The Mediating Role of Sustainable Leadership in Green Human Resource Management Practices and Organizational Commitment: A Case Study in Turkey

Abstract

Today, businesses operate to maintain their assets sustainably and profitably, but they face resource scarcity and environmental problems. In order to overcome this problem, businesses should focus on environmental, social, and economic development while considering the environment. In this context, green human resource practices and sustainable leadership, which have emerged from green management philosophy, increase the environmental awareness of businesses and support them in protecting resources while also positively affecting many human resource metrics, such as performance and commitment at the business level. In recent years, definitions have been established, and scales have been developed within the scope of green human resource and sustainability leadership research, which has been a subject of interest in the relevant literature. Because studies measuring the effects of green human resource management (HRM) and sustainable leadership at the business level are rare, this work is important as it provides resources for further research. In this context, this research aimed to analyze the effects of green human resource management practices and sustainable leadership on employee commitment. In order to reach a general judgment about a system consisting of a large number of people and find answers to the research questions, the general screening model, which allows for single or relational screenings over the entire system or a group of samples to be taken from it, was selected. The correlational model, a type of quantitative research model, was used to examine the relationships between the variables within the scope of this research. According to the results, the effects of green HRM practices on organizational commitment change significantly through the mediation of sustainable leadership. The findings reveal that, for organizations seeking to foster a sustainable business culture, merely implementing green policies is insufficient; leaders must also embody these practices and motivate their workforce. Such an integrated strategy enhances both ecological sustainability and employee commitment, thereby securing a lasting competitive edge.

1. Introduction

Global warming, changes in seasonal temperatures, and the rapid depletion of resources affect businesses significantly. When businesses work to be sustainable and profitable in today’s competitive business environment, they pursue a green economy policy by focusing on the environment and humanity [1]. Green human resource management practices in businesses can be evaluated from the micro and macro perspectives. The macro perspective of green human resource management includes the relationship of the business with its external economic and social environment, while the micro perspective includes the employees in the internal environment of the business [2]. Green human resource management practices aim to support the green economy by approaching human resource functions from the perspective of sustainability and environmental protection and by furnishing employees with an awareness of these issues [3]. The objectives and processes of green human resource management are basic and structured on the following principal foundations: the selection, placement, and development of green talents; the determination of key performance indicators of these selected green talents; their performance evaluations; rewarding and motivating them; and the establishment of a green organizational culture within the enterprise by strengthening these talents [4]. A company focusing on green human resource management attaches importance to recruiting candidates with green economic awareness and then training its employees in sustainability and environmental protection. In this way, the effectiveness and success of the enterprise in terms of sustainability and environmental protection also increases [5]. For environmentally conscious organizations to maintain their existence under rapidly changing conditions and gain a competitive advantage, it is important that employees at all levels take responsibility for sustainability by improving their environmental behavior.

Today, leaders are defined as individuals who, in addition to inspiring and managing the teams that they work with, strive to protect the environment for a more livable and sustainable world so that their institutions can be sustainable and profitable. In this context, the need has emerged for sustainable leadership for a sustainable world [6]. A sustainable leader is a person who carries out management activities to use the business’s economic, financial, and human resources effectively without harming the environment [7]. Sustainable leadership is a leadership model that effectively uses and protects the existing material, spiritual, and environmental resources and preserves them for the future [8]. It is assumed that there are three main reasons for the increasing importance of sustainable leadership [9]:

• The need to structure management activities with a focus on sustainability for a sustainable world.
• The need to train current and future employees in sustainability.
• The increasing importance of sustainability across the world.

For a business to achieve sustainability, it must focus on social and environmental activities and reduce its negative impacts on people, the environment, and the economic environment in which it operates. In other words, corporate sustainability involves understanding businesses’ economic, ecological, and social impacts in the long-term value creation process, managing and reducing their negative impacts, and incorporating sustainability into their activities and strategies. However, for businesses to implement this concept, individuals with sustainable leadership characteristics—a new leadership concept—are needed [10].

Sustainable leaders are important at the personal, team, business, and societal levels. Sub-factors of sustainable leadership include creativity and personality at the personal level; communication with the team, relationship competencies, teamwork, organizational culture, and employee loyalty at the business level; and the image of the business and social responsibility at the social level. Based on these effects, sustainable leaders can be defined as individuals who have a vision of sustainability; are long-term oriented; have responsibilities at the personal, team, business, and society levels; proceed with cooperation and teamwork; and work toward creating an organizational culture with a focus on sustainability and its principles. In businesses where sustainable leadership is implemented, employees feel more secure and safe, their needs and demands are met, and their sense of belonging and commitment is high [11]. Sustainable leaders, due to their sensitivity to both internal and external environmental conditions and their sustainable vision, inspire trust in the people they work with and positively affect their corporate culture. Due to these characteristics, they play a supportive role in increasing employee loyalty in the teams that they work with [12]. Sustainable leaders care about themselves and their environment, support their employees’ development, and manage their team together in a high-performance manner, positively increasing corporate performance and organizational commitment [13]. To improve their sustainability performance and gain a competitive advantage, a firm’s leader should demonstrate sustainable ideas that effectively stimulate employees’ behavioral intentions toward environmental protection [14]. Sustainable leadership reflects the capacity to build trust and transcend personal interests for the sake of the group and organization, as well as defending personal integrity and showing sensitivity to the interests, rights, and ownership of stakeholders, including the wider society. In addition, sustainable leadership reflects team-building capacity and skills, social collective identity for followers, and the leader’s ability to inspire followers. Above all, sustainable leadership builds a motivated workforce by demonstrating extraordinary effort and energy [15].

Organizational commitment reflects an individual’s insistence on making sacrifices for the good of the organization and shows the individual’s interest in the organization. A committed employee devotes time to organizational activities [16]. Organizational commitment has become a focus of attention for management theorists in recent years because it plays an important role in employees’ adoption of organizational goals and values, their psychological integration with the organization, the strength of their desire to continue with the organization, and increasing their motivation and productivity. Theoretically, commitment can be considered in three dimensions: affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment [17]. Affective commitment is the most potent form of commitment. Affective commitment means being willing to continue one’s career in the same organization not because of need but because of desire, embracing the goals and values of the organization and being willing to make an effort for the organization [18,19]. Continuance commitment is based on the fear of losing the investments made by the individual while working in the organization [20]. According to Allen and Meyer [17], these investments can include the status, career, skills, and retirement opportunities acquired by the individual during their working period. In addition, the individual may think that they cannot find a similar job in another organization; continuance commitment is based on the costs of changing jobs. Since the cost of leaving the job is high, the individual continues to work in the organization. On the other hand, normative commitment stems from the employee’s desire to remain in the organization. The employee chooses to remain in the organization due to feelings such as loyalty, duty, and obligation. In normative commitment, the person continues to work not because of the obligation to remain in the organization and the existing network of relationships but because of the feeling of “I must stay” [21]. The common point in these three types of commitment is that a bond between the employee and the organization increases the employee’s continuity. Employees’ commitments may be for different reasons and at different levels. In strong emotional commitment, the continuation of membership in the organization is based on desire; in continuance commitment, it is based on need; and in normative commitment, it is based on necessity [22].

The increasing problem of employee engagement worldwide and in Turkey also threatens sustainability in organizations. However, when we look at the research, while the global employee engagement rate is 23% as of 2024, it is 15% in Turkey [23]. Of the remaining Turkish employees, 62% are disengaged, and 23% are completely disengaged. The employees defined as disengaged in the dataset are those who were known as “quiet quitters” at the end of 2022 and who only “work hard enough not to be fired”. Those who are completely disengaged are known as “loud quitters” who joined the workforce composition as of March 2023. In particular, loud quitters have a negative impact that culturally disrupts the rest of the company due to their toxic nature. Although the 2024 data are not yet fully available, some data to which we have partial access are enough to reveal the situation for some of the global focus metrics of HR teams, such as employee turnover rate. For example, as of the end of the first quarter of 2024, the employee turnover rate in Turkey was 34%, and 70% of human resource leaders in Turkey think that they have difficulty retaining talent. When we look at the engagement rate, it is very clear that 15% of employees, referred to as talent, feel engaged, and if this rate determines the current sustainability, increasing it will have a significant leverage effect. The talent shortage, which has reached 75% worldwide and 76% in Turkey, creates a labor market where three out of every four candidates reached by recruitment teams today either do not have enough depth for the position or are not interested in the position. Under these conditions, the need for leaders who act with a sustainable leadership approach to both attract and retain talent becomes more evident [24,25].

With the increase in global environmental problems and the importance of sustainable development goals in the 21st century, organizations need to review their traditional management approaches. In this context, green human resource management (green HRM) practices play a critical role in achieving the environmental sustainability goals of organizations [26]. However, the effectiveness of these practices is largely directly related to the organization’s leadership approach and employees’ commitment to this process.

As sustainable leadership and green human resource management are entering the literature on organizational behavior and human resources as a new concept, it is important to define the content and boundaries of this concept. When the studies conducted in Turkey are examined, it is striking that they are relatively limited compared to the literature on other countries, with few quantitative studies to support them. Considering the importance of leaders with this vision in ensuring sustainability, which is frequently emphasized in the international arena in the 21st century and includes protecting the rights of life in the future, the studies conducted on sustainable leadership gain even more importance.

Although studies examining the effects of green HRM on organizational outcomes are increasing in the literature, the mechanisms underlying these relationships have not been sufficiently illuminated. In particular, the mediating role played by sustainable leadership in the relationship between green HRM practices and organizational commitment requires further theoretical and empirical research [27]. Based on this deficiency, the intent of this analysis is to examine the mediating role of sustainable leadership on the effects of green HRM practices on organizational commitment.

This study tests four main hypotheses to achieve this aim:

• Green HRM practices have a significant effect on sustainable leadership (H1).
• Sustainable leadership has a significant effect on organizational commitment (H2).
• Green HRM practices have a significant effect on organizational commitment (H3).
• Sustainable leadership plays a mediating role in the relationship between green HRM practices and organizational commitment (H4).

This study provides a theoretical framework from the resource-based view [28] and stakeholder theory [29] perspectives. According to the resource-based view, green HRM practices and sustainable leadership are considered to be valuable and rare resources that provide a competitive advantage to organizations. The stakeholder theory perspective examines how sustainable leaders increase organizational commitment by balancing multiple stakeholders’ expectations.

The resource-based view suggests that organizational sustainability can be achieved with valuable, rare, inimitable, and organizable resources. Our study conceptualizes GHRM practices as human resource competencies toward environmental sustainability. Sustainable leadership is considered a capability with social complexity that increases organizational commitment. Stakeholder theory emphasizes that organizations have responsibilities to shareholders and all stakeholder groups (employees, society, and the environment). Our model interprets GHRM practices as responding to employees’ environmental expectations. Sustainable leadership is modeled as a mechanism that strengthens organizational commitment through the capacity to balance multiple stakeholder interests. These two theories are complementary in our study: While the resource-based view emphasizes the role of internal resources in creating a competitive advantage, stakeholder theory explains how external social expectations shape the management of these resources. This dual perspective is of critical importance, especially in sustainability-focused research.

After presenting the literature review and developing hypotheses based on relevant studies, the article outlines the research methodology, presents the findings, and discusses the conclusions in comparison with the existing literature. Finally, suggestions for future research are provided.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses

2.1. Relationship Between Green Human Resource Management and Sustainable Leadership

The number of studies on green human resource management practices has increased, especially in the last decade. GHRM is related to the recruitment, selection, and placement of human resources, along with performance management, compensation, and fringe benefits. It has been observed that GHRM practices that ensure sustainability and encourage environmentally friendly behaviors among employees positively affect organizational citizenship and job performance [30]. In order to implement sustainability and green management practices in businesses, leaders with a sustainable focus are needed, and sustainable leadership is a leadership model based on this need [9].

When the theoretical foundations of green HRM are examined, they are connected to the resource-based view and stakeholder theory. In the resource-based view, green HR is seen as a resource that provides companies with a competitive advantage (Barney, 1991) [28]. In stakeholder theory, environmental sustainability meets the expectations of stakeholders such as employees, customers, and the government [29].

Sustainable leadership is the visionary and ethical leadership style that is required to ensure organizations’ long-term economic, social, and environmental success [31]. Its connection with green HR is as follows: sustainable leaders motivate employees for environmental initiatives [27]. Transformational leaders increase the sustainable behavior of employees by promoting green HR practices, such as environmentally friendly training [32]. Sustainable leaders adopt green HR systems to comply with external stakeholder expectations, such as legal regulations and customer demands [33].

With the adoption of sustainable development goals in the business world, green human resource management and sustainable leadership have gained importance. The academic literature shows a strong synergy between these two concepts and that they support one another. Pham and Kim [34] found that sustainable leadership increases firms’ performance through green HR practices. Pham et al. [35] revealed that green HR increases employees’ environmental participation with sustainable leadership. Beloskar et al. [36] confirmed that sustainable leadership and green HR have a strong positive correlation. Green HR and sustainable leadership are two critical elements that complement one another. In this context, the first hypothesis of this research is as follows:

H1. 

Green HRM practices have a significant effect on sustainable leadership.

2.2. The Relationship Between Sustainable Leadership and Organizational Commitment

The long-term success of organizations depends on the interaction between sustainable leadership practices and employee commitment. Sustainable leadership balances economic, social, and environmental performance and creates long-term value [31]; its essential characteristics are vision, ethics, transparency, and investment in employee development. Organizational commitment refers to employees’ emotional, normative, and continuing commitment to the organization [18]. Sustainable leadership is a critical factor that increases this commitment, acting as a resource that provides a competitive advantage from the resource-based perspective. From the stakeholder theory perspective, sustainable leadership supports organizational sustainability by increasing employee commitment.

According to Barney’s resource-based view [28], organizations need valuable, rare, inimitable, and sustainable resources to be superior to their competitors. Sustainable leadership and organizational commitment are strategic resources in this respect. Sustainable leaders strengthen the business’s human capital by increasing organizational commitment and providing the competitive advantage predicted by the resource-based view.

According to Freeman’s [29] stakeholder theory, organizations are responsible to shareholders and all stakeholders (employees, customers, and society). Sustainable leadership sees employees as primary stakeholders and increases their commitment. When the relationship between sustainable leadership and organizational commitment is examined from the stakeholder theory perspective, sustainable leaders offer fair wages, work–life balance, and career development [37]; this strengthens emotional commitment [17]. Sustainable leadership increases employees’ trust in the organization [38]. Trust creates a normative commitment (moral bond). Participation in corporate social responsibility projects creates a sense of belonging in employees [39]. Studies have shown a positive relationship between sustainable leadership and organizational commitment. Pham and Kim [34] found that sustainable leadership significantly and positively affects organizational commitment. Robertson and Barling [27] showed that environmental leadership behaviors increased employee commitment by 27%. There are few studies on this subject, and no study has been conducted specifically for Turkey. This research aims to guide both academics and practitioners by theoretically and empirically revealing the role of sustainable leadership in organizational commitment. In this context, Hypothesis 2 was formulated:

H2. 

Sustainable leadership has a significant effect on organizational commitment.

2.3. The Relationship Between Green Human Resource Management and Organizational Commitment

The importance of sustainability-oriented management practices is increasing in today’s business world. The relationship between green human resource management and organizational commitment, which is becoming increasingly important in the literature, plays a critical role in organizations achieving a sustainable competitive advantage. Green HR practices strengthen emotional commitment by creating a perception of environmental commitment in employees [40]. While the resource-based view emphasizes the role of green human resource management as a strategic resource, stakeholder theory sheds light on the management of multiple stakeholders’ expectations.

According to Barney’s resource-based view [28], green human resource practices affect the business in the sector and support the attraction of qualified human resources to the organization.

Freeman [29] examined green human resource management and organizational commitment from the perspective of stakeholder theory. Green human resource management practices ensure that employees comply with environmental values, and value compliance increases emotional commitment [34]. When customer and community expectations are met, normative commitment increases with the strengthening of the corporate reputation.

When the studies in the relevant literature are examined, we find that Pham et al. [35] argued that green human resource management has a significant effect on organizational commitment. Green human resource management practices impact organizational commitment to environmental sustainability [41,42,43]. Green human resources affect commitment at every point of contact between the employee and the organization. There are few studies on this subject, and no study has been conducted specifically for Turkey. This research aims to guide both academics and practitioners by theoretically and empirically revealing the role of green human resource management in organizational commitment. In this context, Hypothesis 3 was formulated:

H3. 

Green human resource management practices significantly affect organizational commitment.

2.4. The Mediating Role of Sustainable Leadership in the Relationship Between Green Human Resource Management and Organizational Commitment

According to the resource-based view of Barney [28], green human resource management and sustainable leadership provide a competitive advantage via their valuable, rare, inimitable, and organized features. Sustainable leaders increase organizational commitment by effectively implementing green human resource management practices, preparing the company’s human resources for the future [44], and transforming them into strategic resources by integrating green competencies into the organizational culture [40].

According to Freeman’s [29] stakeholder theory perspective, sustainable leaders balance the expectations of all stakeholders, including employees. Green human resource practices increase commitment by ensuring that employees comply with environmental values. Sustainable leadership aligns employees’ environmental values with the organizational goals [34]. This strengthens normative commitment by managing multiple stakeholders’ expectations [39].

A review of the existing literature revealed no study that highlights the strategic mediating function of sustainable leadership through the combined lens of the resource-based view and stakeholder theory. Hence, this work aims to guide academics and practitioners by theoretically and empirically revealing the mediating role of sustainable leadership in the relationship between green human resource management and organizational commitment. In this context, Hypothesis 4 was formulated:

H4. 

Sustainable leadership mediates the relationship between green human resource management and organizational commitment.

3. Materials and Methods

In order to reach a general judgment about a system consisting of a large number of people and find answers to the research questions, the general screening model, which allows for single or relational screenings over the entire system or a group of samples to be taken from it, was selected. The sample for this study consisted of 219 white-collar workers working in different sectors in Istanbul.

This research was conducted using an online survey method, and each participant filled out an online consent form to ensure confidentiality and ethical compliance. This study employed an online survey method to collect data from employees across various industries, ensuring efficiency, broad reach, and cost-effectiveness. Surveys were distributed using Google Forms. The participants reviewed a disclosure form before proceeding. No personally identifiable data were collected. This research was conducted according to ethical principles. During the data collection process, explicit consent was obtained from the participants, and participation was voluntary. Before starting the research, the participants were informed about the purpose of the study and the principle of confidentiality, and that the data would be used only for scientific purposes. No personally identifiable information was collected within the study’s scope; the data’s confidentiality and anonymity were meticulously protected. Full compliance with human rights, individual freedoms, and research ethics standards was ensured during the research process.

The correlational model, one of the quantitative research models, was used to examine the relationships between the variables within the scope of this research. The correlational research model is a quantitative method that examines relationships between variables. In this model, variables are not manipulated; only existing relationships are analyzed. Correlation coefficients are used to determine the directions (positive/negative) and strengths of the relationships between variables. However, this method does not establish causation; it only reveals statistical associations.

A survey form consisting of four sections was used in this study. In the first section, a demographic information form was used, and in the second section, a “Green human resources management” scale developed by Shah [45], and whose Turkish validity and reliability studies were conducted by Öselmiş [46], was used. The green human resource management scale has a multidimensional structure with a 5-point Likert scale consisting of seven dimensions—namely, green job design, green personnel selection and placement, green training and development, green performance management, green wage management, green occupational health and safety, and green employee relations—and can be measured with 26 items. In the third part, the “Sustainable Leadership” scale, consisting of 10 items designed by Dalati et al. [15] and evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale in a single dimension, and whose Turkish validity and reliability studies were conducted by Zorlu and Korkmaz, was used [47]. In the fourth section, a scale was used to evaluate leadership structure on a 5-point Likert scale consisting of 18 questions grouped under three dimensions, designed by Allen and Meyer [17], and whose Turkish reliability and validity were studied by Dağlı et al. (2018) [48].

Data Analysis

Data analysis was performed using SPSS (version 21.0) and AMOS (version 22.0) statistical software. The psychometric properties of the scales were evaluated through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for construct validity, item–total correlation analysis for discriminant validity, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for internal consistency reliability.

CFA is an advanced statistical method that was designed to test theoretical models containing latent variables in empirical research, representing a specialized form of structural equation modeling that evaluates the validity of a predetermined theoretical framework. Within structural equation modeling (SEM) methodologies, establishing adequate model fit constitutes an essential prerequisite for analysis. In the evaluation of model fit, fit indices such as the “Chi-square statistic to the degree of freedom ratio” (χ²/sd), “statistical significance of individual parameter estimates” (t value), “fit indices based on residuals” (SRMR, GFI), “fit indices based on independent models” (NNFI, CFI), and “root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)” are commonly used [49]. The Cronbach’s alpha technique is used within the scope of reliability analysis to examine the consistency between test scores. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient measures internal consistency reliability, with values above 0.70 typically considered to be acceptable. As a complement to this, item–total correlation analysis examines the relationship between individual item scores and the overall scale score. In general, it can be said that items with an item–total correlation of 0.30 or higher discriminate individuals well and that item–total correlations of 0.20 or higher are acceptable [50]. The frequency and percentage table shows the distribution of the participants according to their demographic variables. The descriptive statistics table presents the scale’s psychometric properties, showing mean values, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis for both the full scale and its subscales following reliability and validity testing. In the normality testing of the scale scores, the skewness and kurtosis coefficients used in the standard distribution feature of the scores obtained from a continuous variable were considered. When the skewness and kurtosis values fall within the ±1 range, the distribution can be considered to be approximately normal. For non-normally distributed data, parametric analyses may be employed following appropriate transformations, such as square root, logarithmic, or inverse transformations [50]. As the scale scores were normally distributed, comparisons by gender, marital status, and generation were conducted using independent-sample t-tests, while educational attainment and years of professional experience were analyzed through one-way ANOVA. When a significant difference was observed in the ANOVA test, the LSD post hoc test was used to determine which groups the differences were between when the variances were homogeneous (p > 0.05 for Levene’s test statistics); the Games–Howell post hoc test was used when the variances were not homogeneous. Bivariate relationships among variables were examined using Pearson’s correlation coefficients. To assess the mediating effect of sustainable leadership in the relationship between green human resources and organizational commitment, path analysis with mediator variables was conducted. The results were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05.

4. Results

4.1. Demographic Findings

The distribution of the participants’ demographic characteristics is shown in

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the participants.

Demographic Variable	Groups	n	%
Gender	Female	94	42.9
	Male	125	57.1
Marital Status	Married	146	66.7
	Single	73	33.3
Date of Birth (Generation)	Gen X (1965–1979)	50	22.8
	Gen Y (1980–1999)	169	77.2
Education	High School	26	11.9
	Associate’s Degree	28	12.8
	Bachelor’s Degree	81	37.0
	Master’s Degree or Above	84	38.4
Experience in Business Life	1–3 Years	22	10.0
	3–5 Years	21	9.6
	5–10 Years	38	17.4
	10–20 Years	82	37.4
	21 Years or More	56	25.6

.

Of the 219 employees who participated in the survey, 42.9% were female and 57.1% were male; 66.7% of the participants were married and 33.3% were single; 1.7% of the participants were between the ages of 18 and 20, 40.5% were between the ages of 21 and 25, and 7.8% were between the ages of 26 and 30; 22.8% of the participants were from Generation X (1965–1979), and 77.2% were from Generation Y (1980–1999), according to their dates of birth; 11.9% of the participants had a high school degree, 12.8% had an associate degree, 37% had a bachelor’s degree, and 38.4% had a postgraduate education. The total length of work experience of 10% of the participants was between 1 and 3 years, while 9.6% had 3–5 years, 17.4% had 5–10 years, 37.4% had 10–20 years, and 25.6% had 21 years or more. The study population consists of working professionals in Türkiye. Ensuring an adequate sample size was critical for maintaining the validity and reliability of the research. Given the extensive workforce population in Türkiye, it was not feasible to obtain a sample that perfectly represented the entire population through proportional sampling. However, the study secured a participant count that exceeds the minimum recommended ratio of respondents per survey item, thereby meeting the fundamental sampling requirements for scale validation.

4.2. Reliability and Validity Measures

The confirmatory factor analysis fit indices for the green HRM practices, organizational commitment, and sustainable leadership scales are presented in

Table 2. Model fit indices obtained from confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

		GHRMS		OCS		SLS
Model Fit Indices	Reference	CFA-1 * 26 Items, 7 Dimensions	CFA-2 * 22 Items, 7 Dimensions	CFA-1 18 Items, 3 Dimensions	CFA-2 14 Items, 3 Dimensions	CFA-1 10 Items, Single Dimension	CFA-2 10 Items, Single Dimension
χ2/df	<5	2.702	2.091	4.021	2.214	5.674	3.466
SRMR	≤0.08	0.041	0.028	0.108	0.054	0.031	0.023
GFI	≥0.90	0.782	0.857	0.771	0.907	0.834	0.919
NNFI	≥0.90	0.923	0.958	0.805	0.939	0.923	0.960
CFI	≥0.90	0.934	0.966	0.832	0.952	0.940	0.974
RMSEA	≤0.10	0.088	0.071	0.118	0.075	0.146	0.100
Factor Loading	>0.40	0.75/0.95	0.81/0.96	0.49/0.88	0.60/0.89	0.84/0.93	0.82/0.94
Inter-Dimensional Correlations	<0.95	0.69/0.98	0.69/0.92	0.03/0.84	0.14/0.83	-	-
Number of Covariance Links		-	-	-	2	-	6

Source: Ref. [49]. * Covariance link was established. GHRMS: Green Human Resource Management Scale; OCS: Organizational Commitment Scale; SLS: Sustainable Leadership Scale; CFA: Confirmatory Factor Analysis; CFA-1 *: Initial model; CFA-2 *: Modified/respecified model; RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI: Comparative Fit Index; χ²/df: Chi-square/Degrees of Freedom; SRMR: Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; GFI: Goodness-of-Fit Index; NNFI: Non-Normed Fit Index/Tucker–Lewis Index; CFI: Comparative Fit Index.

.

Initial confirmatory factor analysis of the green HRM practices scale revealed strong item factor loadings but inadequate model fit indices and excessively high inter-dimensional correlations (>0.95). First, four items with high correlations with the items in other dimensions were identified and removed from the scale, and the CFA was repeated. In the analysis phase, the item “My company performs the personnel selection and hiring process without using paper” from the items measuring the green recruitment and selection dimension in our scale was removed due to its low factor loading, and the item “My company evaluates whether there is support from managers and colleagues to apply the learned content at work” from the items measuring the green training and development dimension was removed due to its loading on another dimension. In addition, the item “My company improves its skills to achieve environmental goals” from the green performance management dimension was included in the green training and development dimension, and the item “My company has a communication environment that enables the dissemination of green knowledge, skills and goals” from the green performance management dimension was included in the green recruitment and selection dimension. The analysis revealed that the model fit indices generally achieved good and excellent levels (except for the GFI) in the 22-item and 7-dimensional structure (Table 2), the correlation between the factors was at appropriate levels, and the items had high factor loadings on the factors to which they belonged. Although the GFI index, which is affected by the sample size (N = 219 in this study), was <0.90 because the SRMR was ≤0.08, a GFI cut-off value greater than 0.85 can still be an indicator of an acceptable fit. It was determined that the model fit indices generally reached good and very good levels (except GFI), the correlations between factors were at appropriate levels, and the items had high factor loadings on the factors they belonged to [51]. Table 2 shows that SRMR = 0.028 and GFI = 0.857; considering the sample size, the GFI index is at an acceptable level and the model is appropriate.

According to the first results of the confirmatory factor analysis of the organizational commitment scale, because it was determined that the item factor loadings in the scale were higher than 0.40 and the model fit indices were not at appropriate levels, four items with high correlations with items in other dimensions were first identified and removed from the scale, and the CFA was repeated. The following items were removed from the scale: 7. I feel no moral obligation to continue working with my current employer. 13. Even if I do not want to stay with my organization right now, I feel compelled to do so. 17. One of the few negative consequences of leaving this organization would be a scarcity of alternatives. 18. If I had not given so much of myself to this organization, I might consider working elsewhere. By establishing two covariance connections in the 14-item and 3-dimensional structure (Table 2), the analysis confirmed that the model fit indices achieved acceptable thresholds, with all factor loadings exceeding 0.40.

According to the first results of the confirmatory factor analysis of the sustainable leadership scale, although the item factor loadings in the scale were higher than 0.40, it was determined that the model fit indices were not at appropriate levels. First, using the modification suggestions, we repeated the CFA by establishing covariance connections (Table 2). It was determined that the model fit indices reached appropriate levels with 10 items and a one-dimensional structure, and the factor loadings were higher than 0.40. The factor loadings obtained as a result of the confirmatory factor analysis of the scales, the t values of the factor loadings, and the item–total correlation and Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients obtained within the scope of the reliability analysis are shown in

Table 3. CFA and reliability analysis findings.

Green HRMS (α = 0.981)						OCS (α = 0.890)						SLS (α = 0.73)
Items	B	SH	Std. β	t	r	Items	B	SH	Std. β	t	r *	Items	B	SH	Std. β	t	r
F1					0.941	F1					0.888	Sl1	1.000		0.88		0.87
Gh1	1		0.91		0.80	Oc1	1.000		0.81		0.74	Sl2	0.922	0.043	0.84	21.27 **	0.84
Gh2	1.029	0.046	0.92	22.48 **	0.80	Oc2	0.804	0.088	0.60	9.09 **	0.54	Sl3	0.976	0.056	0.85	17.46 **	0.86
Gh3	1.007	0.045	0.92	22.38 **	0.84	Oc3	0.919	0.073	0.78	12.52 **	0.65	Sl4	0.968	0.055	0.85	17.52 **	0.86
F2					0.935	Oc4	0.844	0.083	0.66	10.22 **	0.58	Sl5	0.967	0.052	0.87	18.67 **	0.88
Gh5	1		0.91		0.83	Oc5	0.949	0.073	0.81	13.04 **	0.71	Sl6	0.952	0.059	0.82	16.18 **	0.83
Gh6	0.972	0.045	0.90	21.37 **	0.81	Oc6	0.955	0.080	0.75	11.97 **	0.65	Sl7	1.060	0.053	0.90	20.09 **	0.88
Gh7	0.995	0.044	0.91	22.42 **	0.83	F2					0.872	Sl8	1.046	0.052	0.90	20.13 **	0.88
F3					0.924	Oc8	1.000		0.65		0.58	Sl9	1.103	0.051	0.93	21.75 **	0.92
Gh8	1		0.89		0.86	Oc9	1.206	0.124	0.76	9.70 **	0.66	Sl10	1.147	0.052	0.94	22.03 **	0.90
Gh9	0.856	0.053	0.81	16.18 **	0.78	Oc10	1.377	0.127	0.89	10.87 **	0.75
Gh10	0.975	0.047	0.91	20.67 **	0.85	Oc11	1.137	0.116	0.77	9.79 **	0.67
Gh11	0.996	0.054	0.86	18.54 **	0.80	Oc12	1.122	0.117	0.75	9.56 **	0.67
F4					0.931	F3					0.856
Gh12	1		0.90		0.88	Oc14	1.000		0.73		0.22
Gh13	1.007	0.052	0.88	19.34 **	0.83	Oc15	1.194	0.103	0.89	11.59 **	0.35
Gh14	0.971	0.049	0.88	19.79 **	0.85	Oc16	1.038	0.091	0.82	11.43 **	0.23
Gh15	1.018	0.054	0.86	18.76 **	0.84
F5					0.958
Gh17	1		0.96		0.85
Gh18	0.921	0.032	0.93	29.18 **	0.80
Gh19	0.906	0.037	0.89	24.50 **	0.78
Gh20	0.939	0.036	0.91	26.38 **	0.83
F6					0.885
Gh21	1		0.89		0.85
Gh22	1.037	0.053	0.89	19.47 **	0.84
F7					0.910
Gh24	1		0.93		0.83
Gh25	0.951	0.045	0.90	21.30 **	0.82

Note: ** p < 0.01; r: inter-item correlation; values in bold represent the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for each dimension. GHRMS: Green Human Resource Management Scale; OCS: Organizational Commitment Scale; SLS: Sustainable Leadership Scale; B: Unstandardized regression weights; SH: Standard errors for regression weights; Std. β: Standardized beta coefficients; t-values (critical ratio); F1–F7: Factors/Dimensions within GHRMS; Sl1–Sl10: Item codes for Sustainable Leadership Scale; Gh1–Gh25: Item codes for Green HRM Scale; Oc1–Oc16: Item codes for Organizational Commitment Scale; α: Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient; r *: Adjusted item-total correlation after scale purification.

.

According to the CFA findings for the green HRM practices scale, it can be seen that the factor loadings of the remaining 22 items in the dimensions to which they belong are between 0.75 and 0.96, and the t values are significant (p < 0.01) (Table 3). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient in the green HRM practices scale is 0.98, those of the sub-dimensions are 0.94/0.93/0.92/0.93/0.96/0.88/0.91, and the item–total correlations are higher than 0.30 (between 0.78 and 0.88). According to the findings of the validity and reliability analysis, the green HRM practices scale is reliable and valid with its 22-item and 7-dimensional structure.

According to the CFA findings for the organizational commitment scale, the factor loadings of the remaining 14 items in the dimensions to which they belong are between 0.60 and 0.89, and the t values are significant (p < 0.01) (Table 3). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient in the organizational commitment scale was found to be 0.89, those of the sub-dimensions were 0.89/0.87/0.86, and the item–total correlations were higher than 0.20 (between 0.22 and 0.75). According to the findings of the validity and reliability analysis, the organizational commitment scale was found to be a reliable and valid scale with its 14 items and three-dimensional structure.

According to the CFA findings for the sustainable leadership scale, the factor loadings of the 10 items in the scale were between 0.82 and 0.94, and the t values were significant (p < 0.01) (Table 3). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient in the sustainable leadership scale was found to be 0.97, and the item–total correlations were higher than 0.30 (between 0.83 and 0.92). According to the findings of the validity and reliability analysis, the sustainable leadership scale was found to be a reliable and valid scale with its 10 items and one-dimensional structure.

4.3. Descriptive Findings

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of scale scores.

Scales and Sub-Dimensions	N	Min.	Max.	$\overline{\mathbf{X}}$	SS	Skewness	Kurtosis
Green HRM Practices	219	1.00	5.00	3.07	1.01	−0.21	−0.79
Green Job Design	219	1.00	5.00	3.27	1.11	−0.40	−0.62
Green Recruitment and Selection	219	1.00	5.00	3.19	1.14	−0.35	−0.79
Green Training and Development	219	1.00	5.00	3.26	1.02	−0.28	−0.69
Green Performance Management	219	1.00	5.00	2.94	1.11	−0.09	−0.94
Green Compensation Management	219	1.00	5.00	2.65	1.16	0.14	−0.98
Green Occupational Health and Safety	219	1.00	5.00	2.95	1.15	−0.09	−0.97
Green Employee Relations	219	1.00	5.00	3.22	1.15	−0.42	−0.82
Organizational Commitment	219	1.00	5.00	3.19	0.72	−0.31	0.22
Affective Commitment	219	1.00	5.00	3.45	0.97	−0.35	−0.48
Continuance Commitment	219	1.00	5.00	3.30	0.96	−0.41	−0.31
Normative Commitment	219	1.00	5.00	2.83	1.01	−0.01	−0.78
Sustainable Leadership	219	1.00	5.00	3.71	0.99	−0.74	0.07

provides descriptive statistics for the scale scores.

According to Table 4, the mean score of the green HRM practices scale was 3.07 ± 1.01. This scale provided the lowest (1) and highest (5) scores, indicating that the employees’ perception of the company’s green HRM practices is at a medium level (100 × [3.07 − 1.00]/[5.00 − 1.00] = 51.7%).

The mean score of the organizational commitment scale was 3.19 ± 0.72. According to the lowest (1) and highest (5) scores that were obtained from the scale, the participants’ organizational commitment is at a medium level (100 × [3.19 − 1.00]/[5.00 − 1.00] = 54.7%).

The mean score of the sustainable leadership scale was 3.71 ± 0.99. The scale provided the lowest (1) and highest (5) scores, indicating that the participants’ perception of company managers’ sustainable leadership is high (100 × [3.71 − 1.00]/[5.00 − 1.00] = 67.7%).

4.4. Findings on the Relationship Between Green HRM Practices, Organizational Commitment, and Sustainable Leadership

Table 5. Relationship between green HRM practices, organizational commitment, and sustainable leadership.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
1—Green HRM Practices	1	0.88 **	0.90 **	0.93 **	0.94 **	0.87 **	0.92 **	0.89 **	0.57 **	0.51 **	0.54 **	0.23 **	0.46 **
2—Green Job Design		1	0.83 **	0.80 **	0.80 **	0.66 **	0.75 **	0.74 **	0.48 **	0.46 **	0.44 **	0.18 **	0.41 **
3—Green Recruitment and Selection			1	0.84 **	0.80 **	0.69 **	0.76 **	0.77 **	0.51 **	0.48 **	0.48 **	0.17 *	0.41 **
4—Green Training and Development				1	0.85 **	0.76 **	0.81 **	0.81 **	0.55 **	0.51 **	0.51 **	0.22 **	0.43 **
5—Green Performance Management					1	0.85 **	0.84 **	0.78 **	0.54 **	0.45 **	0.51 **	0.24 **	0.41 **
6—Green Compensation Management						1	0.81 **	0.72 **	0.53 **	0.39 **	0.50 **	0.29 **	0.33 **
7—Green Occupational Health & Safety							1	0.82 **	0.52 **	0.44 **	0.51 **	0.21 **	0.45 **
8—Green Employee Relations								1	0.5 **	0.49 **	0.5 **	0.14 *	0.46 **
9—Organizational Commitment									1	0.79 **	0.85 **	0.58 **	0.51 **
10—Affective Commitment										1	0.70 **	0.07	0.54 **
11—Continuance Commitment											1	0.20 **	0.58 **
12—Normative Commitment												1	0.04
13—Sustainable Leadership													1

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

includes the Pearson’s correlation analysis results on the relationship between green HRM practices, organizational commitment, and sustainable leadership.

Table 5 shows a positive and significant relationship between the employee perception score regarding green HRM practices in the enterprise and the organizational commitment score (r = 0.57; p < 0.05).

A positive and significant relationship was found between the employee perception score regarding green HRM practices in the enterprise and the organizational commitment score (r = 0.46; p < 0.05).

A positive and significant relationship was found between the organizational commitment score and the employee perception score regarding the sustainable leadership behaviors of managers (r = 0.51; p < 0.05).

4.5. Findings Relating to the Hypotheses

This study examined the mediating role of sustainable leadership in the relationship between green HRM practices and perceptions of organizational commitment (Figure 1). Baron and Kenny [52] defined the four steps of establishing mediation. The first three steps need to be tested as independent models:

Step 1: The independent variable must significantly affect the dependent variable (Path c). This step reveals that there is an effect that can be mediated.

Step 2: The independent variable must significantly affect the mediator variable (Path a). This step involves treating the mediator variable as a dependent variable.

Step 3: The mediator variable must significantly affect the dependent variable (Path b). The mediator variable is treated independently and is assumed to affect the dependent variable.

Step 4: In order to say that the mediator variable mediates the relationship between the independent and dependent variables (Path “c′” between the independent and dependent variables), the previously significant Path “c” must cease to be significant after the mediator variable is included in the model. If the significance of Path “c” in the model is not eliminated, the statistical significance of the indirect effect obtained can be determined using the Sobel test statistic.

The following hypotheses were tested for the research model: H1: Green HRM practices have a significant effect on sustainable leadership. H2: Sustainable leadership has a significant effect on organizational commitment. H3: Green HRM practices have a significant effect on organizational commitment. H4: Sustainable leadership plays a mediating role in the relationship between green HRM practices and organizational commitment.

Table 6. The mediating role of sustainable leadership in the relationship between green HRM practices and organizational commitment.

Model	Independent Variable	Path	Dependent Variable	H	β	t	p	R2
Independent Models	Green HRM Practices	→	Sustainable Leadership	H1 (a)	0.645	8.211	0.000	0.416
	χ2/sd = 2.576 SRMR = 0.043 GFI = 0.924  NNFI = 0.965  CFI = 0.975  RMSEA = 0.085
	Sustainable Leadership	→	Organizational Commitment	H2 (b)	0.658	8.895	0.000	0.433
	χ2/sd = 2.963 SRMR = 0.035 GFI = 0.885  NNFI = 0.949  CFI = 0.959  RMSEA = 0.095
	Green HRM Practices	→	Organizational Commitment	H3 (c)	0.477	7.077	0.000	0.228
	χ2/sd = 2.757 SRMR = 0.037 GFI = 0.856  NNFI = 0.948  CFI = 0.956  RMSEA = 0.090
Mediation Model	Independent Variable	Path	Dependent Variable	H	Mediator	DE	SBT	R2DE
	Green HRM Practices	→	Organizational Commitment	H4 (c′)	Sustainable Leadership	0.390	4.734 **	0.082
	χ2/sd = 2.307 SRMR = 0.043 GFI = 0.853  NNFI = 0.949  CFI = 0.957  RMSEA = 0.077

Note: **: p < 0.01; IE: indirect effect; SBT: Sobel test statistics; R²_DE: variance due to indirect effect.

presents the results of the hypothesis test regarding the mediating role of sustainable leadership in the relationship between green HRM practices and organizational commitment.

H1. 

Accepted. Green HRM practices have a positive and significant effect on sustainable leadership (β = 0.64; t = 8.21; p < 0.05).

H2. 

Accepted. Sustainable leadership positively and significantly affects organizational commitment (β = 0.66; t = 8.89; p < 0.05).

H3. 

Accepted. Green HRM practices positively and significantly affect organizational commitment (β = 0.48; t = 7.08; p < 0.05).

H4. 

Accepted. In the relationship between green HRM practices and organizational commitment, sustainable leadership plays a mediating role (IE = 0.39; SBT = 4.73; p < 0.05). The effect of green HRM practices on organizational commitment (H3: β = 0.48) changes significantly through the mediation of sustainable leadership (H4: β = 0.25), and this change is approximately 8% (R²_DE = 0.077). In other words, when individuals’ sustainable leadership behaviors are perceived at a low level, the positive effect of green HRM practices on organizational commitment decreases significantly. When sustainable leadership behaviors are perceived at a high level, the positive effect of green HRM practices on organizational commitment increases significantly.

5. Discussion and Implications

The findings of this study offer important theoretical and practical contributions by elucidating the relationships among green human resource management practices, sustainable leadership, and organizational commitment within the framework of stakeholder theory and the resource-based view.

The positive impact of green HRM practices on sustainable leadership is consistent with stakeholder theory [29]. This theory emphasizes that organizations should meet the expectations of stakeholders, such as employees, society, and the environment. Green HRM practices strengthen commitment to environmental sustainability, enabling leaders to align corporate strategies with societal values. Sustainable leaders, in turn, increase employee commitment by integrating these values into their organizational culture. This finding supports those of previous studies showing that companies prioritizing sustainability gain legitimacy and trust in the eyes of stakeholders [53].

The resource-based view can explain the mediating role of sustainable leadership [28]. This theory argues that organizations’ unique resources create a competitive advantage. Green HRM practices develop human resources (e.g., employees with environmentally friendly values) and organizational resources (e.g., sustainable leadership as a strategic asset). Sustainable leaders create an intangible resource that increases employees’ commitment by creating a long-term vision and an ethical culture. This finding contributes to the literature on the resource-based view by revealing that sustainable leadership is a valuable, rare, and difficult-to-imitate resource.

The theoretical contributions of this study can be summarized as follows:

• It empirically proves the mediating role of sustainable leadership in the relationship between green HRM and organizational commitment;
• It presents a model that integrates the resource-based view and stakeholder theory;
• It contributes to the sustainability literature from a human resource perspective.

In terms of practical implications, the following suggestions in the categories “HR Policies”, “Leadership Development”, and “Corporate Strategy can be made:

• Human Resources Policies (HR Policies):
  • Sustainability-focused competencies (e.g., environmental awareness certificates) should be prioritized in job postings.
  • Sustainability-based topics, such as environmental awareness, waste management, and energy efficiency, should be included in training programs.
  • Green KPIs (e.g., carbon footprint reduction, participation in sustainability projects) should be integrated into performance evaluation systems.
  • Green committees should be established to increase employee participation, and employees should be actively involved in environmental projects.
• Leadership Development:
  • Leadership development programs should prioritize sustainability competencies (ethical decision-making, long-term strategic thinking, and stakeholder management).
  • Leaders should be provided mentorship and training to demonstrate exemplary behavior regarding environmental issues (e.g., reducing paper use and choosing sustainable transportation).
  • Leaders should be encouraged to align corporate values with environmental and social responsibility.
• Corporate Strategy and Governance
  • Boards of directors and policymakers should view sustainable leadership as an ethical responsibility and a strategic value.
  • Sustainability goals should be defined in line with the corporate vision and mission and disseminated throughout the organization.
  • Sustainability-based decision-making processes should be institutionalized within the organization (e.g., sustainability assessment in strategic plans).

This study examines the resource-based view (RBV) and stakeholder theory together to understand sustainable corporate performance comprehensively. While the RBV emphasizes internal strategic resources and competencies that provide a competitive advantage to firms, the stakeholder theory provides a framework for analyzing how firms manage their relationships with external stakeholders (e.g., employees, customers, NGOs, and regulatory bodies). The synthesis of these two theoretical approaches shows that firms can achieve long-term sustainability by using their internal resources and responding proactively to stakeholder demands. Thus, interaction with stakeholders becomes an external obligation and part of the firm’s strategic resource configuration. This integrated approach strengthens the theoretical contribution of this study by revealing that strategies for sustainability can only be effective when internal resources are managed in harmony with external expectations.

6. Conclusions and Future Research

This study examined the relationships between green HRM practices, sustainable leadership, and organizational commitment and tested the mediating role of sustainable leadership. The findings support all of the proposed hypotheses.

The research results show that green HRM practices have a positive and significant effect on sustainable leadership. This finding reveals that environmental sustainability-oriented human resource practices strengthen leaders’ sustainability vision and behaviors. This result supports the theoretical framework of Renwick et al. [26]’s research on the role of green HR in organizational change in the context of the USA, the UK, and Australia.

This study also revealed that sustainable leadership strongly and significantly affects organizational commitment. This finding is consistent with the views of Avery and Bergsteiner [31], who argued that sustainable leadership practices increase employees’ commitment, and is consistent with the results of their research in Australia. Management approaches based on ethical values and the long-term vision of sustainable leaders strengthen the emotional commitment of employees to the organization.

The direct effect of green HRM practices on organizational commitment was also significant. This result shows that human resource policies that are focused on environmental sustainability strengthen employees’ perception of organizational identity and increase their commitment levels.

This study’s most important finding is that sustainable leadership plays a significant mediating role in the relationship between green HRM practices and organizational commitment. This finding is consistent with environmental leadership studies conducted by Robertson and Barling in Canada [27]. Sustainable leaders increase employees’ commitment by effectively implementing green HRM policies and integrating environmental values into the organizational culture.

These findings emphasize the importance of organizations integrating green human resource practices and leadership strategies to achieve sustainability goals.

This study has shown that sustainable leadership is a critical bridge between green HRM practices and organizational commitment; from a stakeholder theory perspective, it emphasizes the importance of aligning HRM strategies with societal expectations; from a resource-based perspective, it positions sustainable leadership as a strategic resource that increases employees’ commitment. Organizations should invest in both green HRM and leadership development for long-term sustainability.

Regarding the adaptability of the recommendations to different organizational contexts, while digital leadership provides a competitive advantage in private sector organizations, digital leadership in public institutions is more related to the activation of service delivery and transparency. In civil society organizations, digital leadership aims to create social impact and increase the capacity for digital interaction with stakeholders. In line with these differences, designing leadership development strategies is important. For example, while using artificial intelligence-focused decision support systems in leader training can be recommended in the private sector, focusing on digital ethics and data security training in the public sector may be more appropriate. In addition, integrating personalized digital learning platforms, online mentoring programs, and digital competency-based assessment tools in all contexts is recommended as strategies to support leader development.

This study provides an original contribution to the literature by being one of the first to empirically test the mediating role of sustainable leadership in the effect of green human resource management (GHRM) practices on organizational commitment in the Turkish context. Our findings extend the existing literature in the following ways: While previous studies have examined GHRM and sustainable leadership separately (e.g., [27,34]). This research presents a model that combines the resource-based view and stakeholder theory, revealing the synergistic effect of these two variables on organizational commitment. Our model proves that sustainable leadership serves as a critical “bridge” in the translation of GHRM policies into employee commitment (β = 0.39, p < 0.01). This finding provides a new theoretical framework for understanding the intertwined dynamics of leadership and environmental sustainability, especially in emerging economies. This research, conducted on white-collar employees in Turkey, provides a contextual perspective of how cultural and institutional factors shape the effects of GHRM. These results answer questions raised in previous studies about the generalizability of sustainability research in non-Western contexts (e.g., [26]). This study’s model integrates the resource-based view and stakeholder theory at the theoretical level, and its findings that guide sustainability strategies in developing economies such as Turkey at the practical level will serve as a reference for future studies in the literature.

This study provides original theoretical and practical contributions to the field of sustainability-oriented human resources management. It is one of the first studies to empirically test the mediating role of sustainable leadership, especially in the Turkish context, bringing an innovative perspective to the literature.

This study was conducted on a limited sample of white-collar employees operating in Istanbul and did not include sectoral analysis. In addition, the study focused only on the effects of green HRM practices on organizational commitment and did not include other possible outcome variables. Comparative studies could be conducted in different sectors. Due to the cross-sectional design, it was difficult to determine the precise causal relationships; longitudinal studies are recommended. The findings could be strengthened by supporting them with qualitative research methods.

This study has some limitations. First, the research data were collected only from white-collar workers in Istanbul; therefore, the findings may not be generalizable across different cities or blue-collar workers. Second, the study has a cross-sectional design; this limits the establishment of a cause-and-effect relationship. Future longitudinal studies may reveal the causal relationships between variables more clearly. In addition, it should not be ignored that there may be reverse effects or a role of third variables (e.g., organizational culture and leader–employee interaction quality) in the obtained relationships. Finally, collecting data using the self-report method risks causing social desirability bias. Therefore, mixed-method (quantitative–qualitative) research designs are recommended for future work.