Responsibility Driving Innovation: How Environmentally Responsible Leadership Shapes Employee Green Creativity

Abstract

In the setting of global climate change, employees’ green creativity is of great importance for promoting environmental sustainability. However, existing research remains insufficient in exploring the mechanisms through which environmentally responsible leadership influences employees’ green creativity. Based on social cognitive theory, this study collects multi-temporal questionnaire data from 262 corporate employees through the Credamo platform, analyzed via AMOS and SPSS. This study focuses on the mediating role of green mindfulness and the moderating effect of green human resource management practices. Results show that: first, environmentally responsible leadership has a positive impact on employees’ green creativity, and green mindfulness mediates the relationship between environmental responsible leadership and employees’ green creativity; second, green human resource management practices significantly moderate the relationship between environmentally responsible leadership and green mindfulness, as well as the mediating effect of green mindfulness in the relationship between environmentally responsible leadership and employees’ green creativity. The current results provide a theoretical framework for organizations to understand the potential paths for cultivating employees’ green creativity and offer possible strategic directions for advancing corporate sustainability goals.

1. Introduction

As global warming and pollution worsen, corporations face increasing pressure to assume environmental responsibility. From the perspective of social ecological economics, green technological innovation plays a critical role in enhancing resource utilization, reducing pollution, and maintaining ecosystems. It significantly drives societal sustainable development and ecological civilization construction, with far-reaching implications across multiple dimensions [1]. Organizational green innovation is inherently linked to employees and directly hinges on their level of green creativity [2]. Employees serve as the core agents in translating an organization’s sustainability goals into quantifiable outcomes. For businesses, employee green creativity (EGC) is a cornerstone of sustainable competitive advantage [3]. In environmental management research, EGC is regarded as the foundational driver of high-quality green innovation outcomes [4]. Consequently, understanding how to foster EGC has become a focal point of inquiry in both academic and practical domains. EGC is defined as the generation of novel and useful ideas regarding products, services, processes, or practices that exhibit environmental friendliness [4]. Green motivation, green mindfulness (GM), and green human resource management (GHRM) practices are critical factors that drive EGC [5,6,7].

Leadership style has long been recognized by academics as a key factor influencing employee creativity [8]. Recent studies grounded in resource conservation theory, social exchange theory, and ability-motivation-opportunity theory [9,10,11] have provided robust evidence that EGC is positively influenced by leadership styles that emphasize environmental stewardship, including green transformational leadership, environmentally specific servant leadership, and environmentally specific empowering leadership [9,10,11]. The results provide empirical support for the efficacy of leadership approaches incorporating environmental considerations in fostering EGC [11]. However, existing research has predominantly focused on internal organizational stakeholders, failing to adequately account for the environmental concerns of varied external stakeholder groups. The leadership models in prior studies largely adhere to a traditional paradigm, focusing predominantly on internal stakeholder dynamics, while underestimating the pivotal role of external stakeholders (e.g., suppliers, customers) in shaping EGC. Recent empirical evidence highlights that external stakeholders’ environmental demands [12] and customer engagement [13] significantly drive firms’ adoption of green innovation practices.

Responsible leadership has been defined as “a socio-relational ethical phenomenon embedded in leader-stakeholder interaction processes, focusing on achieving organizational sustainability goals by aligning multiple interests” [14]. This leadership paradigm advances organizational sustainability by balancing economic, social, and environmental responsibilities [15]. Decade-long research demonstrates that responsible leadership significantly enhances employee innovative behavior, team effectiveness, and long-term organizational competitiveness [16]. With the rising demands of global environmental governance, building on responsible leadership theory, researchers have developed its environmental applications, conceptualizing what is now termed environmentally responsible leadership (ERL). Unlike traditional green transformational leadership, which emphasizes internal green transformation [4], ERL highlights integrating external stakeholders’ environmental demands (e.g., suppliers, customers) into decision-making frameworks and embedding environmental values through leadership behavior institutionalization [16]. While studies confirm ERL’s direct facilitation of corporate environmental innovation [17], the cognitive mediating pathways and organizational contextual moderators of ERL’s influence on EGC remain underexplored [18].

The triadic interaction framework (environment-cognition-behavior) of social cognitive theory (SCT) posits that individuals develop focused environmental awareness and positive cognition (i.e., green mindfulness) through social learning mechanisms, including observing leadership modeling behaviors (e.g., resource conservation, green decision-making), imitating value internalization processes, and engaging in team-based environmental practices [19]. Green mindfulness (GM) is a mindfulness practice that is centered on cultivating awareness of and connection with the natural environment [20]. It involves maintaining a non-judgmental, attentive attitude toward the present moment and fostering a sense of oneness with the environment [21]. Environmentally responsible leadership (ERL) enhances employees’ environmental self-efficacy (“I can solve environmental problems”) and innovation outcome expectations (“My actions have environmental value”) through organizational interactions, thereby facilitating the transformation of environmental awareness into innovative behavior. Prior research has established GM as a significant mediator in the relationship between green transformational leadership and environmental performance outcomes [22,23], its mediating effect between green sharing behaviors and creativity [24], and how pro-environmental habits translate into specific behaviors [25], but whether GM serves as a necessary cognitive mediator in the ERL→EGC process remains unclear. This study examines whether GM constitutes the core transmission pathway of “ERL→GM→EGC”—that is, whether ERL indirectly enhances EGC by shaping GM.

Green human resource management (GHRM) practices are a set of human resource management activities undertaken by organizations to enhance positive environmental performance, with the aim of encouraging employees to actively practice environmental protection and green behaviors [26]. It not only covers functional modules such as green recruitment, training, and performance management, but also provides systematic support for organizations to shape a sustainable culture [27]. As the core institutional practice of organizational green management, GHRM practices systematically shape employees’ green behavioral tendencies and cognitive patterns through structured measures such as green training programs, environmental performance incentives, and green job design [26,28]. Drawing on SCT, GHRM practices and ERL form a synergistic effect: first, GHRM practices enhance the perceived authenticity of ERL’s modeling behaviors (e.g., resource-conserving decisions) by providing green knowledge empowerment (e.g., carbon footprint management training) and incentive-aligned mechanisms (e.g., environmental innovation bonuses), thereby facilitating GM internalization; second, it cultivates an immersive pro-environmental climate through green work design, amplifying the transmission efficiency of the “ERL modeling→GM development→EGC activation” pathway. This study advances a moderated mediation model to investigate whether GHRM practices strengthen the “ERL→GM→EGC” mediation pathway, thereby enhancing ERL’s effectiveness in driving EGC.

In summary, this study reveals the mechanisms and boundary conditions of ERL on EGC based on SCT. The contributions of this study to the existing literature are threefold: first, introducing ERL into EGC research enriches the understanding of antecedent variables of EGC; second, revealing the mediating role of GM based on SCT deepens the comprehension of the operational mechanisms among ERL and EGC; and finally, by identifying the moderating effect of GHRM practices, this study expands the boundary conditions of ERL’s influence on individual behaviors and attitudes, clarifying the organizational contexts in which ERL effectively stimulates EGC.

Based on an in-depth application of SCT, the present study asks two key questions: First, how does ERL influence EGC through cognitive mechanisms; specifically, does GM play a mediating role between ERL and EGC? Second, how do GHRM practices moderate the relationship between ERL and EGC, including the moderation of the ERL-GM relationship and the indirect pathway through which ERL influences EGC via GM?

2. Theoretical Foundations and Hypothesis Development

2.1. ERL and EGC

This study contends that ERL is associated with enhancements in EGC through multiple mechanisms. First, ERL provides employees with important social cognitive resources through the transmission of green values and the demonstration of behavior. Employees form positive beliefs and self-efficacy in green practices by observing and learning from their leaders’ environmental behavior [24], which makes them more willing to engage in green innovation activities. When EGC is acknowledged, their self-efficacy is further enhanced, forming a virtuous cycle [24]. Second, ERL helps employees improve their environmental knowledge and skills through green training and empowerment [29,30], which adjusts their cognitive frameworks and behavior patterns to stimulate more EGC. Moreover, ERL is positively associated with employees’ self-perceived ability to perform green tasks, and those who feel highly capable tend to be more actively involved in green innovation [31]. Finally, the green innovation atmosphere created by ERL provides employees with social support and promotes knowledge sharing and collaboration [32], which enhances their EGC.

Research demonstrates that environmental leadership effectively stimulates employees’ green innovation behavior [32], while responsible leadership significantly enhances creative performance [33]. As a leadership style combining both environmental and responsibility attributes, ERL inherently integrates these core elements. Through multiple mechanisms—including value internalization, competence development, and climate cultivation—ERL systematically shapes employees’ green cognitive frameworks and self-efficacy beliefs, thereby generating sustained motivation for EGC. Drawing on the aforementioned analysis, the subsequent hypothesis is put forward:

Hypothesis (H1).

ERL is positively related to EGC.

2.2. The Mediating Role of GM

Recently, GM has emerged as a critical construct in fostering pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors, with studies highlighting its role as a mediator between leadership behaviors and environmental outcomes [34]. It differs significantly from green self-efficacy in both its conceptualization and mechanism. Green self-efficacy, which is derived from self-efficacy theory [35], reflects individuals’ beliefs in their abilities to carry out tasks that achieve green goals [24]. In contrast, GM emphasizes the clarity of emotional states (present-moment inner experiences) and the perception of objective realities (external environment); it enhances individuals’ connections to nature by promoting mindfulness of their surroundings and guiding their attention to environmental issues [36].

Grounded in SCT [19], ERL serves as a critical conduit for transmitting environmental values through both verbal articulation and behavioral modeling, while simultaneously creating organizational opportunities for employees to develop sustainable practices. This leadership paradigm not only explicitly emphasizes environmental stewardship [37] but also institutionalizes ecological concern through structured GHRM practices, including environmental goal-setting and targeted training programs [27]. Through observational learning processes, employees progressively internalize sustainability values by emulating leaders’ pro-environmental behaviors, thereby elevating their GM levels [24]. Furthermore, the supportive organizational climate cultivated by ERL—characterized by an emphasis on green culture and active encouragement of environmental innovation [38,39]—reinforces employees’ sustained environmental awareness. This climate fosters a cognitive disposition toward proactively identifying and addressing ecological challenges, ultimately stabilizing GM as an enduring psychological state that enhances EGC.

Research has shown that different leadership styles contribute to GM in diverse ways: green transformational leaders strengthen the internalization of environmental values through visionary motivation [40], and green servant leaders enhance environmental empathy through ethical modeling [41]. However, the efficacy of such leadership approaches is frequently limited by contextual variables or individual leader attributes. In contrast, ERL, grounded in SCT, systematically promotes GM through three key mechanisms: institutionalized environmental information input [42], continuous behavioral modeling [37], and the cultivation of a supportive organizational climate [43]. This integrative mechanism, which combines cognitive, behavioral, and environmental factors, enables ERL to exhibit a more comprehensive and enduring advantage over other leadership styles in fostering GM. Drawing on the aforementioned analysis, the subsequent hypothesis is put forward:

Hypothesis (H2).

ERL is positively related to GM.

Grounded in SCT [19], this study suggests that GM is an important cognitive process through which ERL influences EGC. ERL can significantly enhance employees’ GM levels by transmitting environmental values and shaping environmental management norms [22], and this state of environmental awareness will further motivate employees to invest their cognitive resources and creative efforts in developing environmentally friendly solutions [24]. Specifically, GM as a psychological resource has the following functions to promote EGC: First, employees exhibiting elevated GM levels are able to break through traditional thinking stereotypes and absorb new knowledge about environmental protection with an open attitude [44], and this cognitive flexibility lays the foundation for the generation of novel environmental ideas. Second, GM increases employees’ sensitivity to environmental issues [25], making it easier for them to identify opportunities for improvement and to make innovative environmental proposals. Finally, GM helps employees overcome barriers in the innovation process by developing their self-regulation skills [36] to consistently put environmental ideas into practice.

Substantial empirical evidence from multiple research endeavors attests to GM’s intermediary role in the relationship linking ERL and EGC. Chen et al. (2015) found that GM significantly mediated the effect of green shared vision on EGC [24]. Meanwhile, Nisar et al. (2017) further demonstrated that green transformational leaders indirectly promote environmental performance by enhancing GM [23]. Collectively, these findings suggest that leadership behaviors can effectively promote green innovation behaviors by modulating employees’ cognitive patterns (e.g., GM). Grounded in SCT, ERL, as an environmental factor, ultimately influences EGC, a behavioral performance, by shaping GM, a personal cognitive factor. Therefore, this study proposes:

Hypothesis (H3).

GM acts as a mediator in the linkage between ERL and EGC.

2.3. The Moderating Role of GHRM Practices

Grounded in SCT, GHRM practices act as crucial environmental support factors [45]. They offer structural support for the dissemination of ERL values through an institutionalized organizational system, thereby strengthening its nurturing impact on employees’ GM. Specifically, GHRM practices create an organizational context conducive to the development of employees’ environmental cognition by providing resources and supportive policies [27,30,45]. When the level of GHRM practice is high, organizations are able to strengthen employees’ sensitivity and identification with environmental issues through green training, environmental performance assessment, and other measures [46,47]. In this context, the values and behaviors advocated by ERL can form a synergistic effect with the organizational system, making it easier for employees to internalize environmental protection concepts and thus significantly improve their GHRM practices levels. Specifically, appropriate GHRM practices (e.g., green skills training, environmental incentive mechanisms) provide leaders with the tools to implement green management and help employees break through conventional cognitive schemas and deepen their understanding of environmental responsibility [27,45,47]. Conversely, when GHRM practices are weak, despite the efforts of the ERL to communicate sustainability principles, employees may struggle to form stable GHRM practices due to the lack of institutionalized resource support, as they do not have access to effective behavioral guidelines. Accordingly, the present study proposes the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis (H4).

GHRM practices proactively moderate the relationship between ERL and GM. Compared to low GHRM practice contexts, ERL has a stronger positive effect on GM when GHRM practices are high.

2.4. Moderated Mediation Effects

Furthermore, GHRM practices not only moderate the direct relationship between ERL and GM but may also influence the indirect effects of ERL on EGC by moderating the mediating pathway (GM). According to SCT, environmental resources (e.g., GHRM practices) can influence the performance of an individual’s innovative behavior by altering their cognitive state (e.g., GM), which in turn affects their innovative behavior [19]. When organizations implement high levels of GHRM practices, the resources they provide (e.g., green training, innovation support) can create an open and inclusive organizational climate for employees with high GM, making them more likely to propose bold, environmentally innovative ideas [48]. At this point, the path of ERL to further stimulate EGC by enhancing GM is strengthened. In contrast, in the context of inadequate GHRM practices, even if employees have higher GM due to leadership behaviors, their EGC may be inhibited due to the lack of organizational support (e.g., innovation incentives, resource security). The adequacy of GHRM practices determines whether the mediated effect of ERL on EGC via GM is significant. Based on this, this study suggests:

Hypothesis (H5).

GHRM practices strengthen the mediating role of GM in transmitting ERL’s positive effects on EGC. The mediated pathway from ERL to EGC via GM is significantly stronger in contexts with high GHRM practice effectiveness compared to those with low GHRM practice implementation efficiency.

Grounded in the aforesaid theoretical assumptions, this research proposes the following model shown in Figure 1.

3. Method

3.1. Sample and Data Collection

This study went through the process of data collection via the Credamo platform from December 2023 to February 2024 (a three-month period) using a questionnaire survey of full-time employees. Prior to the formal survey, the research team assured participants of anonymity and strict confidentiality of personal information to alleviate concerns and ensure response authenticity. During data collection, the questionnaire’s academic purpose was clearly stated, emphasizing that there were no “right” or “wrong” answers, while academic terms like “stakeholders” were contextualized (e.g., defined as “customers and suppliers in business relationships with the company”) to avoid response bias from semantic misunderstandings. To mitigate common method biases, the study employed several strategies: an anonymous confidentiality mechanism to build trust; dispersion of independent variable (ERL), mediating variable (GM), and dependent variable (EGC) questions across different questionnaire modules to prevent dimensional clustering; operational definitions for technical terms (e.g., “GM” explained as “a state of focused awareness and positive cognition toward environmental issues”); and a three-wave longitudinal design. Specifically, Time 1 collected demographic data, ERL, and green human resource management practice (GHRM practice) measures (N = 321), Time 2 (two weeks later) focused on GM (N = 300, with non-responses due to vacations, business trips, or job changes), and Time 3 (another two weeks later) surveyed EGC (N = 280). We excluded invalid samples during data cleaning using criteria like ≥30% missing data in a single variable, ≥20% overall missing, logical errors, or ≥10 consecutive identical responses, leaving 262 valid questionnaires (81.62% valid response rate). Convenience sampling (non-probabilistic) was used to recruit accessible full-time employees, which may limit generalizability but ensured data collection feasibility and efficiency.

This study’s sample comprises data from 262 full-time employees. Regarding gender distribution, 64.89% are female and 35.11% are male. In terms of age, 82.44% of participants are under 35 years old. For educational background, 0.06% have vocational education, 76.72% hold bachelor’s degrees, and 23.22% have master’s degrees or higher. Concerning work experience, 58.78% of the sample has 6–10 years of experience. In industry distribution, 37.02% are from the manufacturing sector, and 33.97% work in the internet industry.

3.2. Measures

All theoretical concepts were measured using scales adapted from verified measurement methods published in high-impact domestic and international journals. In order to ensure content validity and lucidity, the English versions of the scales were back-translated into Chinese [49]. All variables were measured via 5-point Likert-type scales, where 1 indicated ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 represented ‘strongly agree.’

ERL: The ERL scale was adapted from Voegtlin’s (2011) [50] responsible leadership scale through a systematic process. First, we retained the core relational and stakeholder-focused structure of the original items. Then, we incorporated environmental elements into each item to reflect the focus on environmental responsibility. For example, the original item “My supervisor demonstrates awareness of stakeholders’ demands” was modified to “My manager demonstrates that he/she is aware of the environmental concerns of stakeholders.” This adaptation process involved expert review by three management scholars with expertise in environmental leadership to ensure content validity. A pilot test with 45 employees was conducted to assess item clarity and relevance before the final survey administration.

GM: This study used the GM scale developed by Chen et al. (2014) [22], which includes six items and has a unidimensional structure. An example item is: “Company members are free to discuss environmental issues” (Cronbach’s α = 0.711).

GHRM practices: This study utilized a six-item scale developed by Dumont et al. (2017) [27] to measure GHRM practices, featuring a unidimensional structure. An example item is: “My company sets environmental protection goals for employees” (Cronbach’s α = 0.783).

EGC: This study used a six-item scale developed by Chen & Chang (2013) [4] to measure EGC with a unidimensional structure. An example item is: “I suggest new methodologies to reach environmental goals” (Cronbach’s α = 0.720).

Control Variables: We controlled for gender, age, education level, and industry sector based on their established relationships with EGC. Gender (1 = male, 2 = female) was included because prior research indicates women exhibit stronger pro-environmental attitudes [51]. Age (categorized as <25, 26–35, 36–45, >45) was controlled, as younger employees may be more receptive to green innovation [52]. Education level (1 = vocational, 2 = bachelor’s, 3 = master’s or higher) was included because higher education correlates with greater environmental knowledge [53]. Industry sector (1 = manufacturing, 2 = internet, etc.) was controlled due to varying green innovation opportunities across industries [32].

3.3. Data Analysis Procedures

First, this study used AMOS 24software to perform confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the discriminant validity of the four core variables: ERL, GM, GHRM practices, and EGC. Second, IBM SPSS Statistics 27 software was employed to calculate variables’ means and standard deviations and to conduct bivariate correlation and regression analyses. Finally, the mediating effects, moderating effects, and moderated mediating effects were tested using PROCESS 3.3 (Model 4 and Model 7) in SPSS.

4. Results

4.1. Validation Factor Analysis

To evaluate the discriminant validity of the principal variables, a factor analysis that had been validated was conducted. The findings indicated that the four-factor model, comprising ERL, GHRM practices, GM, and EGC, exhibited a good fit (χ²/df = 2.339, RMSEA = 0.072, CFI = 0.919, TLI = 0.906, and SRMR = 0.0579). Therefore, these results validate the discriminant validity pertaining to the principal variables.

4.2. Common Method Bias Test

In this research, the Harman one-factor test was employed to evaluate common method bias [54]. A preliminary factor analysis was carried out for the key research variables, and the variance explained by the first principal component having eigenvalues exceeding 1 (without applying rotation) was 30.193%, which is below the 40% threshold. This indicates that common method bias did not significantly affect the results. Additionally, a validated factor analysis model (M1) was constructed, followed by a model (M2) that included methodological factors. When comparing the key fit indices of model M1 and model M2, the following results were obtained: Δ χ²/df = 0.225, Δ CFI = 0.048, Δ TLI = 0.048, Δ RMSEA = 0.08. The changes in CFI and TLI were less than 0.1, and the change in RMSEA was less than 0.05, indicating that incorporation of the common methodological factors did not significantly improve the model. So, no substantial common method bias was present in the measurements.

4.3. Correlation Analysis

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients of variables (N = 262).

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. gender	1.649	0.478
2. age	2.061	0.692	−0.062
3. edu	3.099	0.508	0.018	0.081
4. time	1.970	0.966	−0.131 *	0.810 **	0.061
5. sec	3.214	2.073	0.188 **	−0.103	−0.064	−0.043
6. ERL	4.295	0.389	−0.103	0.004	0.157 *	0.032	−0.146 *
7. GM	4.286	0.342	−0.066	0.093	0.152 *	0.052	−0.138 *	0.660 **
8. GHRM practices	4.202	0.569	−0.097	0.157 *	0.136 *	0.139 *	−0.245 **	0.659 **	0.692 **
9. EGC	4.231	0.469	−0.135 *	0.025	0.147 *	0.004	−0.119	0.554 **	0.652 **	0.577 **

Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01; ERL = Environmentally responsible leadership, GM = Green Mindfulness, GHRM practices = Green human resource management practices, EGC = Employees’ Green Creativity.

shows that ERL has a beneficial association with GM (r = 0.597, p < 0.01) and with EGC (r = 0.493, p < 0.01). GM also demonstrates a vital beneficial association with EGC (r = 0.652, p < 0.01), offering initial backing to the hypotheses in this research.

4.4. Hypothesis Testing

In this research, the hierarchical regression method was used to validate the research hypotheses, and

Table 2. Hierarchical regression results.

Variables	GM			EGC
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
Gender	−0.049	0.001	0.001	−0.128 *	−0.086	−0.087
Age	0.121	0.185	0.066	0.050	0.100	0.008
Edu	0.140 *	0.040	0.017	0.144 *	0.062	0.042
Time	−0.066	−0.121	−0.091	−0.065	−0.110	−0.049
Sec	−0.110	−0.027	0.044	−0.084	−0.015	−0.002
ERL		0.653 **	0.473 **		0.536 **	0.206 *
GM						0.505 **
GHRM practices			0.516 **
ERL×GHRM practices			0.206 *
R2	0.047	0.451	0.577	0.049	0.321	0.447
F	2.552 *	34.925 **	43.135 **	2.662 *	20.135 **	31.100 **

Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01; ERL = Environmentally responsible leadership, GM = Green Mindfulness, GHRM practices = Green human resource management practices, EGC = Employees’ Green Creativity.

presents the results of the hierarchical regression. We assessed potential multicollinearity concerns by computing variance inflation factors (VIFs) for all predictor variables. The highest observed VIF (2.515) fell substantially below the conventional threshold of 5, suggesting minimal multicollinearity effects in our regression models.

The results were probed against Hypotheses 1 and 2. Model 5 indicated that, following the control of gender, age, education level, work experience, and industry, ERL showed a significant positive association with EGC (b = 0.321, p < 0.01), thus supporting Hypothesis 1. Model 2 indicated that, after controlling for the same variables, ERL positively predicted GM (b = 0.451, p < 0.01), supporting Hypothesis 2.

Results were tested for Hypothesis 3. Model 6 indicates that after including both ERL and GM within the regression equation, GM positively affected EGC (b = 0.462, p < 0.01). Nevertheless, the beneficial outcome of ERL on EGC is substantially reduced (b = 0.141, p < 0.05) compared to Model 5. This suggests that ERL indirectly affects EGC through GM, thereby supporting Hypothesis 3. To empirically evaluate this mediated relationship, we conducted mediation analysis using Hayes’ PROCESS macro (Model 4) in SPSS, specifically examining GM’s intermediary role. The results showed that the indirect effect of ERL on EGC via GM was 0.402, with a 95% confidence interval of [0.269, 0.576], which did not include 0. Hypothesis 3 was further confirmed.

For test results for Hypotheses 4 and 5, Model 3 shows that the interaction term between ERL and green GHRM practices has a significant positive effect on GM (b = 0.577, p < 0.01). To visualize the moderating effect of GHRM practices between ERL and GM more clearly, this study conducted a simple slope analysis. As shown in Figure 2, when the level of GHRM practices is low, ERL has a significant positive effect on GM (b = 0.236, p < 0.01). However, when the level of GHRM practices is high, ERL has a more pronounced positive effect on GM (b = 0.348, p < 0.01). Thus, Hypothesis 4 is supported. To test Hypothesis 5, we used the PROCESS (Model 7) plugin in SPSS software for the analysis, and the results are presented in

Table 3. Reconciliation intermediation model analysis results.

Grouping Statistics	Effect	BootSE	BootLLCI	BootULCI
Low GHRM practices (−1SD)	0.243	0.078	0.097	0.405
High GHRM practices (+1SD)	0.340	0.119	0.156	0.618
Intergroup differences	0.097	0.041	0.059	0.213

. Under the circumstances of a low degree of GHRM practices, the indirect effect of ERL on EGC through GM is 0.243, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of [0.097, 0.405], which did not include 0. Under the circumstances of a high degree of GHRM practices, the indirect effect of ERL on EGC via GM is 0.340, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of [0.156, 0.618], which does not contain 0. The difference between the two groups is 0.097, with a 95% confidence interval of [0.059, 0.213]. Therefore, Hypothesis 5 is supported.

4.5. Summary of Findings

This study tested the hypotheses through hierarchical regression and the PROCESS model. The hypothesized direct effect of ERL on EGC was empirically supported (b = 0.536, p < 0.01), aligning with SCT’s logic that leadership modeling drives innovation. Meanwhile, ERL had a significant indirect effect on EGC via GM (indirect effect = 0.402, 95% CI = [0.269, 0.576]), accounting for 42.8% of the total effect, which confirmed the “observation-cognition-behavior” transmission path and supplemented research on cognitive mediation mechanisms. GHRM practices positively moderated the ERL→GM relationship (b = 0.206, p < 0.05). Specifically, the influence of ERL on GM was 47.5% stronger in high-GHRM practice contexts (b = 0.348) than in low-GHRM practice contexts. GHRM interventions strengthened the ERL→GM→EGC mediation chain, elevating the indirect effect by 39.9% (from 0.243 to 0.340), indicating that institutional support enhances the effectiveness of leaders’ cognitive influence. In terms of effect sizes, both the direct and indirect effects of ERL were medium, while GHRM practices’ moderating effect was small but practically meaningful. This study systematically reveals the multilevel mechanism of “leadership behavior–cognitive mediation–institutional moderation,” providing theoretical and empirical support for green leadership practices.

5. Discussion

5.1. Overview of Key Findings

In the context of global sustainability challenges, EGC is indispensable for organizations seeking to actualize green transformation and attain sustainability targets. Grounded in SCT, this study systematically analyzes the mediating processes through which ERL impacts EGC, employing a multi-wave survey design with 262 corporate employees. The results support all hypothesized relationships. The results of the study provide evidence of a significant positive relationship between ERL and EGC, indicating that leaders who emphasize the environmental concerns of both internal and external stakeholders are associated with higher levels of employees’ engagement in green innovation activities. This association suggests that ERL may be an important factor to consider when examining the antecedents of EGC. Furthermore, GHRM practices act as a key mediating factor in the ERL→EGC relationship, uncovering the underlying transmission mechanism of “leadership demonstration→cognitive internalization→innovation behavior”. Notably, GHRM practices not only amplify the direct salutary effect of ERL on GM but also strengthen the indirect effect of ERL on EGC through GM. This highlights a significant association between leadership behaviors and organizational practices, indicating that their combined presence is strongly correlated with the achievement of sustainability goals.

5.2. Theoretical Explanation for the Findings

First, the findings demonstrate that ERL significantly influences EGC through behavioral modeling effects. By observing the environmental concepts embodied by leaders in resource allocation and project design, employees gradually internalize these concepts into their own cognitive systems, which ultimately translate into actual green innovation behaviors [37,55]. This mechanism aligns precisely with SCT’s fundamental proposition that individuals acquire new behavioral patterns through observational learning. While existing research has made progress in examining environmental leadership—including conceptual clarification, measurement development, and theoretical foundation establishment [56]—the specific mechanisms through which ERL affects EGC remain insufficiently understood. Although prior studies have established relationships between various leadership styles and EGC [32], ERL as an emerging paradigm that reconciles environmental considerations across internal and external organizational stakeholders [17] has received limited scholarly attention regarding its unique impact mechanisms on EGC. The present study addresses this gap by developing an “observation-perception-action” theoretical framework to analyze the ERL-EGC relationship, overcoming the limitations of traditional approaches that overemphasize resource conservation or social exchange theories.

Second, grounded in SCT, this study reveals the critical mediating role of GM in the ERL-EGC relationship. ERL encourages employees to maintain a sustained focus on the environment through regular discussions of environmental issues, collaboration on green projects, and other forms of interaction. This sustained focus heightens employees’ awareness of environmental issues and stimulates the generation of innovative solutions [22]. For example, when leaders consistently facilitate environmental knowledge-sharing forums, employees develop heightened ecological consciousness that subsequently generates more innovative sustainable solutions. These findings directly support the core premise of SCT: observational learning facilitates behavioral modification [19]. However, existing leadership-innovation research exhibits notable limitations. While scholars have investigated conventional mediators like organizational identification and work motivation [16,55], these general constructs inadequately capture the domain-specific cognitive mechanisms peculiar to environmental management. The introduction of GM as a field-specific construct in this study effectively bridges this theoretical gap, representing a significant advancement in the literature.

Finally, grounded in SCT, this study systematically examines the boundary conditions under which GHRM practices moderate the ERL-EGC relationship. Systematic green skills training and environmental performance incentives offer employees the essential support required to translate leadership-modeled behaviors into practical actions [27,30,45]. When organizations implement systematic green training, employees are better equipped to effectively translate leaders’ environmental concepts into innovative practices. However, current research exhibits a significant gap in understanding organizational contextual mechanisms. Although GHRM practices have been shown to improve employees’ environmental performance [57,58], most studies fail to examine their interaction with leadership behaviors, particularly the cross-level “institutional-cognitive-behavioral” transduction process. By integrating leadership theory and HRM research perspectives, this study uncovers the pivotal function of institutionalized policies in expediting the transformation process from GM to EGC. This provides a novel analytical framework for understanding the interaction between the organizational context and individual cognition.

5.3. Alignment with Previous Research

This study provides three significant contributions to the literature. First, by introducing the construct of ERL, we advance beyond traditional green transformational leadership frameworks [4] to incorporate the critical role of external stakeholder integration in fostering EGC. While prior research has predominantly focused on internal organizational factors, our work systematically examines how environmental demands from external stakeholders (e.g., suppliers, customers) substantively influence EGC. Second, our investigation of GM as a mediating mechanism both replicates and extends Chen et al.’s (2015) findings regarding the EGC-innovation relationship [24]. This dual outcome demonstrates theoretical continuity while deepening understanding of how leadership behaviors translate into employee innovation through cognitive processes. Finally, our identification of GHRM practices as a boundary condition responds to Renwick et al.’s (2013) call for research integrating leadership and HRM perspectives [26]. By empirically demonstrating how institutional support enhances leadership effectiveness, we provide robust evidence for distinguishing ERL as a unique theoretical construct within green leadership literature.

5.4. Implications of Key Patterns

The findings demonstrate that the theoretical model suggests ERL’s association with EGC may operate through GM, with GHRM practices serving as a contextual amplifier of this relationship. These results establish a theoretical foundation for organizations to develop sustainable innovation ecosystems by elucidating the synergistic interplay between leadership modeling and institutional support systems. From an SCT perspective, this model reveals how leadership behaviors and organizational structures work together to support green innovation. When leaders model environmental responsibility and organizations provide supportive structures, employees are more likely to develop green creative behaviors.

6. Conclusions

This study explored the relationships between ERL and EGC based on SCT using a cross-sectional, multi-wave design. The results reveal several important associations: First, ERL shows a positive relationship with EGC. Second, GM appears to function as a significant mediator in the relationship between ERL and EGC. Third, GHRM practices positively moderate the association between ERL and GM. Finally, GHRM practices moderate the indirect relationship between ERL and EGC via GM.

6.1. Implications

6.1.1. Theoretical Implication

First, this study extends the theoretical boundaries of sustainable leadership research by integrating ERL with EGC. The findings demonstrate that ERL effectively stimulates EGC through dual mechanisms of value dissemination and behavioral modeling, wherein leaders serve as observable exemplars of environmental stewardship [59]. Distinct from traditional green transformational leadership’s predominant focus on internal organizational dynamics [60], ERL systematically incorporates external stakeholder considerations, thereby advancing a more comprehensive theoretical framework for examining green leadership effectiveness. The mechanism operates through three sequential stages: leaders model environmental responsibility (cognition), employees internalize these values through cognitive processing, and this internalization translates into green innovation outputs; this not only reveals how ERL systematically integrates environmental concepts into the innovation process [27] but also provides novel insights into organizational mechanisms for sustainable development [61]. These findings offer significant theoretical contributions and practical implications for ecologically conscious organizational development.

Second, this investigation identifies GM as a pivotal cognitive mediator in the ERL-EGC relationship, substantially advancing understanding of the psychological processes underlying leadership-driven green innovation. Grounded in SCT, the results indicate that ERL cultivates employees’ sustained environmental awareness (GM) through behavioral modeling and value internalization [37], which subsequently facilitates the systematic translation of ecological consciousness into innovative behaviors [24]. Employees exhibiting elevated GM levels demonstrate enhanced capabilities in environmental knowledge assimilation, problem identification, and sustainability-oriented innovation integration [22]. This cognitive mediation mechanism explicitly delineates the complete “leadership demonstration→cognitive internalization→behavioral manifestation” transmission sequence. As a domain-specific cognitive construct, GM directly reflects the degree of employees’ environmental responsibility internalization, thus representing a precise intervention target for fostering organizational green innovation cultures.

Finally, this research elucidates the critical boundary role of GHRM practices in the ERL-EGC relationship, representing a significant advancement in multilevel sustainability theory. The evidence indicates that organizational-level GHRM practices enhance ERL’s behavioral credibility through institutionalized interventions, including environmental training, performance evaluation systems, and sustainable job design [26,27]. Furthermore, these practices significantly improve both GM development and its behavioral translation through structural support mechanisms. These findings establish a closed-loop “leadership demonstration→institutional reinforcement→cognitive consolidation→innovative output” model, which deepens theoretical understanding of SCT’s situational moderators while providing empirical support for cross-level integration of leadership and HRM theories [27,62]. The demonstrated enhancement of ERL’s indirect effect through GM under robust GHRM systems offers organizations an evidence-based approach for aligning leadership development with systemic sustainability interventions.

6.1.2. Managerial Implication

First, this study finds a notable positive correlation between ERL and EGC via the “role-modeling-cognitive processing” pathway within the framework of SCT. This correlation offers valuable insights that can guide organizational leadership development. Companies can integrate environmental responsibility awareness and stakeholder management modules into structured training programs. For example, they can incorporate environmental objectives into the leadership performance evaluation system (e.g., requiring leaders to regularly report on the outcomes of environmental cooperation with external stakeholders, such as suppliers and communities) and build a ‘green leadership case base’ for managers to learn from and emulate. Simultaneously, senior managers should publicly commit to environmental policies and participate in decision-making regarding green projects to send clear signals of environmental values to employees, thus strengthening employees’ recognition of the organization’s environmental goals.

Second, the emphasis should be on enhancing GM, the core driver underlying employees’ green innovation behaviors. Since individuals with high GM are more inclined to engage in green behaviors [36], organizations should attach great importance to GM. Given the mediating role of GM identified in this study, organizations should conduct regular training sessions to raise employees’ environmental awareness and guide them to focus on environmental issues. Organizations should implement a digital platform dedicated to environmental knowledge exchange, facilitating employee access to sustainability-related information and resources and the prompt exchange of green information to strengthen their understanding of sustainable development. The development of team-based work systems should prioritize the enhancement of communicative processes and collaborative dynamics to foster environmentally sustainable innovation. Leveraging the mediating role of GM, the environmental responsibility of leaders can be translated into employees’ green creativity, thereby promoting the organization’s green development.

Finally, organizations need to build a comprehensive and systematic GHRM practices system. GHRM practices can be systematically incorporated into an organization’s strategic sustainability planning framework. By constructing a GHRM practices system, the green innovation behaviors of employees can be effectively stimulated. Consistent with our empirical findings demonstrating GHRM practices’ motivational influence on pro-environmental behaviors, organizations should incorporate environmental consciousness as a key selection criterion during recruitment to identify candidates with strong ecological values and sustainability potential. In terms of training, a systematic environmental management training program should be implemented to improve employees’ knowledge and skills in green practices. Additionally, environmentally oriented performance evaluation criteria and innovative green incentive mechanisms should be established. Research has shown that these measures can effectively stimulate green innovation behaviors among employees and better integrate GHRM practices into the organization’s sustainable development strategy.

6.2. Research Limitations and Future Directions

Although this study employed a multi-temporal data collection approach to mitigate methodological bias, the following limitations persist: First, despite employing a multi-temporal design, this study remains fundamentally cross-sectional and correlational, precluding causal inferences. Although we observed associations among ERL, GM, GHRM practices, and EGC, these findings do not establish definitive causal relationships. Future research could incorporate longitudinal tracking or experimental designs. By observing the dynamic relationships between leadership behaviors, cognitive states, and innovation behaviors over time, or by manipulating the independent variables, the explanatory power of the theory could be enhanced, and the causal mechanisms could be precisely identified. Second, while we implemented procedural remedies (e.g., multi-wave surveys, Harman’s one-factor test) to address common method bias, these techniques have inherent limitations. For instance, Harman’s test may fail to detect more subtle forms of bias, and temporal separation alone cannot fully eliminate self-report biases. Future studies should adopt more robust approaches, such as marker variable techniques or latent method factor analyses, to provide stronger controls for method variance. Combining these with objective measures of green creativity (e.g., supervisor ratings or innovation patents) would further validate our findings. Third, the present research focused specifically on examining GM as the mediating mechanism linking ERL to EGC. Future research could explore other factors such as green job redesign [29], green psychological climate [27], environmental knowledge [63], and green psychological capital [58]. Finally, as Bloom and Van (2010) noted, management practices may vary across companies, sectors, and countries [64]. The sample in this study was restricted to young employees in the manufacturing and internet industries, which fails to adequately represent the diversity of different industries (e.g., services, agriculture) and countries/regions. Consequently, the results’ generalizability is constrained. Future cross-industry and cross-country comparative studies are required to examine the cultural and industry adaptability of the moderating effect of GHRM practices and to improve the external validity of the findings.