From Green Inclusive Leadership to Green Organizational Citizenship: Exploring the Mediating Role of Green Work Engagement and Green Organizational Identification in the Hotel Industry Context

Abstract

This study aims to explore the pivotal role of green inclusive leadership (GIL) in driving sustainability efforts in the hotel industry, guided by the social exchange theory (SET). The research centers on three core objectives: firstly, evaluating how GIL directly impacts green work engagement (GWE), green organizational identification (GOI), and green organizational citizenship behavior (GOCB); secondly, examining how GWE and GOI influence GOCB; and thirdly, investigating whether GWE and GOI act as mediators in the relationship between GIL and GOCB. This study gathered data via an online questionnaire, completed by 446 front-line employees in eco-conscious five-star Saudi Arabian hotels. This study employed PLS-SEM with bootstrapping techniques to scrutinize seven hypotheses, encompassing both direct and indirect connections among study variables. The findings underscore the significant, positive influence of GIL on employees’ GWE and GOI, motivating their active participation in GOCBs. Furthermore, GWE and GOI play pivotal roles in enhancing employees’ engagement in GOCBs. Notably, GWE and GOI emerge as substantial mediators in the relationship between GIL and GOCB. These insights carry significant practical implications, poised to strengthen GOCB and drive sustainability initiatives in the hotel industry.

1. Introduction

Green inclusive leadership (GIL) has emerged as a powerful force in driving sustainability within the hotel industry [1,2]. As the world faces urgent environmental challenges, the need for inclusive practices prioritizing environmental stewardship and social equity has become increasingly evident [3]. Green inclusive leadership plays a pivotal role in fostering sustainable practices, ensuring that sustainability initiatives protect the planet and promote inclusivity and social responsibility [2,4,5]. Green inclusive leadership goes beyond conventional leadership approaches by embracing a holistic perspective that integrates environmental concerns with diversity and inclusion. By valuing and leveraging individuals’ diverse perspectives, talents, and experiences, green-inclusive leaders may create an environment that fosters innovation, collaboration, and collective action toward sustainability goals [2,5,6].

According to Zheng et al. [7], employees play a crucial role in eco-friendly hotels. Exploring the employees’ green organizational citizenship behavior (GOCB) is essential to implementing more environmentally friendly policies [8,9]. GOCB entails voluntary and discretionary actions that go beyond their formal job requirements and contribute to the organization’s green initiatives [10,11]. It encompasses behaviors such as voluntarily encouraging colleagues to adopt environmentally responsible behavior, undertaking green actions and initiatives, conserving resources, promoting recycling, reducing waste, and promoting eco-friendly practices [12].

In an effort to gain clearer insights into the linkage between GIL and GOCB, this research explores the intermediary role of green work engagement (GWE) and green organizational identification (GOI). GWE and GOI are two key factors that may mediate the linkage between green inclusive leadership and green organizational citizenship behavior within the hotel sector [3,13,14]. For instance, employees who feel engaged with green initiatives are more likely to exhibit positive environmental behaviors and play an active part in furthering the organization’s sustainability campaigns [2]. Further, when employees identify with the organization’s environmentally conscious values, they tend to align their behaviors with its sustainability objectives, leading to increased green organizational citizenship behavior [3,15,16].

Prior research has delved into the impact of inclusive leadership (IL) on various employee-related aspects such as innovative behavior [17], creativity [18], organizational justice, and citizenship behavior [19], well-being [20], pro-environmental behavior [6], job satisfaction, and commitment [21], a substantial knowledge gap persists in recognizing the specific role of green inclusive leadership in driving green organizational citizenship behavior within the hotel sector setting. This gap is particularly notable in developing countries, such as Saudi Arabia. Moreover, there is a dearth of research investigating the intricate link between GIL, GWE, and GOI in the context of the hotel industry. As far as the authors’ knowledge, no prior research has explored the indirect link between green inclusive leadership and green organizational citizenship behavior, considering green work engagement and green organizational identification as potential mediators, especially within the hotel industry context. Consequently, there is a compelling need for empirical research that explicitly targets the hotel industry, as it may offer a more in-depth understanding of the GIL–GOCB relationship. Additionally, such research can shed light on the underlying mechanisms, including green work engagement and green organizational identification, that potentially influence this relationship. This knowledge is crucial for both academia and practitioners seeking to promote environmentally responsible behaviors within hotel organizations.

Having recognized this research gap and considering the importance of green inclusive leadership and environmentally friendly behaviors in the hospitality field, and based on the theoretical framework of social exchange theory (SET), the aims of this investigation are threefold: first, to examine the direct impact of GIL on GWE, GOI, and GOCB; second, to investigate the influence of green work engagement and green organizational identification on GOCB; third, to explore the potential mediating effect of GEE and GOI in the linkage between green inclusive leadership and green organizational citizenship behavior. To fulfill these objectives, this study focuses on addressing the following inquiries. (1) What is the hotel industry’s relationship between GIL, GWE, GOI, and GOCB? (2) To what extent does GIL affect GWE and GOI? (3) How does GWE mediate the linkage between GIL and GOCB? (4) What role does GOI play in mediating the GIL-GOCB relationship?

This study enriches the existing literature on green organizational behavior and sustainability within the hotel sector by providing empirical evidence on the relationships between GIL, GOI, GEE, and GOCB. Firstly, this study sheds light on the role of leadership in promoting environmentally friendly behaviors and practices. Green inclusive leadership focuses on creating an inclusive and supportive environment that encourages employees to engage in sustainable actions. Understanding how this leadership style influences GOCB provides valuable insights for organizations seeking to implement effective sustainability initiatives. Secondly, by exploring the mediating variables of green work engagement and green organizational identification, our study highlights the psychological mechanisms that link leadership behavior to employees’ GOCB. This understanding can assist organizations in developing strategies to enhance employee involvement and commitment to green practices. Thirdly, the findings of this study can inform future research endeavors and assist practitioners in developing evidence-based approaches for fostering sustainable behaviors and creating environmentally responsible organizations.

2. Review of Literature and Hypotheses Development

2.1. The Linkage between Green Inclusive Leadership and Employees’ GOCB

In today’s rapidly changing world, where environmental concerns have taken center stage, organizations across various industries are highly recognized for the significance of adopting sustainability measures. The hotel industry, as a prominent player in the global economy, is no exception [22,23]. The hospitality sector, specifically the hotel industry, significantly contributes to environmental degradation due to its resource-intensive operations [24]. As the industry strives to meet the demands of a growing number of travelers, the environmental impact of hotels has become a pressing concern [25]. The extensive use of natural resources, energy consumption, waste generation, and carbon emissions associated with hotel operations have raised alarms about the industry’s sustainability practices [26,27]. To address the pressing challenges of environmental sustainability, hotels are seeking innovative approaches that not only reduce their carbon footprint but also foster a culture of environmental responsibility among employees [2]. This cultural shift often begins with leadership—leaders who champion green initiatives and inspire their teams to embrace environmentally conscious behaviors [4,5]. One crucial aspect that can drive sustainable behavior is green inclusive leadership [2,5,6].

Green inclusive leadership can be understood as a leadership approach that integrates environmental considerations into decision-making processes, values diversity and inclusion, and fosters a culture of environmental responsibility [2,5]. It involves leaders actively promoting and supporting pro-environmental behaviors among employees while also ensuring that sustainability practices are inclusive and accessible to all members of the organization [3]. This style of leadership is distinguished by its receptiveness to novel environmentally friendly concepts, willingness to engage in conversations about pro-environmental objectives, and accessibility for consultations regarding the environmental challenges the organization encounters [4,6]. Based on these characteristics, Bhutto et al. [2], p. 5 defined it as “the behavior of leaders who are open, accessible, and available for interacting with employees to achieve environmental and cleaner processes/services goals.”

On the other side, employees’ green organizational citizenship behavior is a valuable concept that captures employees’ proactive and positive behaviors towards the environment [8]. It was described as the voluntary and discretionary actions of employees that support their organization’s environmental sustainability [12,15]. Green organizational citizenship behavior surpasses the formal job requirements and underscores employees’ devotion and sense of obligation to environmental issues [10,11]. More specifically, employees who exhibit green organizational citizenship behavior are inclined to proactively enhance the organization’s environmental management performance, motivate their colleagues to adopt environmentally friendly behaviors, and actively participate in environment-related programs or initiatives, especially when they receive support from their supervisors [12].

In terms of the IL–OCB relationship, several scholars employing various theoretical frameworks have demonstrated that IL significantly positively affects employees’ OCB [13,19,28]. For instance, drawing on the social exchange theory (SET), employees engage in voluntary behaviors when they perceive a favorable exchange relationship with their organization. When employees perceive their leaders practicing inclusive leadership, such as involving them in decision-making processes and creating an inclusive environment, they tend to reciprocate more by engaging in OCB [19]. Further, in accordance with the conservation of resources (COR) theory, an empirical investigation explored the power of inclusive leadership in driving challenge-oriented organizational citizenship behavior (COCB). The results revealed that inclusive leadership can offer employees various resources that significantly boost their COCB [13]. These resources include emotional resources (i.e., establishing an atmosphere of trust and understanding between leaders and employees), conditional resources (i.e., providing accessibility for problem-solving consultations with leaders), and cognitive resources (guiding employees to creatively explore and implement solutions to existing organizational challenges, while also empowering them to showcase their unique talents) [13]. Additionally, in the restaurant industry context, with insights derived from social information processing theory and social learning theory, Thabet et al. [6] revealed that green inclusive leadership holds great potential as a leadership style to significantly promote task-related pro-environmental behavior and foster OCB for the environment.

Accordingly, based on the insights from the SET, we propose that when a leader encourages transparent communication regarding the organization’s environmental objectives with his followers, demonstrates genuine interest in employees’ emotions and expectations, remains available for consultation on environmental matters, and fosters an accessible environment for discussing environmental concerns, employees are likely to reciprocate by displaying GOCB. Hence, we propose that.

H1: 

GIL has a significant positive impact on GOCB.

2.2. The Linkage between GIL and GWE

Green work engagement is recognized as the level of dedication, energy, and absorption that individuals invest in the workplace, particularly in relation to green initiatives [1]. Over the past few years, work engagement (WE) has gained significant traction as a focal point in the field of organizational behavior and psychology [13,29,30]. Work engagement plays a crucial role in organizational success, as it is linked to job satisfaction, productivity, and overall performance [5,31,32]. It is commonly understood as a positive and satisfying state of mind related to work which is distinguished by dedication, vigor, and complete absorption [33]. More specifically, vigor is recognized as the possession of heightened levels of energy and mental stamina during work activities, demonstrating a proactive inclination to invest effort and persist in the face of challenging circumstances. Dedication, on the other hand, encompasses a profound and committed involvement in one’s work, accompanied by a sense of personal enthusiasm, inspiration, significance, pride, and a willingness to embrace challenges. Lastly, absorption is recognized as a state of complete concentration and contented immersion in work tasks, where time seems to elapse swiftly, and individuals encounter difficulties in disengaging themselves from their work responsibilities [34].

In the link between IL and WE, the literature review emphasized the considerable influence of inclusive leadership on fostering WE [35,36,37]. When inclusive leaders exhibit traits of openness, accessibility, and availability, they have the potential to motivate employees to respond by enhancing their work engagement. This response manifests through allocating emotional, cognitive, and physical resources toward their work [36,37]. Further, inclusive leaders empower employees by involving them in decision-making processes, delegating responsibilities, and providing autonomy. This empowerment enhances employee engagement, as individuals develop a feeling of ownership and autonomy in their roles [38,39]. In addition, inclusive leaders provide feedback and recognition to employees for their work performance and development. By doing so, inclusive leaders increase employees’ sense of competence, autonomy, and relatedness at work, which are the three basic psychological needs that foster intrinsic motivation and engagement [40]. Hence, we hypothesize the following.

H2: 

GIL has a significant positive effect on GWE.

2.3. The Linkage between GIL and GOI

As organizations recognize the importance of being environmentally responsible, a new phenomenon, green organizational identification (GOI), has emerged. GOI refers to employees’ identification with and attachment to the environmental sustainability objectives and values embraced by the organization [3]. It also is recognized as the extent to which employees identify with and are committed to their organization’s environmental values and practices [41,42]. GOI plays a crucial role in promoting environmental consciousness within the workplace. A recent empirical study on five major chemical enterprises in Qingdao, Beijing, demonstrated that green inclusive leadership significantly positively impacts GOI [3]. The study suggested that green inclusive leadership can enhance employees’ awareness of environmental goals and their sense of belonging to a green organization, provide clear expectations regarding environmental practices, and recognize and reward employees’ green initiatives, which inspires them to practice in a sustainably friendly manner [3]. Similarly, in a non-green context, Tang et al. [43] as well as Song et al. [44] found that IL played a considerable role in fostering organizational identification. The study indicated that inclusive leadership establishes a work environment that is supportive and inclusive, making employees feel appreciated and integrated. This sense of inclusivity motivates employees to align their values, goals, and personal identity with the organization, ultimately resulting in a stronger sense of organizational identification. Accordingly, one could posit the following.

H3: 

GIL has a significant positive effect on GOI.

2.4. The Linkage between GWE and GOCB

The linkage between WE and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has been extensively studied and widely accepted, with WE playing a significant role in predicting OCB. Multiple research studies in various contexts have examined this association and consistently found that WE has a substantial effect on OCB. For instance, Zaabi et al. [45], in the setting of the petroleum sector, and Zhang et al. [46] in the context of the hotel business, concluded that OCB is significantly positively influenced by WE. In the same vein, in the setting of the Pakistani banking sector, Farid et al. [47] suggested that WE is the key predictor for fostering employees’ organizational citizenship behavior (β = 0.528, p < 0.0001). Moreover, Rastogi [48] confirmed that WE is significantly positively associated with OCB. Engaged employees who possess a high level of task proficiency demonstrate the ability to effectively utilize resources such as time, effort, and energy for the benefit of their co-workers and the organization as a whole. Moreover, these employees exhibit a strong sense of dedication and responsibility toward their personal development, perceiving all aspects of their work as within their domain and willingly going beyond their prescribed boundaries or formal job requirements [49,50].

Drawing on the lens of social exchange theory, GWE, driven by intrinsic motivation, personal values, and a desire to contribute to environmental sustainability, leads employees to invest their time, effort, and energy into promoting green practices within their organizations. In return, employees expect certain rewards and benefits from their organization, such as recognition, growth opportunities, and a positive work environment. Employees perceive a positive exchange when organizations fulfill these expectations and support green work engagement. This positive exchange, in turn, motivates employees to reciprocate by engaging in green organizational citizenship behavior voluntarily. They actively undertake actions that promote environmental responsibility, such as conserving resources, reducing waste, and advocating for sustainable practices. Accordingly, we hypothesized the following.

H4: 

GWE is significantly positively associated with GOCB.

2.5. The Linkage between GOI and GOCB

Green organizational identification and its impact on green organizational citizenship behavior have gained significant attention in recent years [15,51]. With growing interest in environmental sustainability, organizations have recognized the need to foster a sense of identification with green initiatives among their employees. Earlier scholars have consistently found a considerable positive correlation between GOI and GOCB. Employees who strongly identify with the organization’s green values, goals, and practices are more likely to incorporate sustainable practices into their daily work routines and engage in voluntary behaviors that promote environmental sustainability. This identification fosters shared responsibility for the environment and encourages ecologically responsible behaviors [3,15,16].

Moreover, research suggests that employees with solid green organizational identification are more willing to go beyond their job requirements to advocate for sustainable organizational initiatives. They actively participate in environmental committees, mentor colleagues on green practices, and serve as role models for environmentally responsible behaviors [52]. In terms of the hotel business in Taiwan, a research study conducted on 426 frontline employees aimed to examine the factors contributing to green organizational citizenship behavior. The study found that organizational identification is one of the key predictors that predicted the three aspects of GOCB: eco-initiatives, eco-civic engagement, and eco-helping behaviors, respectively [8]. Accordingly, we hypothesized the following.

H5: 

GOI significantly contributes to promoting GOCB.

2.6. The Mediating Role of GWE in the GIL-GOCB Relationship

As mentioned previously, in green and non-green contexts, inclusive leadership was recognized as a key determinant of employees’ WE [35,36]. Inclusive leadership can foster a positive emotional and cognitive state of WE, which encompasses attributes like vitality, commitment, and complete absorption in one’s professional responsibilities. Work engagement is closely related to leaders who provide attention, care, and encouragement to employees [2,37]. Inclusive leaders can boost work engagement through their display of transparency, approachability, and readiness to interact with their team members [13]. On the other side, previous study results have highlighted a substantial and positive correlation between WE and employees’ OCB [49,50]. These findings reveal that engaged employees have a greater tendency to become involved in discretionary behaviors because they are intrinsically motivated and have a genuine desire to contribute to the success of the organization. Their high levels of energy and dedication make them more willing to invest their time and effort in voluntary activities that promote the well-being and effectiveness of the organization [45,46,47]. Accordingly, a positive perception of inclusive leadership among employees is expected to be associated with a higher level of WE, which, consequently, is likely to have a significant impact on fostering OCB.

In addition, in non-green business contexts, some scholars have investigated the intervening role of WE in the nexus between inclusive leadership and employees’ behaviors. For example, Chen et al. [13] explored the intervening role of WE in the connection between IL and COCB in the high-tech and IT industries. Their findings revealed that WE partially intervened in the connection between IL and COCB. Similarly, Bannay et al. [14] concluded that WE significantly and partially intervened in the association between IL and innovative workplace behavior (IWB) in mobile phone companies in Iraq. Based on the findings mentioned earlier, higher perceived green inclusive leadership leads to improved green work engagement, which, consequently, significantly contributes to enhancing employees’ GOCB. Hence, we suggested the following.

H6: 

GWE has a significant mediating effect on the relationship between GIL and GOCB.

2.7. The Mediating Role of GOI in the GIL-GOCB Relationship

Several scholars have explored the intermediary role of organizational identification (OI) in the association between styles of leadership and employees’ organizational behaviors. For example, Quan et al. [3] demonstrated in the context of environmental sustainability that green organizational identification exhibits a substantial and partial mediation effect in the nexus between green inclusive leadership and employees’ green behavior. This finding suggests that organizations can foster employees’ GOI by enhancing green inclusive leadership practices, leading to positive changes in their green behavior. In another empirical study, researchers delved into the mediating function of green organizational identification within the link connecting ethical leadership (EL) and employees’ green innovation behavior (GIB). This suggests that green organizational identification serves as an intermediary element bridging the gap between EL and employees’ GIB [53]. The study findings illustrated that when leaders and employees engage in communication and collaboration regarding environmental matters, ethical leadership influences employees’ values related to environmental protection and the achievement of organizational environmental goals. This, in turn, enhances employees’ comprehension and enthusiasm for environmental protection. Moreover, a recent study carried out by Zhu et al. [54] concluded that green organizational identification played a partial intervening role in the connection between GHRM and task-related green behavior (TGB).

Earlier studies, in green and non-green contexts, suggest that inclusive leadership is the key predictor of organizational identification [3,43], implying that when leaders demonstrate inclusive behaviors and create an inclusive work environment, employees tend to align themselves more closely with the organization’s objectives, principles, and sense of identity. They experience a heightened sense of affiliation and connection with the organization, leading to increased levels of OI. Moreover, when employees highly connect with the values, goals, and objectives of the organization, they tend to be more inclined to engage in OCBs that go beyond their formal job requirements thereby positively impacting the overall effectiveness and achievements of the organization [3,15,16]. These behaviors can include helping coworkers, volunteering for additional tasks, providing suggestions for improvement, and promoting a positive work environment [8]. Considering the aforementioned findings, it can be hypothesized that the perception of higher levels of perceived green inclusive leadership is correlated with enhanced levels of green organizational identification (GOI). In turn, this increased green organizational identification is likely to substantially enhance the manifestation of green organizational citizenship behavior among hotel employees. Hence, we suggested the following.

H7: 

GOI has a significant mediating effect on the relationship between GIL and GOCB.

The conceptual framework of this study is visually depicted in Figure 1.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Measurements of this Study

In this research, primary data collection was conducted through the employment of an internet-based questionnaire. The use of online questionnaires has gained significant popularity in quantitative research methodologies, particularly as a means of collecting data via the Internet [55]. To guarantee the questionnaire’s reliability and validity, an extensive review of the existing literature was carried out to identify well-established and commonly used assessment tools.

The questionnaire employed in this research was structured into five separate sections. Section one concentrated on gathering demographic information from the participants, including variables such as age, gender, educational attainment, the department where they work, and their length of employment at the specific hotel under investigation. Section two was designed to measure the respondents’ perceptions of green-inclusive leaders’ behaviors. This section sought to gauge the extent to which the investigated individuals perceived and acknowledged the presence of green inclusive leadership qualities among their superiors. The subsequent two sections, three and four, aimed to explore the green work engagement and green organizational identification among the investigated participants, respectively. Finally, the last section of the questionnaire focused on measuring the extent to which the investigated participants participated in GOCBs.

In this study, various scales were employed to measure the constructs of GIL, GWE, GOI, and GOCB. For the measurement of GIL, a 3-item scale adapted by Bhutto et al., [2] was applied. Participants were requested to assess, using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (indicating “rarely”) to 5 (representing “always”), the frequency at which their leaders engage in specific behaviors related to green initiatives. An example item from this scale is “Your supervisor/manager is available for consultation on environmental problems at work.”

For measuring green work engagement, a 6-item scale developed by Aboramadan [1] and utilized by Suliman et al. [56] in the hotel sector context was used. The scale was used to measure to what extent the investigated participants are engaged in green works. A sample of this scale is “My environmental-related tasks inspire me.” Additionally, a 6-item measurement scale created by Quan et al. [3] was employed to evaluate perceived green organizational identification (GOI). One sample of these items is “You are aware of the company’s environmental traditions and culture.” Lastly, to gauge green organizational citizenship behavior among the investigated participants, a 10-item measurement instrument created and validated by Boiral and Paillé [12] was utilized. The scale is comprised of three types of GOCBs, namely eco-initiatives (three items), eco-civic engagement (four items), and eco-helping (three items). One sample of these items is “You encourage your colleagues to adopt more environmentally conscious behavior.” The measurement items for GWE, GOI, and GOCB were appraised utilizing a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating strong disagreement and 5 indicating strong agreement. The constructs of this study are outlined in Appendix A.

The survey utilized in this study was initially created in English. To ensure accurate comprehension and participation from Arabic-speaking participants, two researchers proficient in both Arabic and English undertook the task of translating the questionnaire from English into Arabic. Upon completing the Arabic translation, a thorough back-translation process was undertaken by two other experts. It is noteworthy that both the original questionnaire and the revised translated version remained unchanged, verifying linguistic harmony between the two language variants.

Furthermore, to strengthen the questionnaire’s content validity, a thorough review process was undertaken. This involved the input of five esteemed hospitality scholars who possess specialized knowledge in the fields of HRM and organizational behavior. Their expertise and insights were instrumental in evaluating the questionnaire’s content, ensuring its alignment with this study’s objectives. In addition, an initial investigation was carried out involving a group of 30 participants in a pilot study. This study aimed to evaluate the clarity, simplicity, and consistency of the questionnaire’s items. The feedback received from both the participants and scholars played a pivotal role in refining the wording of certain questionnaire items. Additionally, based on their input, adjustments were made to the sequence and organization of statements within the questionnaire.

3.2. Study Sample and Data Collection

The primary focus of this research revolved around frontline employees who directly engage with guests in five-star eco-friendly hotels situated in Saudi Arabia. The selection of these specific hotels was informed by their notable commitment to embracing environmentally sustainable practices, as highlighted by Abdou et al. [23]. To gather data, a convenience sampling technique was employed, whereby a sample of employees was surveyed using an online questionnaire. Although it is essential to acknowledge that this approach has inherent limitations in terms of generalizability, the researcher opted for this method for two significant reasons. Firstly, it is a straightforward, cost-effective, and time-efficient approach, as stated by Stratton [57]. Secondly, this sampling technique has been widely utilized in green hospitality research, as evidenced by the works of Aboramadan et al. [5] and Abdou et al. [23]. To determine the hotels to be surveyed, we utilized data from the ETIC Hotels’ website [58]. The ETIC classifies hotels into three categories: gold (8–10), silver (6–8), and bronze (4–6). For this study, we specifically selected and focused on the gold-rated five-star hotels, which amounted to a total of 28 establishments. Before distributing this study’s survey, permission was taken from human resource managers/directors to seek the participation of their respective staff members. Only 16 hotels agreed to participate in this study.

As highlighted by Cantrell and Lupinacci [59] and Loescher et al. [60], the utilization of the Internet as a research method is subject to several noteworthy barriers including limited Internet access, slow Internet connections, device compatibility problems, and lack of sufficient guidance for answering questions, which increases the chances of invalid responses and missing data. To address these concerns, our research was conducted particularly in five-star eco-friendly hotels, where we assumed that reliable Internet connections would be available due to their operational requirements. Additionally, our research team closely collaborated with hotel management to ensure that participants could conveniently access the online questionnaire from their workplace, where internet access was expected to be accessible. After receiving approval, individuals who willingly participated in the research were asked to complete a consent form. Subsequently, they were supplied with a link enabling them to access the survey and submit their responses. Alongside a welcoming message, participants were provided with a comprehensive explanation of the research’s aims and clear instructions on how to access and complete the questionnaire, as well as encouraged to complete it during their working hours to ensure accessibility. Participants were informed that their participation in this study was optional. Additionally, participants were gently prompted to re-submit the questionnaire once they had finished. The data-gathering process took approximately two months, spanning from April to June 2023. In total, 446 responses were received and deemed valid for statistical analysis.

Following the recommendations put forth by Nunnally and Bernstein [61], the determination of a suitable sample size was based on the number of items under examination. It was suggested that a 1:10 ratio, where one item corresponds to ten participants, is considered appropriate. Therefore, considering the presence of 25 items, the participation of a total of 250 respondents was deemed necessary for this study. In this research, a sample size composed of 446 participants was deemed sufficient. Additionally, the selected sample size adheres to Boomsma’s [62] suggestion that underscores the use of at least 200 samples in structural equation modeling.

Table 1. The demographic attributes of the survey respondents.

Characteristic	No.	%
Gender
Male	329	73.8
Female	117	26.2
Age
From 20 to 25	108	24.2
More than 25 to 30	89	20.0
More than 30 to 35	132	29.6
More than 35 to 40	82	18.4
More than 40	35	7.8
Educational attainment
High school degree or equivalent	77	17.2
Diploma	112	25.1
University degree	246	55.2
Postgraduate degree	11	2.5
Department
Front Office	96	21.5
Housekeeping	132	29.6
Food and beverage	152	34.1
Others	66	14.8
Working experience in the hotel
1–5	285	63.9
More than 5 to 10	105	23.5
More than 10 years	56	12.6
Total	446	100%

displays the respondents’ demographic attributes.

3.3. Data Analysis

In this study, we conducted data analysis using SPSS version 25 and SmartPLS version 4.0.8.4. To depict the demographic characteristics of the surveyed participants and capture their perspectives on this study’s variables, descriptive statistics were employed. This encompassed calculations of means, standard deviations, frequencies, and percentages. To gauge the measurement items’ reliability, we calculated both Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR). The convergence validity of the constructs was assessed by computing the average variance extracted (AVE). Additionally, we ensured discriminant validity by utilizing the Heterotrait–Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) test, which is in line with the Fornell–Larcker criterion. Furthermore, we evaluated multicollinearity using the variance inflation factor (VIF) test.

4. Results

4.1. Common Method Variance

Given that the data were gathered via an online questionnaire, it is essential to address the potential common method variance (CMV). To mitigate this concern, we employed three specific methods: ensuring anonymity, maintaining confidentiality, and emphasizing honesty among participants [63]. All responses and information provided by the research participants were treated with the utmost confidentiality and kept anonymous, exclusively for the purposes of this study [64]. Furthermore, we emphasized the importance of participants providing honest answers to all questions, as this is a well-established method for reducing response bias [65]. Furthermore, in order to examine the potential influence of common method variance (CMV), we performed Harman’s single-factor test. Through exploratory factor analysis, we discovered that a single factor explained merely 35.6% of the variance. It is important to highlight that when a single factor accounts for over 50% of the variance, CMV can be a potential concern. Nonetheless, in our investigation, CMV was not a substantial issue, as demonstrated by the findings of this analysis [66].

4.2. The Measurement Model

To determine the reliability and validity of this study’s constructs, the researchers employed the PLS-SEM algorithm. Internal consistency reliability, which examines the extent to which different items or questions within a construct are measuring the same underlying concept, was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha (α) and CR [67]. Higher values indicate greater internal consistency and reliability. As evidenced by the data in

Table 2. Constructs descriptive statistics, validity, and reliability measures.

Construct	Item	Mean	Standard Deviation	Outer Loading	α 1	CR 2	AVE 3
Green Inclusive Leadership (GIL)	GIL1	4.17	0.911	0.884 ***	0.838	0.903	0.756
	GIL2	4.24	0.939	0.906 ***
Mean = 4.20 Standard deviation = 0.834	GIL3	4.20	0.906	0.815 ***
Green Work Engagement (GWE)	GWE1	4.22	0.960	0.795 ***	0.889	0.915	0.644
	GWE2	3.96	1.143	0.786 ***
	GWE3	4.45	0.837	0.874 ***
	GWE4	4.01	1.138	0.854 ***
Mean = 4.12	GWE5	4.12	1.000	0.748 ***
Standard deviation = 0.837	GWE6	3.99	1.218	0.749 ***
Green Organizational Identification (GOI)	GOI1	3.97	0.821	0.793 ***	0.840	0.882	0.555
	GOI2	4.01	0.810	0.753 ***
	GOI3	4.00	0.845	0.726 ***
	GOI4	3.95	0.849	0.745 ***
Mean = 3.96	GOI5	3.87	0.803	0.750 ***
Standard deviation = 0.736	GOI6	3.98	0.998	0.700 ***
Green Organizational Citizenship Behavior (GOCB)	GOCB1	3.99	0.803	0.772 ***	0.902	0.919	0.533
	GOCB2	4.01	0.810	0.655 ***
	GOCB3	4.15	0.826	0.764 ***
	GOCB4	4.20	0.900	0.756 ***
	GOCB5	3.91	0.867	0.803 ***
	GOCB6	4.11	0.979	0.658 ***
	GOCB7	4.16	0.871	0.736 ***
	GOCB8	3.97	0.849	0.753 ***
Mean = 4.05	GOCB9	3.96	0.849	0.738 ***
Standard deviation = 0.724	GOCB10	4.02	0.821	0.646 ***

Note: α ¹: Cronbach’s alpha, CR ²: composite reliability, AVE ³: average variance extracted, ***: p < 0.001.

, high levels of Cronbach’s α and CR values were observed. The CR scores and Cronbach’s α values surpassed the cut-off of 0.70, as Hair et al. [68] suggested, implying excellent reliability.

In the context of assessing the convergent validity of this study’s constructs, this research utilized the calculation of AVE [69]. An examination of the results presented in Table 2 revealed that all outer loadings were statistically significant at a significance level of p < 0.001 and ranged from 0.646 to 0.906. Furthermore, when evaluating the AVE value, it was considered acceptable if it met or exceeded 0.50 [68]. This study’s findings indicate that all AVE values, which ranged from 0.533 to 0.756, surpass the minimum threshold of 0.50. These compelling results provide robust evidence that the measurement items employed in this study effectively demonstrated convergent validity.

To assess the discriminant validity of the research constructs, we utilized the well-established Fornell and Larcker [69] criterion. This method entails a thorough examination involving the comparison of the square root of the AVE with the inter-correlations among the variables under investigation. Discriminant validity is deemed to be established when the square root of the AVE surpasses the inter-correlations among the variables. The results, as elucidated in

Table 3. Fornell–Larcker criterion method.

Construct	GIL	GOCB	GOI	GWE
GIL	0.869
GOCB	0.525	0.730
GOI	0.591	0.428	0.745
GWE	0.610	0.714	0.742	0.802

Note: The square root of AVE is outlined by the bold diagonal values.

, clearly illustrate that the square root of the AVE exceeded the reported correlations, unequivocally affirming the presence of discriminant validity.

Furthermore, to enhance the assessment of discriminant validity, we examined the HTMT ratio of correlations among the studied variables. The HTMT ratios, as reported in

Table 4. HTMT ratio.

Construct	GIL	GOCB	GOI	GWE
GIL
GOCB	0.633
GOI	0.699	0.536
GWE	0.705	0.822	0.849

, were assessed against a predefined threshold of 0.85, as recommended by Henseler et al. [70]. Notably, all HTMT ratios in this study were found to be below the established threshold, providing additional support for the presence of discriminant validity.

4.3. Multicollinearity Statistics

This study utilized VIF values, as Hair et al. [68] recommended, to assess the possibility of multicollinearity within this model. According to their guidance, a VIF score exceeding three raises concerns about multicollinearity, prompting potential corrective measures. According to the data in

Table 5. Multicollinearity assessment using VIF values.

Construct	GIL	GOCB	GOI	GWE
GIL		1.708	1.000	1.000
GOCB
GOI		2.389
GWE		2.473

, it is evident that all the constructs investigated in this study have VIF values well below the threshold of three. This outcome signifies the absence of significant issues related to multicollinearity, affirming the model’s robustness.

4.4. Testing the Study Hypotheses

The research hypotheses underwent examination through the application of PLS-SEM. To statistically assess the path coefficients, a bootstrapping technique was employed. Specifically, bootstrapping was conducted using subsamples of 5000 iterations.

Table 6. Structural parameter estimates.

Hypothesized Path	Original Sample (O)	Sample Mean (M)	Standard Deviation (STDEV)	T Statistics	Confidence Intervals		Result
					2.5%	97.5%
Direct Path
H1: GIL ⟶ GOCB	0.368	0.367	0.014	25.586 ***	0.339	0.395	Accepted
H2: GIL ⟶ GWE	0.610	0.611	0.035	17.173 ***	0.539	0.677	Accepted
H3: GIL ⟶ GOI	0.591	0.592	0.038	15.368 ***	0.514	0.665	Accepted
H4: GWE ⟶ GOCB	0.493	0.494	0.018	26.907 ***	0.458	0.529	Accepted
H5: GOI ⟶ GOCB	0.264	0.264	0.014	18.285 ***	0.234	0.292	Accepted
Indirect Path
H6: GIL ⟶ GWE ⟶ GOCB	0.301	0.301	0.017	17.887 ***	0.268	0.334	Accepted
H7: GIL ⟶ GOI ⟶ GOCB	0.156	0.156	0.013	11.589 ***	0.130	0.183	Accepted

Note: GIL: green inclusive leadership, GOCB: green organizational citizenship behavior, GWE: green work engagement, GOI: green organizational identification, ***: p < 0.001.

and Figure 2 illustrate the findings derived from the PLS-SEM analysis.

As depicted in Table 6 and Figure 2, the outcomes derived from the utilization of PLS-SEM analysis, combined with the bootstrapping technique, reveal a substantial and positive impact of green inclusive leadership on employees’ green organizational citizenship behavior. This finding provides support for Hypothesis 1, which postulates a substantial positive influence of green inclusive leadership on green organizational citizenship behavior within the hotel workforce. Furthermore, the results indicate a substantial contribution of green inclusive leadership to the promotion of green work engagement. Thus, Hypothesis 2 finds support. Additionally, Hypothesis 3, which proposes a significant role for GIL in enhancing GOI, is also corroborated.

Similarly, it is evident that green work engagement has a substantial positive effect on elevating green organizational citizenship behavior among hotel employees in the properties under investigation. Consequently, Hypothesis 4 is accepted. In the context of the association between GOI and GOCB, these findings affirm that green organizational identification significantly contributes to driving employees’ GOCB, confirming Hypothesis 5.

To explore the indirect relationship between GIL and GOCB, we employed a bootstrapping technique. This analysis aimed to investigate how green work engagement and green organizational identification may act as mediators in this relationship. The outcomes, as summarized in Table 6, underscore the noteworthy indirect impact of green inclusive leadership on green organizational citizenship behavior via green work engagement. This result corroborates Hypothesis 6, which posits that green work engagement significantly and positively mediates the connection between green inclusive leadership and employees’ green organizational citizenship behavior. Additionally, the bootstrapping analysis revealed that employees’ GOCB is indirectly affected by GIL via GOI, affirming Hypothesis 7.

In the assessment of the potential mediating effect of GWE and GOI in the GIL-GOCB relationship, we applied the concepts of both full and partial mediation, as suggested by Kelloway [71] and Zhao et al. [72]. They proposed that full mediation is present when the indirect path is significant and the direct path is not, whereas partial mediation is indicated when both paths are statistically significant. Our findings, as presented in Table 6, support the notion that the GIL–GOCB relationship is significantly partially mediated by GWE and GOI.

5. Discussion

Building upon the principles of social exchange theory [73], this research sought to evaluate a novel research model, investigating the influence of green inclusive leadership on employees’ participation in green organizational citizenship behavior. Furthermore, it explored the potential intermediary roles of green work engagement and green organizational identification in this context. The findings of this study provide valuable insights into the relationship between green inclusive leadership and employees’ green organizational citizenship behavior. It is evident from our analysis that GIL has a significant impact on GOCB. This result aligns with the growing body of literature emphasizing the crucial role of green inclusive leadership in fostering environmentally responsible behaviors within organizations [2,3,4,5,6]. The findings of these investigations reveal that GIL significantly contributes to enhancing employees’ green creativity, green innovative work behavior, green knowledge-sharing behavior, and proactive and task-related pro-environmental behavior. Accordingly, it can be suggested that employees who perceive their leaders as having an environmental conscience and being supportive, open to conversations about environmentally friendly goals and creative green methods to achieve them, available for consultations regarding environmental issues at work, and receptive to requests concerning the management of environmental concerns are more inclined to engage voluntarily in environmentally responsible actions that go beyond their job descriptions. This finding highlights the potential for organizations to leverage GIL as a catalyst for enhancing their sustainability efforts.

Further, the findings of this study shed light on the crucial relationship between green inclusive leadership and employees’ green work engagement. The results demonstrate a significant and positive impact of GIL on GWE, highlighting the pivotal role that leadership plays in driving employees’ environmental commitment and enthusiasm at work. This finding aligns with prior research conducted in non-green settings, which indicated that inclusive leadership is linked to a notably positive enhancement of employee work engagement [13,33,35,36,37]. On the contrary, Bhutto et al. [2] demonstrated that green inclusive leadership did not significantly support green work engagement in the tourism and hospitality sector context. The differences in the results between the two studies can be attributed to variations in the study settings. Different regions and cultures can influence the relationship between GIL and GWE (i.e., Europe and Saudi Arabia). Additionally, the composition of this study’s samples is a crucial factor to consider. In our research, the primary focus was on front-line employees working in five-star environmentally conscious hotels. In contrast, Bhutto et al. [2] collected data from employees across one- to five-star hotels, which may introduce variations in the outcomes.

Hence, drawing on this study’s findings, it could be concluded that green-inclusive leaders are those who not only advocate for sustainability within their organizations but also actively involve and engage employees in green initiatives. This approach fosters a sense of shared responsibility for environmental stewardship among employees, leading to increased green work engagement. When employees perceive their leaders as champions of environmental sustainability, they are more likely to feel motivated, dedicated, and inspired to contribute to green initiatives.

In terms of the GIL–GOI relationship, this study’s results indicated a substantial positive influence of GIL on GOI. In the context of environmental sustainability, this result aligns with the findings of Quan et al. [3], who demonstrated a significant association between GIL and GOI (β = 0.291, p < 0.01). Moreover, in settings unrelated to environmental concerns, inclusive leadership has been consistently shown to significantly contribute to the promotion of employees’ OI [43,44]. Accordingly, it can be deduced that the more prominent green inclusive leadership is perceived, the better the organizational identification observed among environmentally committed employees. More specifically, when leaders embody environmental values, goals, and practices and integrate them into the organization’s culture, employees are more likely to internalize them and align their own identities with the organization’s green identity.

Concerning the influence of green work engagement on employees’ GOCB, the results derived from PLS-SEM explicitly substantiate that GWE exerts a highly significant and positive impact on green organizational citizenship behavior. These findings align with earlier research conducted in non-green organizational contexts, reinforcing the fundamental role of work engagement in shaping employees’ OCBs. For instance, Chen et al. [13] found a considerable positive effect of WE on challenge-oriented OCB (β = 0.428, p < 0.05). Similar results were reported by Zaabi et al. [45], Zhang et al. [46], and Farid et al. [47], further emphasizing the significance of work engagement in predicting employees’ OCBs. Drawing upon the insights derived from this study’s findings, it can be deduced that heightened levels of green work engagement are positively associated with an increase in employees’ GOCB, echoing the importance of work engagement in driving pro-environmental behaviors within the hotel industry context.

Similarly, concerning the association between GOI and GOCB, this study’s results indicate a significant enhancement of employees’ GOCB due to GOI. These findings are in harmony with prior research results that underscore the pivotal role of green organizational identification as a critical determinant of employees’ green organizational behavior i.e., [3,15,16]. These findings imply that when hotels integrate environment protection, eco-innovation, and environmental management and practices into their core values, objectives, and goals to enhance environmental performance, it is reasonable to anticipate that employees who identify with and internalize these values as part of their own identity will willingly engage in discretionary behaviors directed to sustaining the natural environment.

In terms of the indirect effect of green inclusive leadership on green organizational citizenship behavior via green work engagement, this study’s findings provide compelling evidence of the intervening role played by green work engagement in the GIL–GOCB relationship. Specifically, the results reveal that GWE serves as a significant partial mediator in this relationship. This finding highlights the complex interrelationships that exist within organizations dedicated to environmental sustainability. It highlights that green inclusive leadership, characterized by leaders who endorse sustainability and involve employees actively in green initiatives, exerts a positive influence on green work engagement. In turn, heightened levels of green work engagement among employees translate into a greater inclination to engage in pro-environmental behaviors beyond their prescribed job roles, ultimately resulting in enhanced green organizational citizenship behavior. These findings corroborate earlier research conclusions. For instance, Chen et al. [13] proposed that WE partially mediated the connection between IL and challenge-oriented OCB. Similarly, Bannay et al. [14] concluded that WE played a partial intervening role in the nexus between IL and IWB. In contrast, Bhutto et al. [2] discovered that GWE did not independently act as a mediator in the linkage between green inclusive leadership and employees’ green creativity within the hospitality and tourism sector.

In a similar vein, the research results suggest that green organizational identification serves as a partial mediator in the link between GIL and GOCB. This underscores that a strong perception of green inclusive leadership leads to an elevation in green organizational identification, thereby contributing positively to green organizational citizenship behavior among hotel employees. More specifically, this finding implies that the influence of GIL extends beyond the direct effects on GOCB. Instead, it highlights the role of employees’ identification with the organization’s green values and goals as an intermediary mechanism through which leadership impacts pro-environmental behaviors. In organizations with strong GIL, employees are not only motivated to engage in green organizational citizenship behavior due to leadership’s direct influence, but they also identify with the organization’s environmental mission, which further encourages their GOCBs. These results foster the results of Quan et al. [3] who found that green organizational identification significantly partially mediated the GIL-employees’ green behavior relationship.

6. Theoretical and Practical Implications

6.1. Theoretical Implications

The results of this research carry several noteworthy theoretical implications, particularly within the framework of SET and the broader context of green organizational behavior. This study’s results reinforce the fundamental view of social exchange theory by illustrating that organizations practicing green inclusive leadership can create an environment where employees are motivated to reciprocate through pro-environmental behaviors. The positive influence of GIL on GOCB, mediated by green work engagement and green organizational identification, underscores the notion that individuals respond to supportive leadership with greater commitment and engagement. Further, this study underscores the pivotal role of leadership in fostering a green organizational culture. It emphasizes that leaders who endorse environmental sustainability and inclusivity not only directly impact employees’ pro-environmental behaviors but also cultivate an organizational climate where employees strongly identify with green values and are engaged in sustainability efforts. Moreover, the findings of this study aid in the development of an integrated framework for understanding green organizational behavior. It highlights the interconnectedness of leadership, engagement, identification, and citizenship behaviors in the context of environmental sustainability, offering a comprehensive perspective for researchers and practitioners. The identification of green work engagement and green organizational identification as significant mediators in the GIL–GOCB relationship highlights the nuanced pathways through which leadership influences pro-environmental behaviors. This suggests that fostering engagement and identification should be integral aspects of leadership strategies aimed at promoting green citizenship. These insights offer a solid foundation for further research and the development of effective strategies to advance environmental sustainability within the hotel sector.

6.2. Practical Implications

The practical implications arising from this study offer valuable guidance for hoteliers aiming to promote environmental sustainability through effective leadership and employee engagement strategies. Firstly, hotels should prioritize the development and cultivation of green inclusive leadership practices. This entails selecting and training leaders who not only endorse sustainability but actively engage in and champion green initiatives. Leadership development programs should incorporate modules on environmental stewardship and inclusive leadership behaviors. These programs can equip leaders with the skills to promote green practices and create a work environment that fosters engagement and identification with green values. Secondly, this study highlights the importance of fostering GWE among employees. Hotels can achieve this by creating a work environment that encourages employee involvement in environmentally sustainable practices. This may involve providing resources, recognition, and opportunities for employees to contribute to green initiatives. Thirdly, building a strong sense of green organizational identification is essential. Hotels should work towards aligning their values, goals, and mission with environmental sustainability. Communication strategies that reinforce the organization’s commitment to green principles can help employees identify more strongly with these values. Fourthly, to encourage green organizational citizenship behavior, hotels should explicitly recognize and reward employees’ pro-environmental efforts. Creating a culture of appreciation for green contributions can motivate employees to go beyond their job descriptions and actively participate in sustainability initiatives. Fifthly, regular feedback mechanisms and recognition systems should be in place to acknowledge and celebrate green achievements. Employees who see that their efforts are valued are more likely to continue engaging in GOCBs.

7. Research Limitations and Future Directions

It is important to acknowledge certain constraints within the scope of this study. First, this study focused exclusively on five-star eco-friendly hotels in Saudi Arabia. While this specificity enhances the contextual relevance of the findings, it may limit the generalizability. The findings of this study are primarily applicable to the specific context under investigation. The extent of generalizability to a broader global or regional context, such as the Middle East or other Arab countries, may be limited, even though this study’s theoretical framework and findings observed can provide valuable insights for similar contexts or organizations with similar characteristics. Hence, future research can replicate this study in diverse organizational contexts and industries to assess the generalizability of these findings. Studies in different regions or cultural settings may help in building a more comprehensive understanding of these relationships. Furthermore, an examination of how GIL influences GWE, GOI, and GOCB within the context of three- and four-star eco-friendly hotels could yield distinct outcomes, thereby enriching our understanding of the interconnections among these constructs.

Second, the gender distribution among the respondents, with a predominance of male participants (73.8%), is reflective of the broader demographic composition of hotel employees in Saudi Arabia, where male workers have traditionally dominated the industry. It is crucial to acknowledge that the representation of female employees remains relatively low despite recent progress in integrating them into the sector. This gender disproportion could have implications for the generalizability of the findings, as gender may influence attitudes and behaviors related to green work engagement, green organizational identification, and organizational citizenship behavior. Consequently, future research might delve deeper into intersectionality and how factors like gender, age, job role, or cultural background might influence the relationships between GIL, GWE, GOI, and GOCB.

Third, this study employed a cross-sectional design, which limits the establishment of causal relationships. Longitudinal research designs could provide insights into the dynamic nature of the relationships between GIL, GWE, GOI, and GOCB over time. This would enable a better assessment of causal links. Fourth, comparative research across hospitality organizations with varying degrees of green initiatives and commitment levels could provide insights into the differential impact of GIL on GOCB. Fifth, in this study data was gathered using an online questionnaire. Qualitative research methods, such as in-depth interviews or focus groups, could complement quantitative findings by offering a deeper understanding of the experiences and perceptions of employees regarding GIL and its impact on pro-environmental behaviors. Sixth, the differences in responses based on the demographics of the investigated participants (i.e., gender, age, and educational level) and their roles as moderators could impact the relationship between GIL and GOCB. This aspect remains unexplored in the current study but could be an interesting avenue for future research. Subsequent studies might examine the moderating effects of these demographic characteristics on this relationship.

8. Conclusions of the Study

This study delved into the influential role of green inclusive leadership in driving sustainability initiatives within the hotel industry, employing the social exchange theory (SET) as its theoretical framework. The investigation had three primary objectives: firstly, to assess the direct impact of GIL on green work engagement (GWE), green organizational identification (GOI), and green organizational citizenship behavior (GOCB); secondly, to explore the mediating roles of GWE and GOI on the relationship between GIL and GOCB; and thirdly, to scrutinize the influence of GWE and GOI on GOCB. Data were collected through an internet-based questionnaire, involving 446 front-line employees working in eco-conscious, five-star hotels in Saudi Arabia. The study harnessed the power of partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in combination with bootstrapping techniques to examine a set of seven hypotheses, encompassing both direct and indirect associations among the variables under investigation.

The findings unveiled several key insights. Firstly, it was evident that GIL played a pivotal role in positively influencing employees’ GWE and GOI, thereby significantly motivating their active participation in GOCBs. Furthermore, the study illustrated that both GWE and GOI exerted a substantial positive impact on employees’ engagement in GOCBs. Moreover, GWE and GOI demonstrated their significance as partial mediators in the intricate linkage between GIL and GOCB. These findings have noteworthy practical implications, holding the potential to substantially bolster GOCB and drive forward sustainability endeavors within the hotel industry.