Low-Carbon Transformational Leadership: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Its Impact on Innovation Outcomes

Abstract

This study introduces and develops the concept of low-carbon transformational leadership (LCTL), focusing on leadership behaviors essential for achieving carbon reduction objectives within organizations. Addressing gaps in current green leadership research, this study distinguishes LCTL from broader green transformational leadership by emphasizing carbon reduction goals rather than general environmental aims. Using a grounded-theory approach, this study conceptualizes LCTL across three core dimensions: fostering a collective vision and alignment in low-carbon transition opportunities, strategic steering and feedback for an effective low-carbon transformation, and adaptive integration and iteration for a resilient low-carbon transformation. To ensure empirical rigor, a comprehensive LCTL scale was developed and validated through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, demonstrating strong internal consistency and construct validity. The predictive validity of the LCTL scale was further tested, showing a significant positive impact on green innovation and green product development outcomes, particularly in carbon-intensive industries. This research provides a nuanced and practical framework for leadership in low-carbon transitions, offering new insights into green leadership by highlighting the role of leadership in advancing climate-centered corporate innovation. The findings underscore the critical importance of adaptive, visionary, and strategic leadership in aligning organizations with carbon-neutral goals and enhancing corporate sustainability practices. These results suggest that companies can embed LCTL principles into their daily operations by setting clear sustainability visions, investing in leadership training, and prioritizing collaborative strategies. Future research could explore sector-specific applications of LCTL, particularly in emerging economies, to further expand its theoretical and practical implications.

1. Introduction

Climate change poses deep and global threats to human civilization and the biosphere, including rising temperatures and sea levels, ecosystem collapse, and economic dislocation. Further, global efforts to combat these impacts have gained traction since the 2015 signing of the Paris Agreement, with green and low-carbon transitions being viewed as fundamental strategies for alleviating looming crises [1]. Due to this increasing awareness, nowadays everyone plans high-range carbon neutrality and net-zero objectives, creating an overall determination by numerous nations in fighting these climate cataclysms. Such a shift has put tremendous pressure on corporations to not only report greenhouse gas emissions transparently but also follow plans that adapt to climate-driven disruption of operations. But these changes go much further than just updating policies or technological upgrades; they are the push for visionary and committed leadership inside organizations. The role of leadership is also paramount in encouraging the adoption and implementation of low-carbon and sustainable practices, navigating organizations through the aspects involved in pursuing greener operations, motivating employees along the way and establishing an organizational culture that promotes sustainability from the top down. Thus, it is critical to know how leadership (in particular transformational leadership) enables and preserves a strategic low-carbon orientation [2,3].

To frame the discussion of low-carbon transition within a global context, recent studies have examined the intersection of energy transitions and contentious issues such as energy poverty [4]. For instance, the dual challenges of mitigating climate change and addressing energy poverty are particularly relevant in developing economies where access to clean energy remains uneven. These complexities emphasize the need for inclusive and equitable approaches to lead these low-carbon initiatives. Hence, green transformational leadership (GTL) has become one prominent paradigm in leadership that embodies an overarching vision for sustainable values, nurtures a supportive organizational culture, and stimulates innovation in terms of supply-side green practices [5,6,7]. Prior studies have shown GTL to meet such criteria, where green leadership or green transformational leadership not only motivates employees to adopt eco-friendly practices, but also enhances the eco-firm’s psychological climate toward sustainability and subsequently impacts general green performance [1,8]. But while we are seeing slightly more GTL studies, there is still a dearth of research examining which important leadership behaviors should be adopted when looking toward low-carbon-themed goals. The literature mostly views GTL as a general construct that encompasses several green practices, and does not focus on leadership with other practices for reducing carbon emissions, which is essential to achieving carbon neutrality targets [9,10]. We seek to address this gap through this study of low-carbon transformational leadership as a unique construct compared to GTL, which explicitly helps organizations reach specific carbon reduction targets. the core research questions of this empirical study include how low-carbon leadership can be demystified in terms of classifications, and how it is structured in the GTL framework, as well as its specific impacts on some organizational outcomes, including green innovation and congruence with carbon-oriented stakeholders [3].

1.1. The Gaps in Green Transformational Leadership (GTL) Research

The first major gap in the GTL literature today is that low-carbon transformation does not appear as a dimension within the broader framework of green leadership. While prior studies have demonstrated that green transformational leadership (GTL) motivates employees to adopt eco-friendly practices and enhances the psychological climate toward sustainability [1,2,3,4,5,6,7], none of these studies have explicitly addressed low-carbon transformation as a core dimension. For example, the seven studies cited in our review [1,2,3,4,5,6,7] discuss green leadership broadly in terms of environmental practices but do not explicitly target carbon reduction or low-carbon objectives as a specific focus of green leadership. This lack of a low-carbon dimension in existing GTL frameworks highlights a significant gap in the literature, which our study seeks to address by introducing low-carbon transformational leadership (LCTL) as a more targeted and actionable leadership model for driving corporate carbon-neutral goals. Although GTL, in general, advocates for environmental values, it usually has a wide coverage of green practices but does not specifically concentrate on carbon-emission-target-oriented initiatives such as low-carbon operations and energy-efficient technologies [1]. This more generalized approach constrains GTL’s real-world use for organizations with specific carbon neutrality targets, as targeted leadership practices are necessary. This study attempts to fill this gap through proposing a conceptual framework delineating low-carbon-specific behaviors from more general pro-environmental or green leadership components, thus providing organizations with clearer guidelines for their implementation of leadership practices consistent with carbon-related mandates [5,8]. Another gap in the GTL research is related to its impact on green product development and innovation, especially for innovations produced with a carbon reduction innovation strategy across the life cycle of a given product. While GTL has been identified as a driver of organizational climates that encourage green innovation, there is little understanding of the extent to which leadership focuses exclusively on low-carbon outcomes to drive carbon mitigation innovations [1]. To fill this gap, this study will explore the relationship between low-carbon leadership and green product development with an emission reduction focus to provide novel insights into how the managerial practice of low-carbon leadership fosters distinctive competitive strategies based on low-carbon innovations [2,3].

The other major shortcoming has been the development of tools with proven reliability to measure low-carbon leadership. Specifically, existing GTL scales have little visibility when it comes to low-carbon practices and behaviors soon to be commonplace in many sectors. Even researchers generally agree on the importance of low-carbon leadership [11]; without an established measurement framework, the concept at best remains fuzzy, limiting empirical research to studies on its effects on organizational performance and lessening its practical use for organizations interested in reducing carbon emissions. The practical and empirical purpose of this study is to develop a distinct low-carbon leadership scale that can be utilized for robust and much-needed research but also serves as a helpful evaluative metric for organizations seeking a tool to identify, evaluate, and/or enhance carbon care in their leadership behaviors [3,8]. Similarly, few recent studies have connected the many traces of low-carbon leadership to organizational dynamic capabilities. Facilities to reconfigure and combine resources as needed to bring about external environmental changes can be identified as dynamic capabilities contributing to adjustments to meet low-carbon demands [2,9]. Although GTL has been demonstrated to foster universal green dynamic capabilities, there are few studies investigating, in particular, the role of low-carbon leadership in driving capabilities that are paramount for managing carbon-sensitive resources like investment in energy efficiency and carbon management practices. Thus, this study seeks to inform the role of low-carbon leadership through further delineating capabilities that enhance flexibility and resilience in sustainable resource management [8] by investigating how they relate to it.

Also, GTL research does not sufficiently consider that stakeholders may have specific carbon footprint pressures. As a result, organizations are facing heightened demands for low-carbon leadership practices that include transparency, which stakeholders seem to be increasingly expecting from their corporate carbon practices [1,2,12]. While GTL will tweak some general external pressures that influence carbon-centered stakeholder demands, it rarely ties the two directly together. This research will explore how organizations reduce carbon emissions to satisfy organizational legitimacy and the reputation that is expected from stakeholders that is critical in a society highly focused on carbon emissions [7,8]. The final gap is the contribution of low-carbon leadership to developing an organizational climate that is centered around reducing carbon. While leadership is an important driver of environmental values, most current GTL research either focuses on general environmental culture or exploratory studies; however, the positive role of leadership in developing a carbon emission-oriented culture has rarely been studied [1,5]. Climate-conscious leadership could be a starting point for cultural change, motivating action toward reducing emissions and energy usage as well as distributing resources effectively. The influence of low-carbon leadership on organizational culture will be investigated to explore the possible critical pathways through which the embedding of low-carbon objectives may occur within both strategic and operational processes.

In sum, this research identifies the following gaps in the current literature that this study seeks to address:

• The absence of a low-carbon dimension within the broader framework of green leadership.
• The lack of a comprehensive, validated scale specifically for measuring low-carbon transformational leadership.
• The insufficient understanding of how LCTL impacts organizational outcomes such as green product development and low-carbon innovation.
• The limited empirical validation of low-carbon leadership concepts in corporate settings, especially in high-carbon industries.

1.2. Research Objectives: Developing and Validating Low-Carbon Transformational Leadership (LCTL)

The purpose of this study is to develop and validate a new leadership construct, low-carbon transformational leadership (LCTL), which specifically addresses the unique challenges of low-carbon transitions in organizations. This study uses a multi-step approach including three interrelated studies: the conceptualization of LCTL, the development and validation of a measurement scale, and the empirical examination of LCTL’s impact on innovation outcomes. Specifically, Study 1 analyzed the dimensionality of the construct of LCTL using a grounded-theory approach, preparing for the LCTL scale’s dimensional structure and refining the item pool. Study 2 developed the scale of LCTL and investigated construct validity, including assessments of content validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity, etc. Study 3 assessed nomological validity, examining whether the developed scale could accurately predict theoretical relationships between LCTL and related constructs. Based on these progressive three studies, the focus of this research could position LCTL as a targeted extension to existing green leadership styles, filling a niche for industries facing stringent carbon targets.

Additionally, this research is rooted in high-impact sectors like energy and manufacturing, where low-carbon leadership is often associated with large-scale technological and operational shifts. This sectoral difference highlights LCTL’s adaptability to high-stakes, resource-intensive environments, which are distinct from the service-oriented contexts of green inclusive and servant leadership [13]. This contrast underscores LCTL’s theoretical and practical relevance to industries that face direct emission pressures and regulatory demands, thus expanding the leadership and green innovation literature into contexts requiring substantial physical and operational change.

Lastly, although extant research underscores the role of green leadership in influencing employees’ green behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes [3,5,12], LCTL could contribute further by demonstrating how leaders cultivate specific low-carbon behaviors aligned with climate goals, which may involve more structured, strategic, and technically driven behaviors compared to general green behaviors.

This article is organized as follows: Section 2 provides a review of the relevant literature and theoretical background. Section 3 details the research design and methodology employed in this study. Section 4 presents the results of the scale development and validation, while Section 5 discusses the implications of the findings and concludes with directions for future research.

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Background

2.1. Relevant Concepts and Definition of LCTL

2.1.1. Distinction Between Low-Carbon Transformational Leadership (LCTL) and Related Leadership Theories

The concept of LCTL is related to, yet distinct from, several leadership theories commonly discussed in the literature, such as green transformational leadership [9], green leadership [14], green strategic leadership [15], environmental leadership [16,17], and climate change leadership [18]. These leadership concepts primarily focus on broader environmental issues and sustainability goals rather than emphasizing the unique aspect of low- or zero-carbon emissions. For instance, while climate change leadership does incorporate the notion of carbon reduction, it only does so indirectly, considering carbon emission reduction as a prerequisite for broader climate adaptation initiatives.

2.1.2. Bridging Global Commitments and Local Practices

One study investigated low-carbon leadership by showing that mayors act as intermediaries, balancing national renewable energy goals with local needs and constraints [11]. This mirrors the role corporate leaders play in aligning company-wide low-carbon objectives with specific operational and departmental goals. In the corporate context, LCTL could similarly be seen as a bridge between global sustainability commitments (e.g., carbon neutrality) and on-the-ground practices, emphasizing how leaders at various organizational levels coordinate to implement and adapt sustainability strategies within local or departmental contexts.

2.1.3. Defining the Action-Oriented Nature of LCTL

The introduction of the LCTL concept aims to address the specific focus on carbon reduction, a critical requirement in the context of carbon peak and carbon neutrality goals. Unlike general environmental leadership, LCTL emphasizes action-oriented transformation that specifically aims to reduce carbon emissions, distinguishing it from the state-oriented approach found in broader green or environmental leadership frameworks. Among related concepts, green transformational leadership most closely aligns with LCTL in its focus on driving organizational change for environmental performance. Green transformational leadership extends the principles of transformational leadership into environmental management, promoting pro-environmental behaviors and surpassing expected levels of environmental performance [19,20]. This leadership style not only aims to enhance organizational green effectiveness but also positively influences individual pro-environmental behaviors and green creativity [21]. For example, by fostering a green organizational culture and mindfulness [22], green transformational leaders can increase employees’ green organizational identity [23], thus enhancing green creativity.

2.1.4. Insights from Green Transformational Leadership

Green transformational leadership positively correlates with organizational citizenship behavior and environmental organizational citizenship behavior [24]. At the organizational level, green transformational leadership helps establish a sustainable, environmentally responsible work environment by creating a positive green psychological climate, which in turn positively impacts organizational performance [25]. This leadership approach not only motivates individuals to participate in environmental initiatives but also promotes overall green development within the organization, setting the foundation for long-term sustainable growth. Scholars have also clarified the conceptual and measurement differences between green transformational leadership and traditional transformational leadership through tests of discriminant validity [20]. While green transformational leadership focuses broadly on environmental protection goals without a specific emphasis on carbon emission reduction, it provides a theoretical anchor for exploring LCTL, which directly addresses the challenges of climate change mitigation and carbon reduction.

2.1.5. Positioning LCTL as an Extension of Green Transformational Leadership

In short, LCTL is essential for organizations aiming to achieve net-zero carbon emissions. This type of leadership leverages low-carbon, zero-carbon, or even carbon-negative technologies, infrastructure, organizational structures, and processes to implement carbon-centric management strategies [26]. Thus, this study defines LCTL as follows: “Low-carbon transformational leadership refers to the use of low-carbon technologies, equipment, organizational processes, and cultural resources by leaders to influence organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors, thereby promoting the organization’s overall low-carbon transition and green performance and effectively addressing the challenges of carbon peak and carbon neutrality”.

2.2. Measurement for LCTL

2.2.1. Challenges in Measuring Low-Carbon Transformational Leadership

LCTL remains a relatively nascent field, with limited research on its structural dimensions and measurement scale development. The concept of green transformational leadership [9] has been anchored in dimensions such as environmental goals, vision, plans, and values, with a six-item scale including statements like “The leadership motivates organizational members through environmental plans” and “The leadership encourages organizational members to work together toward environmental goals”. While this scale underscores the importance of leaders’ attitudes toward eco-friendly technologies and the promotion of green values within organizations, it lacks specificity concerning core low-carbon attributes relevant to the context of carbon peak and carbon neutrality. Moreover, the scale’s dimensions are broad, with some items being overly simplistic, and its reliability and validity require further verification.

2.2.2. Summary of Gaps in Existing Measurement Approaches

An approach to enhancing climate leadership through climate adaptation strategies has identified inclusiveness, cooperation, and integration as core dimensions to facilitate low-carbon transformation. However, this model is primarily oriented toward government and policy actors [27], rather than corporate settings, and even the rare research focused on organizational leadership does not provide a corresponding measurement scale for application in business environments [28]. Similarly, the concept of environmental transformational leadership [29] has emphasized the role of motivating employees to integrate ecological values and practices into their responsibilities, but it relies on items adapted from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) to assess employees’ perceptions of environmental transformational leadership. This adaptation falls short of providing a specific scale applicable to LCTL.

Responsible leadership, which aligns with the values of social and environmental sustainability and acknowledges natural environments as a crucial stakeholder, also shares some overlap with low-carbon transformational goals [30]. However, the responsible leadership scale includes a broad range of stakeholders, such as customers, investors, suppliers, employees, society, and local communities, leading to a diluted focus on low-carbon elements. The lack of a clear focus on low-carbon characteristics limits its applicability to the unique demands of LCTL.

Extant research exploring the dimensions and structure of LCTL often relies on inductive reasoning rather than the systematic development of measurement scales. Much of the domestic research focuses on policy guidance and macro-level governmental directives, without delving into the micro-level specifics of LCTL in business management practices. Although some international researchers have attempted to construct related scales, many of these rely on adapted items from broader concepts such as transformational leadership, green organizational practices, and responsible leadership. This lack of a dedicated scale for LCTL constrains empirical research progress in this field.

2.2.3. Addressing the Gaps by Developing a Scale for LCTL: Objectives and Routines

To address these gaps, this study aimed to explore the dimensions of LCTL in depth and develop a new scale that captures its unique characteristics. First, this research considered both instrumental factors related to low-carbon technologies and aspects of emotional, cognitive, social, and value rationality in the scale development process. Second, this study adhered to a systematic scale development process, employing exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, as well as tests of reliability, validity, and robustness, to ensure the scientific rigor of the scale. Third, acknowledging the developed economy focus of many existing scales, this study designed a scale tailored to the cultural, institutional, and organizational environments of emerging economies. This broader applicability is achieved through analysis based on China, the largest emerging economy, thereby enhancing the relevance of low-carbon transformational leadership theory across diverse, rapidly developing contexts.

Accordingly, the next section first identifies the primary aspects that employees consider when evaluating leaders’ effectiveness in guiding low-carbon transitions within organizations, followed by an exploration of the dimensionality of LCTL.

2.3. LCTL’s Effects on Innovation Outcomes

Extant theories and empirical findings posit that leaders exhibiting strong low-carbon transformational capabilities can effectively mobilize organizational members to optimize and implement sustainable management practices [31], thereby enhancing organizational performance outcomes. For instance, leaders with heightened adaptability to environmental contingencies may enable their firms to align operational practices more closely with environmental standards [32], ultimately improving green innovation performance. Grounded in this theoretical perspective, the following hypotheses were formulated for this study to evaluate the nomological validity of the LCTL scale:

Hypothesis 1.

Fostering a collective vision and alignment in the low-carbon transition opportunity dimension of low-carbon transformational leadership is positively correlated with the firm’s green innovation performance.

Hypothesis 2.

The strategic steering and feedback for the effective low-carbon transformation dimension of low-carbon transformational leadership is positively correlated with the firm’s green innovation performance.

Hypothesis 3.

The adaptive integration and iteration for the resilient low-carbon transformation dimension of low-carbon transformational leadership is positively correlated with the firm’s green innovation performance.

Low-carbon transformational leadership is theorized to augment a firm’s capacity to effectively engage in green product development within its operational processes [6], which in turn bolsters the firm’s overall innovation capabilities, thereby enhancing green innovation performance. Specifically, a focus on green product development allows firms to identify demand and application scenarios emerging from low-carbon initiatives, thus catalyzing green innovation. Additionally, a commitment to green product development necessitates organizational support across business units and operational routines, fostering an environment that promotes green product design, experimentation, and market testing. This supportive organizational climate serves as a foundation for green innovation, thereby driving improved green innovation performance.

Hence, this study advances the following hypotheses regarding the mediating role of green product development performance:

Hypothesis 4.

Green product development mediates the relationship between fostering collective vision and alignment in the low-carbon transition opportunity dimension of low-carbon transformational leadership and the firm’s green innovation.

Hypothesis 5.

Green product development mediates the relationship between the strategic steering and feedback for the effective low-carbon transformation dimension of low-carbon transformational leadership and the firm’s green innovation.

Hypothesis 6.

Green product development mediates the relationship between the adaptive integration and iteration for the resilient low-carbon transformation dimension of low-carbon transformational leadership and the firm’s green innovation.

The hypothesized model above is shown in Figure 1.

2.4. A Brief Summary of Relevant Studies Regarding Leadership in Low-Carbon Transition

By summarizing the literature mentioned in Section 2,

Table 1. Comparative analysis of related studies.

Study	Construct/Focus	Approach	Key Findings	Unique Contributions
Current Study	Low-Carbon Transformational Leadership (LCTL)	Grounded-theory-inspired scale development	Developed a three-dimensional LCTL construct: fostering vision, strategic steering, and adaptive integration.	Introduces a specialized, empirically validated scale for LCTL, addressing practical challenges in corporate low-carbon transitions.
Baierle et al. (2020) [33]	Decision-Making in Leadership	MOORA and artificial neural networks	Highlighted structured, data-driven tools to support leaders in strategic transformations.	Integrates advanced decision-making frameworks but lacks a specific focus on leadership dimensions.
Green Leadership Studies	Green Transformational Leadership	Multi-factor leadership framework	Identified leadership as a driver of green innovation but lacked focus on low-carbon transformation.	Focuses on green innovation broadly without addressing specific low-carbon dimensions or challenges.
Climate Leadership	Municipal Leadership in Low-Carbon Policies	Qualitative exploration of public governance	Showed municipal leaders as intermediaries for implementing top-down policies, without an emphasis on corporate contexts.	Explores public governance but does not extend findings to corporate or organizational contexts.
General Leadership Literature	Transformational Leadership	Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)	Focused broadly on pro-environmental behaviors, employee engagement, and green organizational outcomes.	Broad theoretical insights but no specific application to low-carbon or sustainability-focused leadership.

demonstrates that LCTL is not just a rebranding of GTL but a distinct construct that incorporates a more focused, actionable framework for achieving corporate carbon-neutral goals. This positioning helps to clarify how LCTL extends the scope of GTL, emphasizing its practical relevance for organizations engaged in low-carbon transitions, thereby offering both theoretical and empirical contributions to the sustainability leadership field.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. The Overview of Research Design

This paper explores three interconnected studies that progressively tackled the main research question surrounding low-carbon transformational leadership (LCTL). The studies followed a structured sequence: starting with theoretical exploration, progressing to the development and validation of a measurement tool, and concluding with the application of this tool to examine the impact of LCTL on organizational outcomes. Each study built on the previous one, creating a cohesive research framework that advances the understanding of LCTL. The logical and progressive relationships among the three studies are shown in

Table 2. The overview of three studies.

Study	Objective	Research Question	Methods and Data Source	Logical and Progressive Relationships	Contribution
Study 1	Explore and conceptualize the core dimensions of low-carbon transformational leadership (LCTL).	What are the key dimensions and characteristics of LCTL?	Qualitative methods, interviews, and literature review. Data collected from employees and managers in carbon-intensive industries.	Provides the theoretical foundation for Studies 2 and 3 by defining the construct and its dimensions.	Proposes a novel theoretical framework for LCTL.
Study 2	Develop and validate a scale for measuring LCTL.	How can LCTL be measured, and is the scale reliable and valid?	Quantitative methods, partly using the sample from Study 1 and expanding to additional firms.	Builds on Study 1 by quantifying the proposed dimensions and empirically validating the construct.	Offers a reliable and valid tool for future empirical research on LCTL.
Study 3	Investigate the effects of LCTL on green innovation performance.	How does LCTL influence green innovation outcomes?	Quantitative methods, using data from Study 2 and adding additional variables to explore causal relationships.	Extends the validated scale from Study 2 to examine the practical implications of LCTL in driving organizational innovation.	Demonstrates the impact of LCTL on green innovation, providing actionable insights for practitioners.

below.

The first study focused on conceptualizing LCTL by identifying its key dimensions and defining its theoretical scope. Through qualitative methods such as interviews and a literature review, it gathered insights from employees and managers in carbon-intensive industries. This study set the stage for the subsequent empirical research by establishing a clear conceptual foundation for LCTL. The findings from Study 1 informed Study 2, which empirically validated the construct by developing a scale. Using quantitative methods and expanding the sample from Study 1, this study established the reliability and validity of the LCTL scale, providing a key tool for future research. Study 3 extended the work of Study 2 by applying the validated scale to explore the effects of LCTL on green innovation in carbon-intensive industries. Building on the data from Study 2, it incorporated additional variables to examine causal relationships between LCTL and green innovation outcomes. This progression ensured that the research evolved from a theoretical understanding to tool development, culminating in the practical application of LCTL.

The three studies share overlapping data sources, ensuring consistency while addressing different aspects of the research question. Data for Study 1 were collected through interviews in carbon-intensive industries, providing qualitative insights into LCTL. Study 2 used a quantitative survey, expanding the sample from Study 1 to validate the scale. Finally, Study 3 used the validated scale to assess the effects of LCTL on green innovation, exploring causal pathways through additional variables. By drawing from shared data, the studies maintain a consistent narrative while broadening the scope of inquiry across different research objectives.

Through this logical progression, the research moved from conceptualization in Study 1 to scale development and validation in Study 2, and finally to the exploration of practical implications in Study 3. This sequence provides a comprehensive understanding of LCTL, with each study contributing to a well-rounded contribution to the field. The studies are deeply interconnected, with each one building on the findings of the previous study, ensuring a coherent research narrative.

3.2. Materials and Methods in Study 1: Exploration of the Dimensions of LCTL

In defining the conceptual domain of LCTL, it is essential to identify the specific attributes that compose LCTL, the number of higher-order dimensions associated with these attributes, and the nature of their relationships—whether reflective or formative. To achieve this, we adopted a grounded-theory approach to explore the nuanced connotations of LCTL. Integrating grounded theory into scale development enables a more thorough investigation of this construct, encompassing real-world phenomena such as climate change and decarbonization across diverse disciplines and settings [34].

Grounded theory is a commonly used qualitative research method in management studies, especially in areas like identifying the dimensions of leadership concepts and developing scales [34]. This study applied the systematic procedures of grounded theory, following established steps for exploring leadership dimensions through theoretical sampling, data collection, and coding to uncover the dimensions of LCTL.

3.2.1. Data Collection

Theoretical sampling involves purposefully selecting samples that are likely to reveal insights relevant to the theory under development. Given the focus on leadership as it emerges within the context of low-carbon transformation, this study selected case examples from companies closely involved with carbon reduction technologies and applications. From June to October 2023, the authors of this study, along with three doctoral students, conducted semi-structured interviews, with questions that began with the respondents’ work responsibilities and gradually delved deeper into their perceptions of leadership styles and corporate management, specifically in relation to low-carbon transformation leadership.

The interview process involved several specific steps. First, all researchers received training before conducting interviews, covering interview procedures, techniques, and professional ethics. Next, purposive sampling was used to select suitable respondents, including both frontline employees and management personnel in companies. For convenience, some interviews were conducted online, depending on the respondents’ circumstances. The respondents for Study 1 consisted of 24 participants with significant expertise in the fields of energy management, sustainability, and organizational leadership. Specifically, the sample included senior managers (37.5%), middle managers (41.7%), and industry experts (20.8%) with a minimum of five years of professional experience in carbon-intensive industries. This selection ensured that the respondents possessed sufficient knowledge and practical insights to contribute meaningfully to the conceptualization of low-carbon transformational leadership (LCTL).

Prior to each interview, the purpose, process, and confidentiality protocols were clearly explained to the participants. The interview questions focused on aspects of LCTL, including prompts such as: “Does the leader in my company (or team) encourage members to practice low-carbon principles?”; “Do the products in my company (or team) provide low-carbon value to customers?”; and “Does my company (or team) consider low-carbon characteristics when developing products?” Each interview lasted approximately 30 to 40 min. We conducted interviews with relevant stakeholders, including 7 researchers in the field and 43 corporate employees and managers.

Additionally, throughout the interviews and coding process, we engaged in ongoing reflection to identify and mitigate potential biases stemming from the interviewers’ roles. Efforts were made to minimize power imbalances in the interview setting, treating respondents as co-constructors of knowledge. Simultaneously, the information provided by respondents was critically analyzed to ensure a balanced interpretation.

3.2.2. Data Analysis

The coding process utilized both initial and axial coding methods to systematically identify, condense, and organize the data. Axial coding was later refined to build an interpretive theory, promoting a creative understanding of the studied phenomenon. To support this coding and analysis, the team used Nvivo12 as qualitative analysis software [35]. This process was conducted iteratively, starting with preliminary coding of transcripts segmented by participant type and location. Following each round of initial coding, selective coding was applied to synthesize and refine codes, with Nvivo’s code retrieval and search functions facilitating comparisons across codes, participant types, and locations. This ongoing comparative approach allowed for the progressive refinement and integration of codes, which led to the formation of theoretical constructs. Throughout the analysis, memos were written to record the evolution of codes, constructs, and models, as well as document reflections, questions, and insights from the researchers, contributing to a thorough understanding of the data.

By employing open coding, axial coding, and selective coding procedures [36], initial statement, subcategories, and their logical relationships were extracted from all the data collected. In the open coding, the coders ensured that statements grouped within each code maintained a consistent meaning, reflecting a shared attribute or behavior related to LCTL. This consistency is essential for coding reliability, enabling each code to serve as a solid basis for higher-level analysis in subsequent phases. By adhering to a rigorous, data-driven approach, open coding minimized researcher bias, with categories directly reflecting participants’ perspectives rather than any pre-existing frameworks.

3.3. Materials and Methods in Study 2: The Development of Scale of LCTL

In Study 2, we followed the methodology of previous scale development studies [34] to refine the items under each dimension representing the construct of low-carbon transformational leadership and to develop and validate an LCTL scale. This process involved two stages: exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to identify and refine the scale’s factor structure, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to verify the structure through statistical assessments, including factor loadings, reliability, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and fit indices.

To address the nuanced requirements of carbon reduction and climate change mitigation, this study aimed at providing a specialized leadership model distinct from the general sustainability efforts typically covered under green leadership. Recognizing that effective low-carbon transformational leadership necessitates a firm’s capacity to monitor ecological degradation and high carbon emissions, as well as to implement environmentally sustainable practices, it was crucial to select companies with carbon reduction technologies and relevant circumstances. Accordingly, this study chose four representative companies for the survey: a clean-coal-fired power plant, an energy storage enterprise, a new energy vehicle manufacturer, and a photovoltaic and wind power park operator. These organizations, including their wholly owned or majority-owned subsidiaries, serve as leaders in the low-carbon transition, imposing rigorous subjective and objective requirements for a low-carbon transition and thus meeting the criteria for implementing the LCTL scale.

The survey was administered through multiple rounds of online data collection. The demographic information of the samples is given in

Table 3. The demographic information of samples.

Attribute	First Wave	Second Wave
Data Collection Period	Early October to Early November 2023	Early January to Late February 2024
Questionnaires Distributed	390 (Administered Online)	1100 (Administered Online)
Responses Collected	257	851
Invalid Responses Removed	26	24
Valid Responses	231	827
Gender Distribution	Male: 123 (53.3%) Female: 108 (46.7%)	Male: 440 (53.2%) Female: 387 (46.8%)
Age (Range, Average)	Range: 20–53; Average: 34.3 years	Range: 21–54; Average: 34.5 years
Education Level	Less than Bachelor’s: 65 (28.1%) Bachelor’s: 145 (66.77%) Graduate/Postgraduate: 21 (9.1%)	Less than Bachelor’s: 230 (27.8%), Bachelor’s: 555 (67.1%) Graduate/Postgraduate: 42 (5.1%)
Professional Background	Frontline Managers: 153 (66.2%) Middle Managers: 52 (22.5%) Senior Managers: 16 (6.9%) Experts: 10 (4.3%)	Frontline Managers: 546 (66.0%) Middle Managers: 183 (22.1%) Senior Managers: 60 (7.3%) Experts: 38 (4.6%)

below.

During data analysis, EFA was employed to identify the factor structure of a scale. Although the LCTL’s dimensional structure was built to reflect the firm management team’s leadership in the low-carbon transition during the qualitative grounded-theory phase, conducting an EFA provided key information, such as the underlying factor structure of the data, which was necessary to test the replication of the factor structure with a CFA.

3.4. Materials and Methods in Study 3: Exploration of LCTL’s Effects on Innovation Outcomes

To enhance the robustness of the developed scale of LCTL, Study 3 assessed its nomological validity, examining its capacity to predict theoretically grounded relationships between LCTL and other associated constructs.

3.4.1. Data Collection

During the nomological validity testing phase, this study conducted a cross-sectional survey within four companies operating in sectors such as clean coal, energy storage, new energy vehicles, photovoltaics (PV), and wind power. After eliminating incomplete or erroneous responses, a total of 402 valid questionnaires were obtained for analysis. The survey included items from the newly developed LCTL scale, as well as items related to green training, green product development performance, and green innovation performance. The questionnaire also gathered demographic variables for employees, such as gender and age, and incorporated control variables. Drawing on previous definitions and measurement methods for green product development performance [6], the questionnaire included five items, such as “The green product development project has contributed a significant source of revenue for the company” and “The green product development project has continuously improved its development process over time”. For green innovation performance, existing measurement methods were applied [37], with sample items including “The company’s production process effectively reduces the emission of harmful substances or waste”.

3.4.2. Data Analysis

Data analysis was conducted using SPSS 23.0 with its AMOS toolkit. Initially, the scale’s reliability, factor reliability, overall model fit, and construct validity (both convergent and discriminant validity) were calculated based on the new sample. The results indicated that the scale demonstrated good reliability, validity, and model fit, allowing for subsequent hypothesis testing. This study then proceeded with the nomological validity test to examine the relationships among low-carbon transformational leadership, green product development performance, and green innovation performance within firms.

4. Results

To mitigate common method bias, this study employed multi-wave data collection at distinct time intervals (as shown in Section 3) and randomized the sequence of questionnaire items during scale development. Harman’s single-factor test was conducted on both rounds of sample data, and the results indicated that the variance explained by the first extracted factor was below the critical threshold of 40%, suggesting that common method bias did not substantially affect this study.

4.1. Results of Study 1

Through open coding, axial coding, and selective coding procedures, this study identified 152 initial statements, capturing a diverse range of leadership behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions toward low-carbon transformation. These statements were organized into zero-order codes, representing specific elements, such as “leaders promoting low-carbon practices” or “leaders communicating low-carbon goals to the team”.

In grounded theory, zero-order categories are the foundational classifications created directly from raw data during the open coding phase. These categories are descriptive and participant-centered, capturing observable patterns or recurring themes identified in qualitative data. As recent studies emphasize, zero-order categories play a crucial role in organizing and contextualizing data before transitioning to more abstract theoretical constructs, such as first-order and second-order categories that align with established theoretical frameworks [38]. In essence, zero-order categories form the baseline in qualitative analysis, particularly within grounded theory and the Gioia method. They encapsulate straightforward observations or explicit statements from participants, serving as a foundation for the subsequent stages of axial and selective coding [39]. These later stages refine and synthesize initial observations into higher-level theoretical insights. By employing zero-order categories in this study, we ensured a systematic, data-driven approach to theory building. This method maintains rigor and traceability throughout the coding process, allowing the resulting theory to remain deeply rooted in the data while gradually abstracting to reveal broader conceptual relationships.

Each statement acts as a foundational concept, highlighting aspects of leadership in the context of environmental responsibility. An example of the open coding results is provided in

Table 4. Open coding example for respondent A1.

Original Interview Excerpts from Respondent A1	Zero-Order Categories
Projects with high energy consumption and emissions face significant pressure to undergo major transformations. When you tackle these issues, existing interests will inevitably be affected. Therefore, top-level design by leaders becomes particularly crucial. Recently, we have been emphasizing the strategy of “establish before dismantling”. Only by establishing a solid top-level design first can we subsequently achieve dismantling through establishment. (A1–1a)	Leaders need to establish top-level design for low-carbon transformation
Low-carbon transformation is no small task; as we often say, it’s a “top leader project”. Therefore, I believe the chairman or senior group executives should lead this transformation strategy, setting up a management committee or office, developing a transformation plan, and driving the implementation of this strategy through performance assessments. (A1–2d)	Leaders should drive the implementation of the low-carbon transformation strategy
Our leaders should not only recognize the short-term pains of low-carbon transformation but also see the new tracks and opportunities it brings. In fact, “maximizing” the utilization of coal resources is also a way to achieve low-carbon transformation within high-carbon industries. Technologies for efficient, staged utilization of coal resources can expand new horizons for the coal chemical industry. We could potentially pioneer a new pathway for the transformation and upgrading of the modern coal chemical sector. (A1–3b)	Leaders should identify strategic opportunities within low-carbon transformation
Three years ago, management began considering how to respond to potential “carbon tariffs”. To uncover energy-saving and carbon reduction potential through data analysis, we also started calculating product carbon footprints. Last year, the long-discussed “carbon tariff” finally became a reality. Now, products exported to the EU must comply with carbon footprint declarations. Thanks to our proactive preparations, we have already completed the industry’s first real-time data collection and assessment of product carbon footprints. (A1–4h)	Leaders should proactively anticipate and address the challenges of low-carbon transformation

.

In the axial coding phase, grounded-theory methods were systematically applied to organize initial codes by identifying patterns and relationships across the data. This phase focused on grouping-related codes to establish a higher-order framework, moving from descriptive to more conceptual analysis. Using the principle of similarity, coders clustered zero-order categories—basic, data-derived codes—into more abstract first-order categories. This process involved careful examination of each code, grouping items with shared thematic characteristics to reveal recurring topics and consolidate similar codes and subcategories.

This structured approach allowed the team to organize data into cohesive clusters that captured the underlying patterns of LCTL behaviors. Identifying these recurring topics was key to refining scattered codes into 12 subcategories, each representing a specific facet of leadership behavior or strategy relevant to low-carbon transformation. By analyzing interconnections among these subcategories, this study moved from isolated observations to a conceptual model, linking individual actions and attitudes to broader leadership qualities.

From these subcategories, three core categories emerged to reflect the central dimensions of LCTL: the fostering a collective vision and alignment in low-carbon transition opportunities; strategic steering and feedback for an effective low-carbon transformation; and adaptive integration and iteration for a resilient low-carbon transformation.

Table 5. Dimension analysis based on the method of grounded theory.

Dimensions	Keywords	First-Order Categories	Zero-Order Categories
Fostering a collective vision and alignment in low-carbon transition opportunities	Vision	Recognizing transformation opportunities	Leaders need to identify strategic opportunities in low-carbon transformation
			Leaders need to take on transformation risks and be open to new approaches
		Communicating opportunities to members	Leaders should clearly convey transformation opportunities to organization members
			Leaders should foster an atmosphere of trust to explain and communicate opportunities
		Alleviating members’ transformation doubts	Leaders should provide channels for members to express ideas, opinions, and doubts
			Leaders should offer resources to build members’ confidence and motivation in periods of change
			Leaders should provide data and information to help members understand transformation content, steps, and impacts, reducing speculation and doubts
		Forming a collective vision for transformation	Leaders should encourage collaboration and team cohesion in low-carbon transformation
			Leaders should organize group discussions to explore key elements of the vision
			Leaders should help identify shared interests and values, fostering consensus and commitment
Strategic steering and feedback for an effective low-carbon transformation	Strategy	Low-carbon transformation decision-making	Leaders should communicate with relevant stakeholders (employees, suppliers, clients) during decision-making to strengthen transformation alignment
			Leaders should use a transparent decision-making communication mechanism for low-carbon transformation
			As decision-makers in low-carbon transformation, leaders should show confidence to inspire commitment to the strategy
		Developing strategic transformation plans	Leaders should conduct top-level design for low-carbon transformation
			Leaders should allocate resources (human, financial, technical) for strategy implementation
		Guiding strategic implementation	Leaders should drive the implementation of low-carbon transformation strategies
			Leaders should demonstrate determination and perseverance in driving change
			Leaders should motivate teams to tackle challenges and propose innovative solutions
		Effectiveness feedback on strategy	Leaders should establish mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating low-carbon progress
			Leaders should encourage departments to assess effectiveness in areas like innovation, product upgrade, and management optimization
Adaptive integration and iteration for a resilient low-carbon transformation	Adaptation	Anticipating transformation challenges	Leaders need to anticipate and address low-carbon transformation challenges
			Leaders should assess organizational resources for managing risks (market, technology, policy) in transformation
		Integrating transformation plans	Leaders should integrate departmental transformation plans to ensure coordinated measures
			Leaders should clarify departmental responsibilities in the transformation plan
			Leaders should prioritize departmental tasks based on the importance and urgency of goals
		Agile adaptation in transformation	Leaders should break cognitive inertia and quickly adjust strategies to meet changing environments
			Leaders should offer training to enhance members’ capacity to adapt to low-carbon changes
		Continuous iteration in transformation	Leaders should continuously track low-carbon progress and adjust strategies as needed
			Leaders should encourage members to stay updated with low-carbon trends and technology, continuously enhancing skills

summarizes these findings, illustrating how selective and axial coding identified and organized the nuanced dimensions of LCTL. To ensure the reliability of the results, we engaged two independent scholars, unfamiliar with the study, to review our coding approach and findings. We evaluated their inter-judge reliability using the recommended index, achieving a reliability score of 0.82, which exceeds the established threshold of 0.7 [40].

During the selective coding phase, grounded-theory methods were used to refine and integrate initial concepts from open coding, focusing on constructing a cohesive model of LCTL. This involved systematically comparing relationships among identified codes and cross-referencing them with real-world data on organizational low-carbon transformation efforts. Through this process, the research team was able to streamline the broad array of initial codes into a concise set of core categories—that is, theoretically significant categories essential to LCTL.

Three primary categories emerged as foundational dimensions of this leadership model. These categories, grounded in data from organizational cases and interviews, represent actionable leadership behaviors that are critical for driving low-carbon transformation:

• Fostering a collective vision and alignment involves leaders’ role in inspiring and maintaining commitment to low-carbon initiatives by clearly communicating the benefits and addressing resistance. By cultivating a shared vision, leaders build collective support and active participation in low-carbon transitions.
• Strategic steering and feedback highlights leaders’ responsibilities of informed decision-making and the execution of low-carbon strategies. This category emphasizes aligning resources with low-carbon goals and ensuring feedback systems are in place to monitor progress, reinforcing the practical implementation of the low-carbon vision.
• Adaptive integration and iteration underscores the importance of flexibility and foresight. Leaders anticipate challenges, adapt strategies across departments, and promote a learning-oriented culture that keeps the organization agile in response to new sustainability trends and advancements in low-carbon practices.

Employing selective coding within this grounded-theory framework enabled the creation of a cohesive model of LCTL, illustrated in Figure 2. This model emphasizes that effective low-carbon leadership requires a balance of collective vision, strategic guidance, and adaptive integration to drive a sustainable organizational shift toward carbon neutrality.

• Refinement of item pool generated from Study 1

Through the grounded-theory analysis, we identified three key dimensions of LCTL. Following a structured qualitative approach—including open, axial, and selective coding—we developed initial items based on qualitative data from open-ended questionnaires and relevant items from the existing literature associated with these three dimensions. This process generated an initial pool of 37 items.

To establish the face and content validity of the items, a preliminary screening was conducted. An initial set of 37 items was evaluated by three expert judges in work and organizational psychology through a structured interview process. The experts unanimously approved the proposed domains underpinning the scale’s factor structure and eliminated 20 items. This process of refining and consolidating similar or redundant entries resulted in a preliminary scale comprising 17 items.

In the next section, we further present the results of refining the scale items through exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis.

4.2. Results of Study 2

4.2.1. Item Generation and Reduction

Using data from the first round of the questionnaire survey (n = 231), an EFA was conducted. First, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure was calculated, yielding a coefficient of 0.92 (greater than 0.7), and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ² = 2529.92; df = 153; p < 0.001), indicating that the data were suitable for factor analysis (Field, 2005). Subsequently, a principal component analysis (PCA) was performed on the 17 items, using varimax rotation (orthogonal) with eigenvalues greater than 1 to extract three factors, which collectively accounted for 63.2% of the total variance.

Following this, items with factor loadings below 0.50, cross-loadings greater than 0.40, and communalities below 0.40 were removed from the sample. Through this iterative factor analysis and item elimination process, five items from the initial scale were removed, resulting in a refined twelve-item questionnaire.

The factor loading matrix for these items is shown in

Table 6. Summary of EFA results.

Item	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3
(1) The leadership team can stimulate project members’ thinking on low-carbon transition concepts.	0.77
(2) The leadership team considers low-carbon transition concepts of organizational members in actions taken.	0.82
(3) The leadership team designs and implements low-carbon transformation plans to motivate the entire organization.	0.85
(4) The leadership team inspires key organizational members to commit to achieving low-carbon transition goals.	0.83
(5) The leadership team provides a clear low-carbon vision for the collective members of the organization.		0.71
(6) The leadership team successfully integrates and manages departmental low-carbon knowledge within the organization.		0.80
(7) The leadership team has the capability to implement (or apply) low-carbon technologies within the organization.		0.82
(8) The leadership team can coordinate staff efforts to work toward low-carbon goals.		0.73
(9) The leadership team is capable of quickly identifying low-carbon transition opportunities in a changing environment.			0.77
(10) The leadership team can quickly learn, adapt, and implement new tasks in the low-carbon transition.			0.85
(11) The leadership team can reallocate resources to facilitate low-carbon practices within the organization.			0.83
(12) The leadership team can adjust member behavior through performance management to meet low-carbon goals.			0.65
Eigenvalues	3.04	2.88	2.81
Variance Contribution (%)	25.44	23.45	22.62
Cumulative Variance Contribution (%)	25.44	48.89	71.51
Cronbach’s α	0.89	0.88	0.85

.

As shown in Table 6, the Cronbach’s α coefficients for all three dimensions were 0.85 or higher, indicating sufficient internal consistency for the scale. Specifically, the factor loadings for items in the first dimension ranged from 0.74 to 0.85, with a Cronbach’s α of 0.89. The factor loadings for items in the second dimension ranged from 0.71 to 0.82, with a Cronbach’s α of 0.88. For the third dimension, factor loadings ranged from 0.65 to 0.85, with a Cronbach’s α of 0.85. The high Cronbach’s α coefficients across all three factors suggest a high level of internal consistency, supporting the reliability of the 12-item scale developed through this iterative process. These factors collectively explained 71.51% of the total variance, indicating a strong construct validity. The EFA results confirm the absence of cross-loading, as each indicator demonstrated a strong loading (>0.60) on its designated factor and consistently low secondary loadings (<0.30) on other factors. This distinct factor structure provided preliminary support of discriminant validity, reinforcing the robustness of the scale in capturing the multidimensional aspects of LCTL.

These factor dimensions align well with the theoretical analysis of the LCTL construct proposed by this research, supporting the validity of the conceptual framework. Factor 1 appears to capture elements related to motivational leadership behaviors, focusing on inspiring members toward low-carbon goals. Factor 2 centers on strategic capabilities, including the integration and application of low-carbon knowledge and technologies within the organization. Factor 3 highlights adaptive capabilities, such as quickly identifying and responding to low-carbon opportunities, as well as resource reallocation.

4.2.2. Scale Purification

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to validate the three dimensions of the proposed scale. Building on the exploratory factor analysis, the CFA utilized data from the second round of the questionnaire survey (n = 827) to assess the fit between the conceptual model derived from the exploratory factor analysis and the observed data.

To enhance the evaluation of the model’s accuracy, several competing models were proposed, allowing for a comparative analysis to identify the optimal model. The competing models included a single-factor model (Model I), a three-factor model with no correlations among factors (Model II), a three-factor model with correlations among factors (Model III), and a second-order model with three first-order factors (Model IV).

Table 7. Model fit comparisons for low-carbon transformational leadership construct.

Model	χ2	χ2/df	RMSEA	RMR	CFI	AGFI
Model I	1437.79	26.63	0.18	0.18	0.82	0.61
Model II	1646.51	30.49	0.19	0.98	0.79	0.69
Model IV	253.83	4.98	0.07	0.08	0.97	0.93

presents the goodness-of-fit indices for each model, enabling a comparison of model fit and selection of the best-fitting model for the LCTL scale.

Model III and Model IV demonstrated significantly better fit indices compared to Models I and II. Both Model III and Model IV had a χ²/df value of 4.98, an RMSEA of 0.07, an RMR of 0.08, and a CFI of 0.97, along with an AGFI of 0.93. These indices indicate that Models III and IV provided an acceptable fit to the data, with CFI values close to 1.0 and AGFI values above 0.90, suggesting a strong model fit. Models I and II, by contrast, showed a poor fit with higher χ²/df values (26.63 for Model I and 30.49 for Model II), RMSEA values above 0.18, and lower CFI and AGFI values, indicating that these models do not adequately capture the structure of the data.

Given that Model III and Model IV yielded identical fit indices and both exhibited a good fit, either model might have been considered appropriate. However, we retained Model IV based on theoretical considerations. The second-order model (Model IV) aligns with the conceptualization of LCTL as a multidimensional construct comprising three interrelated dimensions—fostering a collective vision, strategic steering and feedback, and adaptive integration and iteration—under a single overarching latent variable. This hierarchical structure provides a unified framework for understanding LCTL, reflecting its integrative nature and practical applicability. Model III, which represents a three-factor model with correlations among factors, was excluded to streamline the presentation and focus on the theoretically preferred model. Therefore, Model IV was selected as the optimal model for representing the LCTL construct.

4.2.3. Reliability and Validity Analysis

• Reliability analysis

The reliability of each factor in the LCTL scale was assessed using the second round of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) data (n = 827).

Table 8. Results of reliability analysis.

Factor	Number of Items	Cronbach’s α	Composite Reliability (CR)	Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
Factor I: Fostering a collective vision and alignment in low-carbon transition opportunities	4	0.86	0.86	0.61
Factor II: Strategic steering and feedback for an effective low-carbon transformation	4	0.91	0.91	0.72
Factor III: Adaptive integration and iteration for a resilient low-carbon transformation	4	0.90	0.91	0.71

presents the results of the reliability analysis for each factor.

Table 8 offers a detailed evaluation of reliability and validity for each of the three dimensions within the LCTL scale, measured by Cronbach’s α, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) values. Together, these metrics assess the internal consistency, reliability, and convergent validity of the scale. Each dimension’s Cronbach’s α was above 0.8 (with values of 0.86, 0.91, and 0.90), indicating strong internal consistency and confirming that the items reliably measure their intended constructs. Notably, the dimensions of strategic steering and feedback for an effective low-carbon transformation and adaptive integration and iteration for a resilient low-carbon transformation showed particularly high reliability with α values of 0.91 and 0.90.

The composite reliability (CR) values for each dimension also met or exceeded the standard 0.7 threshold, ranging from 0.86 to 0.91, further supporting the scale’s internal consistency. These high CR values suggest that the items within each dimension consistently represent their intended constructs, underscoring the coherence of the scale. The CR values indicate acceptable internal consistency and reliability. However, the CR values for two dimensions slightly exceeded 0.90, suggesting some redundancy among the indicators. This redundancy may indicate that certain items are measuring closely related aspects of the same dimension, which could affect the precision of the scale in distinguishing nuanced constructs. This potential redundancy highlights a limitation in the current scale development process, which could influence its application in research and practice. For example, in practical applications, the overlapping nature of some indicators might reduce the scale’s sensitivity in detecting specific leadership practices within diverse organizational contexts. Researchers and practitioners using the scale should therefore interpret results with caution, particularly when attempting to isolate distinct leadership behaviors. To address this limitation, future research should focus on refining the scale through techniques such as item pruning or bifactor modeling to ensure that each dimension captures only the most distinct and relevant indicators. Additionally, cross-cultural and industry-specific validations of the scale could provide further insights into how redundancy might vary across different contexts, thereby enhancing the scale’s applicability and reliability in broader settings.

With AVE values between 0.61 and 0.72, all dimensions exceeded the minimum 0.5 threshold, demonstrating good convergent validity. These values indicate that each dimension captures a substantial amount of variance, affirming that the items within each dimension effectively converge on their intended construct.

In summary, the results in Table 8 confirm that the LCTL scale has excellent internal consistency, reliability, and convergent validity. The high Cronbach’s α, CR, and satisfactory AVE values affirm the scale’s robustness as a reliable tool for measuring LCTL, reinforcing the soundness of its theoretical foundation.

• Validity analysis

As shown in Table 8, the composite reliability (CR) values for the three dimensions of LCTL ranged from 0.86 to 0.91, exceeding the threshold of 0.7. This indicates that the three-dimensional structure of LCTL demonstrates strong construct validity. For content validity, this study conducted multiple rounds of discussion, review, and verification with respondents and experts, addressing issues such as the number of items, respondents’ understanding of items, and item deletion. These iterative steps helped to confirm the content validity of the scale.

Convergent validity was assessed by examining the average variance extracted (AVE) values, which represent the proportion of variance in the latent construct explained by its observed variables. The AVE values for each dimension in the LCTL scale ranged from 0.61 to 0.72, all of which exceeded the theoretical threshold of 0.5. Compared to the CR values, AVE serves as a more stringent standard, providing additional support for the scale’s convergent validity. Furthermore, according to the results of both exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis, the standardized factor loadings for each dimension exceeded 0.5, which further confirms that the LCTL scale possesses good convergent validity.

Regarding discriminant validity,

Table 9. Correlation matrix and validity testing results.

Factor	Factor I: Fostering a Collective Vision and Alignment in Low-Carbon Transition Opportunities	Factor II: Strategic Steering and Feedback for an Effective Low-Carbon Transformation	Factor III: Adaptive Integration and Iteration for a Resilient Low-Carbon Transformation
Factor I: Fostering a collective vision and alignment in low-carbon transition opportunities	(0.78) *
Factor II: Strategic steering and feedback for an effective low-carbon transformation	0.71	(0.85) *
Factor III: Adaptive integration and iteration for a resilient low-carbon transformation	0.59	0.61	(0.84) *
Mean	4.44	4.45	4.60
Standard Deviation	1.38	1.41	1.27

* The values in parentheses represent the square roots of the average variance extracted (AVE) for each latent variable.

presents a comparison between the square roots of the AVE values (shown in parentheses along the diagonal) for each dimension of LCTL and the correlation coefficients between dimensions.

Table 9 shows the correlation matrix for the three dimensions of LCTL, along with the square roots of the average variance extracted (AVE) values for each dimension, presented in parentheses along the diagonal. These square roots ranged from 0.78 to 0.85, indicating a high degree of discriminant validity.

The square root of the AVE for fostering a collective vision and alignment in low-carbon transition opportunities was 0.78, which was higher than its correlations with the other dimensions, indicating sufficient discriminant validity. For strategic steering and feedback for an effective low-carbon transformation, the AVE square root was 0.85, exceeding its correlation values with both strategic steering and feedback for an effective low-carbon transformation (0.71) and adaptive integration and iteration for a resilient low-carbon transformation (0.61), further supporting the discriminant validity of this dimension. Similarly, adaptive integration and iteration for a resilient low-carbon transformation had an AVE square root of 0.84, which was greater than its correlations with the other dimensions, confirming that this dimension is distinct from the others. Each dimension’s AVE square root was greater than the correlations with other dimensions, supporting the distinctiveness of each dimension within the construct. The means and standard deviations of each dimension are also presented, with average scores ranging from 4.44 to 4.60 and standard deviations ranging from 1.27 to 1.41. These data reflect the variability and central tendency of responses for each dimension.

4.3. Results of Study 3

As shown in

Table 10. Results of path analysis of main effects.

Path	Estimate	Critical Ratio (C.R.)	p-Value	Result
H1-1: Fostering a collective vision and alignment in low-carbon transition opportunities → green innovation	0.47	4.90	0.00	Supported
H1-2: Strategic steering and feedback for an effective low-carbon transformation → Green innovation	0.22	2.93	0.00	Supported
H1-3: Adaptive integration and iteration for a resilient low-carbon transformation → Green innovation	0.26	3.20	0.00	Supported

, the hypothesis testing results indicate that all three dimensions of LCTL have a significant positive impact on the green innovation performance of firms. In terms of influence strength, direct predictors of green innovation performance include fostering a collective vision and alignment in low-carbon transition opportunities (β = 0.47, p < 0.05), strategic steering and feedback for an effective low-carbon transformation (β = 0.22, p < 0.05), and adaptive integration and iteration for a resilient low-carbon transformation (β = 0.26, p < 0.05). These results suggest that a firm’s green innovation performance is not only influenced by leaders’ strategic leadership in adapting to low-carbon transitions but is also significantly affected by leaders’ abilities to drive organization change. Consequently, Hypothesis 1-1, Hypothesis 1-2, and Hypothesis 1-3 are supported.

To examine the statistical significance of the proposed mediation model, this study employed path analysis and the Sobel test [41]. The Sobel test was used to calculate the Z-values, determining whether there was a significant indirect effect (as shown in

Table 11. Results of mediation effect analysis.

Path	Estimate	Coefficient		Bootstrapping 95% CI				Result
		SE	Z Value	Bias-Corrected		Percentile
				Lower B	Upper B	Lower B	Upper B
H4: Fostering a collective vision and alignment in low-carbon transition opportunities → Green product development → Green innovation	0.29	0.26	2.18	0.06	0.83	0.06	0.82	Supported
H5: Strategic steering and feedback for effective low-carbon transformation→ Green product development → Green innovation	0.18	0.13	2.13	0.04	0.47	0.04	0.45	Supported
H6: Adaptive integration and iteration for resilient low-carbon transformation→ Green product development → Green innovation	0.28	0.24	2.27	0.07	0.91	0.05	0.80	Supported

). Since the Z-values in Table 11 all exceed 1.96, green product development performance exhibited a significant mediating effect between each of the three dimensions of LCTL and green innovation performance.

In addition, bootstrapping methods were used to estimate the mediation effect, with bias-corrected confidence intervals providing the estimates [42]. For specific mediation effects, a 95% confidence interval was applied, with 5000 bootstrap resamples. The fact that the 95% confidence interval did not include 0 confirms the significance of the mediation effect. Therefore, Hypothesis 4, Hypothesis 5, and Hypothesis 6 are supported.

5. Discussion

5.1. Discussion on Dimensionality of LCTL in Study 1

Scholars have recently applied systematic review methods and bibliometric tools to delineate the evolution and theoretical underpinnings of green leadership [43]. Their usage of grounded theory to structure green leadership’s theoretical framework also mirrors out grounded-theory-inspired scale development, underscoring the need for empirical rigor and interdisciplinary insights in leadership studies. Also, effective leadership in low-carbon transitions often requires robust decision-making frameworks to navigate complex organizational challenges. Integrating approaches like MOORA and artificial neural networks has been shown to support leaders by providing structured, data-driven tools for prioritizing and evaluating critical factors in strategic transformations [33].

In developing a grounded-theory model of LCTL, we identified three core dimensions that are essential for driving low-carbon initiatives within organizations: fostering a collective vision and alignment in low-carbon transition opportunities, strategic steering and feedback for an effective low-carbon transformation, and adaptive integration and iteration for a resilient low-carbon transformation. Building on theories of transformational leadership, strategic leadership, responsible leadership, ethical leadership, environmental leadership, and organizational adaptability, each of these three dimensions serves as a critical pillar in a comprehensive model of LCTL. In analyzing these dimensions, we explore their alignment with established leadership theories, highlighting both the consistencies and nuanced distinctions that contribute to the unique value and applicability of LCTL in complex, sustainability-focused environments.

5.1.1. Dimension 1: Fostering a Collective Vision and Alignment in Low-Carbon Transition Opportunities

The first dimension, fostering a collective vision and alignment in low-carbon transition opportunities, emphasizes the leader’s role in creating and promoting a shared vision for the future, aligning team members with the organization’s low-carbon goals. The global objectives of achieving carbon peak by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060 provide an inspiring vision that underscores a commitment to intergenerational responsibility and environmental stewardship. Transformational leadership theory posits that vision-based motivation is a powerful tool for inspiring and empowering followers. By embedding a compelling low-carbon vision within the organization, leaders can set clear and motivational objectives, fostering a collective commitment to low-carbon transformation [20].

Within this dimension, leaders motivate team members by communicating the strategic significance of low-carbon initiatives, creating a sense of purpose, and reinforcing alignment around these shared goals. This approach not only motivates employee engagement and commitment but also fosters an organizational culture that values sustainability. Leaders’ charisma and moral integrity are central to influencing organizational values, shaping an environment where low-carbon principles become part of the organizational identity. Furthermore, intellectual stimulation, another core characteristic of transformational leadership, enables leaders to encourage innovation, prompting team members to explore creative solutions to low-carbon challenges. Finally, through individualized consideration, leaders provide support and attention to team members, encouraging them to fully participate in low-carbon initiatives. Together, these behaviors foster a unified commitment to the organization’s low-carbon objectives and align the workforce with a future-oriented, low-carbon vision.

This dimension aligns closely with transformational leadership, which emphasizes vision-driven motivation and the empowerment of followers through a compelling organizational purpose [24]. Transformational leadership theory suggests that by fostering a strong vision, leaders can align followers with organizational goals, creating a cohesive drive toward a shared future. What sets this dimension apart, however, is its explicit orientation toward low-carbon objectives within the broader environmental sustainability landscape. While traditional transformational leadership supports vision-driven change broadly, this dimension adds a layer of specificity by emphasizing environmental stewardship as a core element of organizational identity [44]. Additionally, by integrating ethical leadership principles [45], this dimension underscores the role of integrity, moral commitment, and trust building as essential components for creating a cohesive low-carbon vision. Ethical leadership complements transformational leadership here by providing a moral framework that reinforces the commitment to sustainability, which is critical for gaining trust and engagement from employees in low-carbon initiatives. Transformational leaders utilize moral and ethical influence to shape an organization’s culture, guiding employees to internalize sustainability principles and recognize the value of their contributions to environmental goals. Additionally, responsible leadership theory highlights the role of leaders in reinforcing a collective environmental commitment through continuous communication [30], framing low-carbon goals not only as organizational mandates but also as ethical imperatives that contribute to the greater good. This responsible stance fosters organizational cohesion and promotes a long-term outlook in employees’ attitudes toward low-carbon efforts.

5.1.2. Dimension 2: Strategic Steering and Feedback for an Effective Low-Carbon Transformation

The second dimension, strategic steering and feedback for an effective low-carbon transformation, reflects the importance of strategic leadership in guiding and executing low-carbon transformation. A low-carbon transformation is not just an operational change; it is a strategic initiative that requires top executives to establish clear goals, provide direction, and allocate resources to support the organization’s transition to low-carbon practices. Strategic leadership involves defining the overall goals and direction of the organization, guiding the strategic decision-making process, and overseeing the alignment of organizational capabilities and resources with the low-carbon vision [46].

In this dimension, leaders play a critical role in integrating low-carbon transformation with the organization’s core strategic functions, including strategic planning, quality management, and health and safety processes. Leaders in strategic roles assess environmental opportunities and risks, adapting their resource allocation and decision-making processes to support low-carbon objectives. For instance, leaders might identify emerging market opportunities or technological advancements that enable low-carbon practices, strategically reorienting the organization to focus on these goals. By doing so, they ensure that the organization’s resources, infrastructure, and competencies are aligned with the low-carbon strategy. Feedback mechanisms, such as periodic evaluations and the monitoring of low-carbon transformation progress, enable leaders to assess the effectiveness of their strategies and make necessary adjustments to keep the organization on course. This strategic dimension underscores the enduring influence of leaders’ decisions and actions on the organization’s low-carbon trajectory, ensuring alignment between high-level goals and day-to-day operations. This involves reallocating resources, reorganizing structures, and aligning routines and technologies with low-carbon transformation strategies [47], ensuring that the organization is equipped to meet its strategic low-carbon objectives.

The unique contribution of this dimension lies in its integration of responsible leadership, which brings an environmental and social focus to traditional strategic processes. Responsible leadership suggests that leaders must consider the long-term environmental and societal impact of their strategic decisions, aligning organizational goals with broader environmental standards and stakeholder expectations. This aspect of responsibility adds depth to strategic leadership [15,46], positioning low-carbon goals as integral to organizational sustainability and resilience. Furthermore, by embedding feedback mechanisms within the strategic steering process, this dimension also reflects principles of self-reflection, where continuous self-reference enables the organization to forwardly respond to climate change issues, low-carbon technological advancements, and carbon-market demand shifts in real time. The combination of strategic and responsible leadership concepts underscores the proactive, integrated approach necessary for low-carbon leadership, where the traditional strategic focus is expanded to include climate concern.

5.1.3. Dimension 3: Adaptive Integration and Iteration for a Resilient Low-Carbon Transformation

The third dimension, adaptive integration and iteration for a resilient low-carbon transformation, focuses on the importance of adaptability in navigating the complexities of a low-carbon transformation. A low-carbon transformation involves a delicate balance of “constructing and deconstructing”—phasing out traditional, high-emission energy sources while simultaneously building up safe, renewable alternatives. This process not only requires restraint on the development of high-energy, high-emission projects but also necessitates support for environmentally friendly industries, technological advancements, and structural upgrades in traditional sectors.

Organizational adaptability, therefore, becomes critical in managing the uncertainties and evolving challenges of low-carbon transformation. Leaders who excel in adaptive integration continuously assess the external environment, recognizing changes in technology, regulation, and market demands related to low-carbon initiatives. They integrate strategic foresight and adaptability to proactively align the organization with emerging low-carbon opportunities and threats [15]. Effective low-carbon leaders facilitate this adaptability by promoting organizational learning, encouraging employees to stay informed about advancements in low-carbon technology and incorporating external knowledge and capabilities. This not only enhances the organization’s flexibility but also fosters resilience, enabling the organization to pivot as needed in response to new challenges and opportunities.

Leaders with adaptive foresight are skilled at recalibrating organizational resources and routines to maintain alignment with low-carbon goals, even as external conditions shift. Such leaders help the organization overcome rigidities that often arise from reliance on established practices, which may hinder responsiveness to emerging carbon market demands [15,48]. By fostering a culture of continuous improvement and iterative adaptation, they enhance the organization’s strategic agility, ensuring that low-carbon transformation efforts are resilient and capable of evolving with the organization’s needs and the broader regulatory and market environment.

This dimension introduces a refined focus on cognitive flexibility within leadership, a component that is often under-emphasized in traditional adaptability theories [49]. Leaders with cognitive flexibility can challenge existing norms and practices, breaking free from cognitive inertia that may prevent effective environmental adaptation. This ability to overcome rigid mindsets supports ongoing improvement and iteration, ensuring that low-carbon transformation efforts are not only sustainable but also continuously evolving to meet higher environmental standards as new climate challenges arise.

5.1.4. Leadership Dimensions in Driving Net-Zero Emissions: A Case Analysis of Low-Carbon Transition in China’s Coal Industry

Leadership serves as a cornerstone in steering net-zero transformations, especially within traditionally high-carbon industries such as coal production. A compelling example is Shanxi Coking Coal Group—one of China’s largest coal producers—which has successfully evolved into a frontrunner in green energy and low-carbon innovation. By aligning its practices with the principles of low-carbon transformational leadership (LCTL), the company exemplifies how visionary leadership can inspire meaningful change. This discussion examines how Shanxi Coking Coal Group’s strategies reflect the three core dimensions of LCTL: fostering a collective vision, strategic steering, and adaptive integration.

Shanxi Coking Coal Group’s leadership laid the foundation for transformation by championing a unified, ambitious vision: achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. Aligning the company’s objectives with China’s broader “dual carbon” goals—reaching peak carbon emissions by 2030 and neutrality by 2060—they crafted a purpose that resonated across employees, stakeholders, and policymakers. This vision was communicated through comprehensive education initiatives and internal campaigns, ensuring that every level of the organization understood and embraced the company’s goals. By doing so, the leadership not only inspired collective action but also encouraged a shared sense of ownership over the transition to renewable energy. This approach highlights the first LCTL dimension: uniting teams around low-carbon opportunities by linking organizational ambitions with broader environmental imperatives.

The group’s leadership demonstrated exceptional foresight by implementing targeted strategies for low-carbon transformation. They prioritized investments in cutting-edge technologies, including carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS), alongside renewable energy projects like wind and solar. Collaborations with research institutions and government agencies kept the company at the forefront of technological advancements. To ensure these strategies remained effective, leadership instituted robust feedback mechanisms. Sustainability reports provided transparency and allowed for data-driven adjustments, offering critical insights into emission reductions and operational impacts. These feedback loops illustrate the second LCTL dimension: guiding the organization strategically while adapting plans based on real-time data.

Shifting an entire industry toward net-zero emissions demands adaptability in the face of evolving challenges. Shanxi Coking Coal Group excelled in this by integrating low-carbon initiatives into its existing operations and refining them as new opportunities arose. For instance, they gradually decommissioned coal-fired power plants while simultaneously expanding renewable energy capacity, ensuring a seamless transition with minimal disruption. An iterative approach defined their strategy—piloting innovative technologies before scaling them organization-wide. This adaptability enabled the company to navigate policy changes and shifting market demands effectively. By building resilience through dynamic and iterative practices, the leadership epitomized the third dimension of LCTL.

Shanxi Coking Coal Group’s transformation showcases the power of leadership in guiding net-zero initiatives, even in high-carbon industries. By fostering a shared vision, steering strategies with precision, and adapting resiliently, the company achieved substantial progress toward carbon neutrality. Beyond its achievements, Shanxi Coking Coal Group serves as a blueprint for other companies grappling with similar transitions, highlighting how the principles of low-carbon transformational leadership can translate into actionable, transformative outcomes.

5.2. Discussion on Refinement of the Scale Items in Study 2

In summary, Study 2 followed a rigorous, multi-step process to ensure its validity and reliability. Initially, an item pool of 17 items was created based on theoretical analysis and interviews with experts. This pool was then refined through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using a stringent criterion, where items with factor loadings below 0.4 or with overlapping loadings were eliminated, resulting in the removal of five items. The remaining 12 items were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using a second data sample to validate the structure of the scale. The results of reliability and validity analysis indicate that the final scale consisted of 12 items across three well-defined dimensions, providing a robust tool for measuring LCTL in organizational contexts.

The CFA results confirmed a three-dimensional structure for LCTL, with dimensions representing fostering a collective vision and alignment in low-carbon transition opportunities, strategic steering and feedback for an effective low-carbon transformation, and adaptive integration and iteration for a resilient low-carbon transformation. Reliability analysis showed high internal consistency across all dimensions, with Cronbach’s α coefficients above 0.8. Validity testing, including composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), and discriminant validity assessments, further confirmed that the scale has strong construct, convergent, and discriminant validity. An extant literature review breaks down green leadership into various styles (transformational, ethical, responsible, etc.) [43], each with distinct practices and outcomes that aim toward ecological sustainability. This theoretical framing resonates with this study, particularly the categorization of LCTL into distinct leadership functions: fostering a collective vision, strategic steering, and adaptive integration,

Relevant research regarding ethical leadership is rooted in values and moral responsibility, drawing on social learning theory to explain how leaders can model pro-environmental behavior [50]. Study 2 expanded on this by incorporating dimensions like fostering a collective vision, strategic steering, and adaptive integration. These dimensions emphasize foresight and proactive adaptation to regulatory, market, and technological shifts, adding a forward-looking aspect to green leadership that prepares organizations for long-term sustainability goals.

Also, previous research on climate governance categorized leadership types relevant to carbon neutrality: cognitive, structural, and directional leadership [51]. Cognitive leadership entails influencing other nations’ perceptions through specific knowledge and theories, which aligns with Study 2’s emphasis on leaders shaping low-carbon organizational awareness. The structural leadership concept highlights international political engagement to establish a country’s views, resembling the emphasis in this research on leaders fostering collaboration and unity around low-carbon goals within an organization. Finally, directional leadership reflects the power of setting examples through policies, mirroring the strategic and implementation-oriented roles of low-carbon leaders in steering organizational change. While the existing research addresses national leadership within the global context of carbon neutrality [51], Study 2 explored how these leadership qualities can be operationalized by organizational leaders to directly impact innovation outcomes.

5.3. Discussion on Nomological Validity of LCTL Scale in Study 3

Nomological validity serves to demonstrate the LCTL scale’s practical applicability and its predictive power in relation to specific phenomena. Specifically, this research focused on analyzing the relationships between LCTL and innovation-related outcomes (green innovation performance, green product development performance). This study explored the nomological validity of the LCTL scale by employing a theoretically derived model, grounded in an extensive review of the existing literature. Specifically, this research tested a series of hypotheses regarding the LCTL’s effects on innovation outcomes. These hypotheses aimed to rigorously assess the nomological validity of the LCTL scale by empirically testing its impact on green innovation performance, both directly and indirectly through the mediating mechanism of green product development performance. The results of Study 3 show that all the hypotheses are supported. These findings provide a robust evaluative framework to affirm the scale’s predictive utility in the domain of sustainable innovation. Leveraging a theoretical framework for the evaluation of nomological validity provides advantages in terms of theoretical coherence and empirical substantiation.

5.4. General Discussion Based on Three Studies

This study presented a comprehensive framework made up of three interrelated studies, each tackling distinct but connected gaps in the existing literature on low-carbon transformational leadership (LCTL). Together, these studies bring fresh theoretical insights, measurement tools, and empirical evidence, filling key gaps and addressing shortcomings identified earlier in the paper.

• Similarities and differences with the existing literature

Each of the three studies builds on and contrasts with existing research on green and transformational leadership. Study 1, which conceptualizes LCTL, aligns with existing work on green transformational leadership (GTL)—a model shown to promote pro-environmental behavior and green performance [3,5,12]. However, while GTL typically focuses on broad environmental goals, Study 1 narrowed its focus to leadership behaviors that specifically target carbon reduction. This makes LCTL more applicable to organizations with strict carbon neutrality targets, a gap in the current literature on GTL, which has generally lacked a focus on carbon-specific leadership strategies.

Study 2, which developed and validated a scale for LCTL, makes an important contribution by addressing the scarcity of reliable and valid measurement tools for this leadership style. Previous research often relied on adapted scales from broader frameworks like transformational leadership [2,3] or general green leadership [5,6,7], which fail to capture the specific behaviors needed for low-carbon transitions. The new LCTL scale developed in this study not only enhances the methodological approaches in the field but also provides a practical tool for assessing leadership in the context of carbon reduction. This advancement is crucial for both scholars and practitioners aiming to accurately assess leadership behaviors tied to carbon reduction efforts.

Study 3 examined the impact of LCTL on green innovation performance, extending the findings of Study 2 by exploring how low-carbon leadership fosters innovation in industries under pressure to reduce carbon emissions. While the green leadership literature has shown that leadership behaviors can inspire a culture of innovation, few studies have specifically focused on low-carbon leadership’s role in driving innovations aimed at reducing emissions. This study offers new insights into how LCTL contributes to green innovation outcomes, particularly in carbon-intensive industries, addressing a gap in understanding the intersection of leadership and innovation during low-carbon transitions.

• Addressing the shortcomings of the existing literature

This study’s comprehensive approach, with its three distinct sub-studies, provides a multifaceted response to the gaps identified in the Introduction. First, much of the existing research on green leadership has been too broad, focusing on general environmental goals rather than leadership behaviors that specifically target carbon reduction. By defining and conceptualizing LCTL, this study narrows the focus to leadership practices directly relevant to achieving carbon neutrality, a critical priority in today’s climate-driven business landscape [3,5,12,43].

Second, while earlier studies highlighted the importance of leadership in driving environmental sustainability, they often lacked reliable tools for measuring specific leadership behaviors related to low-carbon transitions. The development and validation of the LCTL scale in Study 2 directly addresses this methodological gap, offering both scholars and practitioners a reliable instrument for assessing low-carbon leadership behaviors.

Lastly, the literature has not fully explored the practical implications of low-carbon leadership on organizational outcomes, particularly in terms of innovation. This study filled that gap by empirically testing the relationship between LCTL and green innovation outcomes in Study 3. The findings highlight how LCTL can drive innovation, offering actionable insights for organizations aiming to meet their carbon reduction goals through technological and operational changes.

• The implication of the integration of the three studies

The integration of these three studies provides a comprehensive understanding of LCTL by addressing both theoretical and practical gaps in the existing literature. Study 1 defined and conceptualized LCTL as a unique leadership style with specific dimensions. Study 2 provided a validated scale for measuring this style, offering a practical tool for assessing its impact across various organizational contexts. Finally, Study 3 examined the role of LCTL in promoting green innovation, bridging the gap between leadership behaviors and tangible organizational outcomes. This integrated approach not only advances the theoretical framework for LCTL but also equips researchers and practitioners with the tools and empirical evidence needed to apply this leadership style in real-world settings.

In conclusion, this study addresses several significant gaps in the literature on transformational leadership and environmental sustainability. By focusing on carbon-specific leadership behaviors, providing a validated measurement scale, and exploring the impact of LCTL on green innovation, this research makes a substantial contribution to both theory and practice. The comprehensive integration of these studies presents a holistic view of low-carbon leadership and provides a solid foundation for future research and practical applications in carbon-intensive industries.

5.4.1. Theoretical Implications

The primary contributions of this study are as follows.

This study deepens the understanding of leadership in corporate low-carbon transitions. Existing research highlights the influence of executives’ environmental awareness, personal norms, and organizational environmental governance on broader green outcomes, such as competitive advantage, employee engagement, and green innovation [3,5,12,43]. However, these studies focus on general environmental practices within the green leadership framework, often overlooking the specific demands of low-carbon transitions. This study addresses this gap by introducing LCTL, which emphasizes targeted goals such as carbon footprint reduction and climate policy adaptation. By linking LCTL directly to innovation outcomes like green product development and low-carbon technology adoption, this research advances the understanding of how leadership can proactively drive systemic low-carbon transformations. Unlike previous models that often position environmental leadership as reactive or moderating [16], this study positions LCTL as a proactive framework for achieving both corporate and environmental resilience.

This study advances leadership theory with a carbon-focused approach. It offers a sector-specific and strategically adaptive leadership model tailored to low-carbon contexts. It provides theoretical insights into how corporate leaders, unlike municipal leaders constrained by public accountability, adapt resource allocation to balance environmental goals with return on investment (ROI). This study also contributes practically by developing and validating an empirical LCTL scale that captures its core dimensions. This scale offers a rigorous tool for measuring LCTL, expanding the sustainable leadership literature to address pressing global challenges like carbon neutrality and net-zero emissions. This research further highlights how corporate LCTL links leadership behaviors to tangible outcomes such as green innovation and product development, bridging theoretical gaps with actionable insights.

This study integrates multidisciplinary and context-specific insights. Addressing calls for new leadership paradigms in unique contexts [43], this study incorporates interview data and expert feedback from sectors like energy, environment, and mineral resources, ensuring the scale reflects both management theory and industry-specific knowledge. Conducted within the developing economy of China, the research focuses on enterprises in clean energy and renewable technology, providing critical insights for economies undergoing rapid industrial transformation. This interdisciplinary approach enhances this study’s relevance for emerging economies with high carbon footprints and ambitious decarbonization targets, offering practical frameworks adaptable to similar contexts globally.

This study broadens leadership’s role in driving organizational transformation. While previous studies have focused on leadership’s influence on individual green behaviors or psychological constructs like green team resilience [7], this study demonstrates how LCTL drives systemic organizational transformations. LCTL is conceptualized to embed sustainable practices across strategic and operational decision-making, shifting the focus from individual behaviors to comprehensive low-carbon transitions. By linking leadership directly to innovation outcomes such as green product development and innovation performance, this study provides organizations with actionable pathways for achieving measurable green outcomes.

This study connects leadership research to global decarbonization goals. It integrates the strategic imperatives of carbon peak, carbon neutrality, and net-zero emissions into the corporate leadership domain. While previous research has explored low-carbon transitions from macro perspectives such as national or industrial levels [52,53], this study provides a micro-level framework by focusing on corporate organizations and leaders as key agents of change. By validating the LCTL construct and its link to green production practices and innovation performance, this study underscores the critical role of firms in driving low-carbon development within industry ecosystems, aligning leadership research with global decarbonization efforts.

5.4.2. Practical Implications

This study’s findings offer the following practical implications.

Firstly, the results indicate that fostering low-carbon transformational leadership in the context of carbon peak and neutrality objectives can enhance a firm’s green product development and green innovation performance. Companies can leverage low-carbon transformational leadership as an opportunity to develop low-carbon products, thereby establishing a differentiated competitive advantage. Low-carbon leadership is critically needed for companies that intend to decrease their carbon emissions in the face of increasing regulatory and market pressure. The empirical tool developed in this research for low-carbon leadership is essential for organizations seeking to align leadership with the global imperatives of carbon reduction and to leverage competitive advantage in a low-carbon future.

Secondly, the findings show that low-carbon transformational leadership encompasses foresight and adaptability. By systematically evaluating and planning for future challenges, companies can proactively build resources to support carbon reduction initiatives, thereby mitigating risks associated with the climate transition. This focus on strategic steering and adaptive integration could add depth to the understanding of how leadership not only encourages green behaviors but strategically aligns them with long-term carbon reduction goals.

Thirdly, a crucial dimension of low-carbon transformational leadership is strategic steering capability. Leaders must make strategic decisions that balance low-carbon transition goals with other essential business objectives, ensuring alignment between low-carbon initiatives and other strategic actions. It is important to acknowledge that global green and low-carbon transitions are not without challenges. Unforeseen circumstances, such as geopolitical conflicts, can lead to temporary reversals in these transitions. For example, the war in Ukraine has significantly disrupted the global energy market, prompting some nations to revert to coal usage as a short-term solution to address energy security concerns. This underscores the delicate balance between advancing green energy development and ensuring energy reliability during crises [54]. Such scenarios highlight the need for resilient strategies that can sustain green transitions even under adverse conditions, reinforcing the urgency of diversifying energy sources and investing in renewable technologies. Strengthening strategic steering implies that leaders should provide essential support during the implementation of low-carbon strategies, including decision-making communication, performance feedback, and conflict management.

Fourthly, leaders are required to present an attractive and impactful low-carbon vision to inspire organizational members’ intrinsic commitment to low-carbon values. This is particularly crucial for industries facing intense carbon reduction pressures. Photovoltaic (PV) systems and wind power are cornerstone technologies in the global shift toward renewable energy systems (RESs), playing a vital role in meeting decarbonization targets [55]. Photovoltaic (PV) systems, wind power, and clean hydrogen technology [56] innovations significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions, helping to combat climate change. Beyond its environmental benefits, renewable energy adoption fosters economic resilience, spurs job creation, and reduces dependency on fossil fuels. For example, scaling up PV [57] and wind energy diversifies energy sources, stimulates clean energy innovation, and strengthens local economies. Countries investing in RESs have also reported notable advantages, such as lower energy production costs and improved energy security. Companies at the forefront of this transition illustrate the transformative potential of these technologies to tackle pressing environmental challenges while reshaping industries and economies for a sustainable future. Traditional high-energy-consuming sectors undergoing decarbonization, such as those producing steel, non-ferrous metals, chemicals, and building materials, as well as the power industry, which is transitioning toward clean energy, need leaders who can recognize the prospects and opportunities of low-carbon transformation. Emerging high-energy-consuming sectors, like 5G networks, the Internet of Things, and data centers, also require leaders to communicate the significance, value, and pathways of seizing low-carbon transformation opportunities effectively to organizational members. In these industries, by accumulating carbon data and assessing product carbon footprints in advance, companies can identify key areas within production processes where carbon emissions can be reduced.

5.4.3. Limitations and Future Research

This study has some limitations.

Firstly, the data used for scale development were collected from a select group of companies. Although the sample size was relatively large, this may still affect the scale’s external validity. Particularly, this study is positioned within a specific industry context (e.g., energy, automotive), which may limit generalizability but allows for targeted insights relevant to sectors undergoing intensive low-carbon transitions. This context specificity can add empirical depth to LCTL but may suggest the need for adjustments if applied to non-industrial contexts. Future research could broaden the data collection sources, for example, by gathering data from government agencies and non-governmental organizations, which would enhance the scale’s reliability and validity.

Secondly, this study examines the causal relationship between low-carbon transformational leadership and green product development performance, as well as green innovation performance, using cross-sectional data. However, low-carbon transformational leadership may evolve over time, so future studies could employ panel data to explore these dynamics further.

Thirdly, there are factors like environmental values, organizational support, and employee empowerment that might influence the relationship between leadership and green innovation. Future study could further examine whether these factors can mediate LCTL’s effectiveness in achieving low-carbon transition goals. For instance, factors specific to low-carbon transitions—such as regulatory pressures, the availability of green technologies, and carbon accounting—might play unique roles in LCTL. This could lead to a theoretical contribution by identifying low-carbon-specific factors that enhance or inhibit the effectiveness of leadership in driving sustainable innovation.

6. Conclusions

This study introduces the concept of low-carbon transformational leadership, which encompasses leadership behaviors aimed at motivating low-carbon practices and supporting transformations in technology, management, and systems to facilitate a low-carbon transition. Leaders can drive an organization toward net-zero carbon emissions by setting a compelling vision, establishing objectives, cultivating a low-carbon mindset, and promoting collaboration. In this research, low-carbon transformational leadership is conceptualized as a leadership approach dedicated to reducing carbon emissions and addressing climate change challenges. This carbon-centric approach aligns with emerging needs in high-emission industries and provides a targeted response to global carbon neutrality goals, a layer not fully captured in the broader green leadership framework.

This study began with a systematic review of the relevant literature on low-carbon transformational leadership, using keyword-based searches to identify, organize, and analyze key sources, which informed the foundational framework and core dimensions of the concept. Based on insights from literature and interview data, an initial scale for low-carbon transformational leadership was developed. This scale was then administered in a survey across four representative Chinese companies engaged in clean coal power, energy storage, new energy vehicles, photovoltaics (PV), and wind power. Through grounded-theory analysis, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and reliability and validity testing, a final scale with three dimensions and 12 items was established for low-carbon transformational leadership. Using the developed scale, this study empirically examined the relationship between low-carbon transformational leadership and relevant corporate performance outcomes. The results indicate that the three dimensions of low-carbon transformational leadership have significant positive effects on green product development performance and green innovation performance within organizations.

The research findings underscore the significance of LCTL in fostering green innovation, advancing sustainability goals, and mediating critical organizational processes such as learning capacity. In practice, organizations can apply these findings by training leaders to emphasize sustainability goals, thereby inspiring employees to adopt pro-environmental behaviors. For instance, firms in carbon-intensive industries, such as energy or manufacturing, can implement LCTL frameworks to reduce emissions while simultaneously enhancing their innovation capabilities. Similarly, policymakers can use these insights to design leadership development programs or incentives for green initiatives, aligning organizational goals with broader climate strategies. For potential practitioners, this paper offers a nuanced understanding of how leadership behaviors can catalyze organizational transformations toward sustainability, bridging the gap between leadership practices and environmental outcomes. It serves as a valuable resource for academics, policymakers, and practitioners, providing actionable insights for achieving long-term sustainability.