |
| GWE → GIB | 0.363 | 0.357 | 0.143 | 2.538 | 0.011 | Supported |
| GWE → OCBE | 0.417 | 0.421 | 0.118 | 3.530 | 0.000 | Supported |
| IGV → GIB | 0.186 | 0.198 | 0.106 | 1.753 | 0.080 | Not supported |
| IGV → OCBE | 0.073 | 0.080 | 0.092 | 0.792 | 0.429 | Not supported |
| Specific mediating effects of green work engagement | ||||||
| CGI → GWE → OCBE | 0.288 | 0.290 | 0.084 | 3.444 | 0.001 | Supported |
| CGI → GWE → GIB | 0.251 | 0.245 | 0.099 | 2.524 | 0.012 | Supported |
| Interactional effect of individual green values | ||||||
| IGV x CGI → GIB | −0.058 | −0.069 | 0.075 | 0.778 | 0.437 | Not supported |
| IGV x CGI → OCBE | −0.149 | −0.155 | 0.054 | 2.752 | 0.006 | Supported |
| Q2 | ||||||
| GIB | 0.637 | |||||
| GWE | 0.469 | |||||
| OCBE | 0.714 | |||||
| SRMR | 0.054 | |||||
Note(s): CGI = Climate for green initiatives; GIWB = Green innovative behaviour; OCBE = Organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment; GWE = Green work engagement; IGV = Individual green values; SRMR = Standardised root means square residuals
The vertical axis of the line graph is labeled “Organizational Citizenship Behavior for the Environment,” ranging from 1 to 5 in increments of 0.5. The horizontal axis is labeled with two categories: “Low Climate for Green Initiatives” and “High Climate for Green Initiatives.” Two lines represent different moderator groups as shown in the legend on the right. A blue line with diamond markers represents “High I G V,” and a red line with square markers represents “Low I G V.” The nature of the lines is as follows: The “High I G V” line starts at (Low Climate for Green Initiatives, 2.40) and rises steeply with a positive slope to end at (High Climate for Green Initiatives, 3.52). The “Low I G V” line starts (Low Climate for Green Initiatives, 2.86) and rises with a less steep positive slope to end at (High Climate for Green Initiatives, 3.36). Note: All numerical values are approximated.Interactional effect of individual green values on the nexus between climate for green initiatives and organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment. Source: Developed by authors
The vertical axis of the line graph is labeled “Organizational Citizenship Behavior for the Environment,” ranging from 1 to 5 in increments of 0.5. The horizontal axis is labeled with two categories: “Low Climate for Green Initiatives” and “High Climate for Green Initiatives.” Two lines represent different moderator groups as shown in the legend on the right. A blue line with diamond markers represents “High I G V,” and a red line with square markers represents “Low I G V.” The nature of the lines is as follows: The “High I G V” line starts at (Low Climate for Green Initiatives, 2.40) and rises steeply with a positive slope to end at (High Climate for Green Initiatives, 3.52). The “Low I G V” line starts (Low Climate for Green Initiatives, 2.86) and rises with a less steep positive slope to end at (High Climate for Green Initiatives, 3.36). Note: All numerical values are approximated.Interactional effect of individual green values on the nexus between climate for green initiatives and organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment. Source: Developed by authors
5. Discussion and conclusions
5.1 Conclusions
This current study contributes to the hospitality industry literature by examining the role of green work engagement and individual green values in the nexus between climate for green initiatives and green innovative behaviour and organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment. The prediction that the climate for green initiatives positively and significantly relates to green innovative behaviour was met, supporting H1. This implies that hotels that actively promote green initiatives create a conducive climate that inspires employees to innovate in ways that align with environmental goals. Theoretically, this result finds support with SET in that when frontline employees perceive their hotels as investing in and valuing sustainability through green initiatives, they feel obligated to reciprocate by contributing positively by engaging in green innovative behaviour. Empirically, these findings align with Dangelico and Pujari (2010), who emphasise that fostering green innovative behaviour requires aligning organisational goals with employee creativity, highlighting the need for a supportive climate that encourages innovation. Also, this result is consistent with Dumont et al. (2017), who found a significant positive relationship between green organisational climates and employee-driven innovations in environmental practices, reinforcing the idea that a supportive climate directly influences employees’ willingness to engage in environmentally sustainable initiatives. Renwick et al. (2013) further illustrate that organisations with well-defined green initiative programs experience higher levels of employee involvement in sustainability projects, suggesting that such climates enable employees to feel empowered and motivated to act innovatively in support of the organisation’s environmental goals.
Climate for green initiatives was found to positively and significantly relate to organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment, supporting H2. This result implies that when hotels actively promote and implement green initiatives, they create an environment where frontline employees feel motivated and empowered to engage in pro-environmental behaviours that align with the hotel’s sustainability goals. The findings support the SET and posit that frontline employees perceive organisational support for green initiatives as a valuable resource, fostering a sense of obligation and reciprocity to engage in discretionary behaviours that benefit the hotel’s environment. Empirically, the findings align with Amrutha and Geetha (2021), who established that a green organisational climate significantly influences employees’ pro-environmental behaviours by embedding environmental priorities into the organisational culture. Henriques et al. (2024) further demonstrate that a robust green organisational climate fosters a shared understanding of environmental values among managers and employees, enhancing their willingness to engage in green organisational citizenship behaviour. This shared understanding reinforces the alignment of individual and organisational values, as observed by Iqbal and Piwowar-Sulej (2023) and Thabet et al. (2023), who emphasise that green climates motivate organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment by creating coherence between personal values and organisational goals.
As predicted, green work engagement significantly mediated the nexus between climate for green initiatives and green innovative behaviour, supporting H3. This implies that while a hotel’s climate for green initiatives provides the necessary foundation for sustainability efforts, the actual realisation of green innovative behaviour is significantly influenced by frontline employees’ active involvement and engagement in these initiatives. Thus, green work engagement serves as a motivational mechanism that bridges a hotel’s climate for initiatives and frontline employees’ innovative environmental actions. The findings support the SET and posit that when hotels actively invest in green initiatives and create a climate that prioritises environmental sustainability, frontline employees perceive this as a valuable resource. This perception fosters a sense of obligation and trust, motivating the frontline employees to reciprocate through behaviours that align with their hotel’s environmental goals. Empirically, these findings are consistent with Bhutto et al. (2021) observed that engaged employees are more likely to participate in eco-friendly innovation because their engagement amplifies their motivation and creativity. Similarly, Mughal et al. (2024) reported that green servant leadership enhances green innovative behaviour by fostering a supportive climate and cultivating high levels of green work engagement.
As anticipated, green work engagement significantly mediated the nexus between climate for green initiatives and organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment, supporting H4. This implies that while a supportive climate for green initiatives establishes the organisational intent and values for environmental sustainability, employee engagement translates these values into tangible actions, such as voluntary behaviours that exceed formal job requirements. Thus, engaged frontline employees feel more connected to their hotel’s green objectives, motivating them to take ownership of environmental initiatives. The findings are concordant with SET and posit that a hotel’s climate for green initiatives signals to employees that their contributions to sustainability are valued and supported. In return, frontline employees reciprocate through behaviours that align with organisational goals, such as green organisational citizenship behaviour. Empirically, these findings align with Zhang et al. (2024) found that employees in organisations with a strong green climate are more likely to demonstrate altruistic behaviours, such as mentoring peers in green practices or participating in eco-friendly initiatives. Similarly, Koroglu and Ozmen (2022) emphasised that employees with heightened engagement levels perceive greater organisational support, encouraging them to exceed formal expectations in their environmental contributions.
The results revealed that individual green values did not significantly moderate the nexus between climate for green initiatives and green innovative behaviour, indicating non-support for H5. A plausible explanation for this non-significance could lie in the specific nature of frontline roles within hotels. These roles are often characterised by rigid operational structures, limited autonomy, and a strong emphasis on adhering to predefined tasks. Even when employees possess strong green values, the restrictive nature of their job roles may prevent them from leveraging these values to innovate. Empirically, the findings are not in alignment with Ansari et al.’s (2023) assertion that employees with high green values exhibit stronger intrinsic motivation for engaging in green innovative behaviour, particularly when supported by visible and meaningful green initiatives. Similarly, the result is inconsistent with the assertion of Raza and Khan (2022) that the alignment between employees’ green values and organisational priorities fosters a reciprocal exchange of commitment and innovation. The same is the case for Lathabhavan and Bharti (2024), who reinforced the notion that organisational climates act as enablers for translating personal green values into innovative behaviours.
The results revealed that individual green values significantly moderate the nexus between climate for green initiatives and organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment, supporting H6. This implies that when frontline employees possess strong green values, they are more likely to align their behaviours with their hotel’s climate for green initiatives, resulting in a heightened commitment to discretionary pro-environmental activities. From the perspective of SET, this finding reflects the reciprocity principle, where frontline employees who perceive alignment between their values and their hotel’s green initiatives feel more inclined to reciprocate through pro-environmental behaviours. Empirically, this finding finds support with Islam et al. (2021a, b), who demonstrated that employees with robust green values are more likely to translate organisational support for green initiatives into organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment. Similarly, Roy (2023) demonstrated that individuals with strong green values are more likely to perceive organisational green efforts as congruent with their personal beliefs, which drives their engagement in sustainability practices. More so, the findings align with Hooi et al. (2022), who found that congruence between individual green values and organisational green goals enhances green organisational citizenship behaviour, as employees feel empowered and validated in their environmental efforts. Likewise, the result is concordant with Singh et al. (2023), who reinforced the idea that personal values amplify the effectiveness of organisational green efforts.
5.2 Theoretical implications
This study provides significant theoretical contributions by unpacking the mechanisms and boundary conditions through which a climate for green initiatives influences employee green behaviours in the hospitality industry, thereby advancing social exchange theory in green HRM by identifying when, how, and for whom green climates elicit desirable employee outcomes.
First, it is among the first to empirically establish the direct influence of climate on green initiatives on green innovative behaviour and organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment. This extends the social exchange theory by demonstrating that green-supportive climates prompt reciprocal behaviours that go beyond formal job roles, particularly in service-intensive contexts where employee initiative directly shapes guest experiences.
Second, although prior studies have recognised green work engagement as a driver of green behaviours, this study is the first to demonstrate its dual mediating role in linking climate for green initiatives to both green innovation and environmental citizenship in hospitality. This fills a notable gap and responds directly to calls (e.g. Bhutto et al., 2021) for research that identifies motivational pathways between green organisational climates and employee outcomes. By showing that climate-driven engagement fuels both innovation and voluntary eco-behaviours, the study clarifies how green climates translate into operational impact.
Third, the finding that individual green values do not moderate the climate–green innovation link challenges existing assumptions that personal values uniformly enhance pro-environmental behaviour. In doing so, it introduces important theoretical nuance, suggesting that contextual constraints such as low autonomy or routine-driven roles in hospitality may suppress value-driven initiative, necessitating more context-sensitive behavioural models. Conversely, individual green values did amplify the relationship between green climate and environmental citizenship behaviour, highlighting that discretionary, altruistic actions are more sensitive to value alignment than structured innovation tasks. This dual finding sharpens our theoretical understanding of how values operate under different behavioural conditions in the same organisational context.
5.3 Practical implications
This study offers actionable and novel insights for hotel managers aiming to drive sustainable transformation through employee behaviour. Rather than merely affirming intuitive practices, our findings reveal the underlying mechanisms and contextual nuances that determine the success of green initiatives. Specifically, we show that a climate for green initiatives can catalyse green innovative behaviour only when employees feel psychologically engaged with sustainability goals. This brings to bear the significance of not just promoting green policies but embedding them into the motivational fabric of employee experience through active involvement, ownership, and recognition.
Moreover, we show that while green values are important, their influence on green innovation is muted unless hotels actively reduce structural barriers. This insight challenges the assumption that personal environmental values alone drive behaviour. Our findings call for operational reforms, such as increasing autonomy in routine service roles, to unlock the full potential of green-minded employees.
Importantly, we found that green values moderate the link between green climate and organisational citizenship behaviour for the environment. This suggests that when hotels foster shared environmental values, they are more likely to witness voluntary pro-environmental acts that go beyond formal job roles. Thus, value alignment should not be treated as incidental, but as a strategic lever for embedding sustainability deep within organisational culture.
Having said the above, these implications urge managers to rethink their sustainability approach not just by adopting green policies, but by structurally enabling and psychologically engaging employees, aligning with values, and eliminating operational constraints. This elevates sustainability from a policy goal to a lived organisational reality.
5.4 Limitations and future research
Despite the study’s valuable insights, it is important to acknowledge its limitations, offering directions for future research. First, data were collected solely from hotels in Ghana’s hospitality industry, which may limit the generalisability of findings to other sectors and regions. Future studies could examine similar constructs in diverse industries such as manufacturing and education, and across different cultural and economic contexts. Second, the use of an explanatory research design restricts causal inference. Longitudinal studies are recommended to track changes over time and establish stronger causal links. Additionally, while the study examined green work engagement and individual green values as a mediator and moderator, respectively, future research could explore other factors such as organisational support, employee motivation, or leadership styles. Finally, the study did not examine the potential bidirectional relationship between green innovative behaviour and organisational citizenship behavior for the environment, despite theoretical suggestions that each may reinforce the other. Future studies should investigate this nexus to better understand its interplay.
