Going Green in SMEs: Unpacking How Innovative Work Behavior Impacts Employee Commitment Through a Mediated–Moderated Model

Abstract

Previous studies on innovative work behavior (GIWB) have mainly focused on exploring its favorable sustainable consequences and its unseen potential harmful outcomes. To address this gap, this study sought to explore the associations between GIWB and perceived greenwashing, work exhaustion, and environmental commitment among hotel employees. It also assessed managerial support as an alleviator of these negative outcomes. To that end, this research conducted a quantitative approach and used a self-reported questionnaire survey among employees and supervisors in green hotels. Based on valid replies from 419 participants from Small- and Medium-Sized Hotels (SMSH), we conduct Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) with Smart PLS 4.0. The results revealed that GIWB exerted positive effects on employees perceived greenwashing, green work exhaustion, and environmental commitment. The results also underscored the salient role of management support in alleviating the negative effects of GIWB on these outcomes’ perceived greenwashing and green work exhaustion. This study addressed a notable gap in knowledge and provides some valuable suggestions to avert the paradoxical effects of GIWB, leading to better organizational sustainable performance.

1. Introduction

The performance of business organizations in relation to environmental conservation depends on employees’ green practices. To support green performance of organizations, employees should not only stick to performing the minimum required job duties or tasks. Accordingly, business organizations are always seeking to stimulate their employees’ involvement in green behaviors in the workplace through several strategies. One of these strategies is green innovative work behavior (GIWB). It is the process by which employees generate new ideas and practices that can help organizations apply their eco-friendly procedures (Al-Ayed, 2024). The adoption of GIWB enables organizations to improve their performance and achieve competitive edge over competition (J. Chen & Liu, 2020; Liu et al., 2022). It also helps employees to create new eco-friendly ideas that help in conserving resources and reducing negative effects on the environment (Al-Ayed, 2024; Khan et al., 2025; Shahbaz et al., 2024). GIWB also stimulates employees to develop a meaning in their work which in turn increases their engagement in green work and supports their organizational citizenship (Paillé & Boiral, 2013). In a hotel-specific context, GIWBs were found to enhance the overall environmental performance (Alzadjali et al., 2026).

Nonetheless, GIWB can result in some negative outcomes. For instance, eco-friendly initiatives are considered to be resource-intensive processes. That is, when employees are involved in green practices, they invest significant mental and emotional energy and resources. Prolonged engagement in these activities without sufficient managerial support can drain employees’ resources and cause work fatigue, job stress, or even job burnout (Dumont et al., 2017; Norton et al., 2015; Renwick et al., 2013; B. Zhang et al., 2021). Diminished employees’ mental, physical, and emotional resources because of GIWB is known as green work exhaustion. When applying the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), GIWB represents additional job duties that require extra efforts and resources and may wear down employees’ energy and reduce their commitment to environmental goals.

Employees’ perceived greenwashing is another negative and overlooked outcome of GIWB. With very limited prior research looking into employees’ perspective of greenwashing, this represents a notable gap in knowledge (Walker & Wan, 2012). Recently, Robertson et al. (2023) and Elshaer et al. (2025) argued that the effect of an organization’s exaggerated and misrepresented environmental claims, i.e., greenwashing, on its own employees has been overlooked. The majority of previous studies examined perceived greenwashing from the perspective of external stakeholders and focused on customer skepticism and resultant responses (Alyahia et al., 2024; Brañes et al., 2025; H. Chen et al., 2019; Delmas & Burbano, 2011; Majeed & Kim, 2023; Seele & Gatti, 2017). Conversely, there is a paucity in studies that explored perception of greenwashing from the viewpoint of internal stakeholders like employees. This is particularly important because employees are positioned inside the organization and are able to directly observe and judge the authenticity and legitimacy of eco-friendly goals and practices. When employees notice significant exaggeration in the environmental claims or discrepancies between proclaimed and actual practices, they perceive such claims as greenwashing and disengage from eco-friendly activities and commitment (Nyilasy et al., 2014).

There are several remedies that organizations can apply in order to avert the ramifications of GIWB. On this note, management support can play an important role in preventing the unfavorable consequences resulting from GIWB. For example, the study of (Renwick et al., 2013) indicated that managerial support enabled organizations to encourage and enforce the involvement of employees in green initiatives. Similarly, the study of (Sahibzada et al., 2025) showed that perceived organization support diminishes the exhaustion caused by green innovative behavior. On the contrary, if organizations provide limited or no support to employees and their green efforts they will doubt the environmental agenda of the organizations, which leads to perception of greenwashing and inhibits their commitment to eco-friendly activities. Despite the extensive studies on the role that management support plays in improving environmental performance, there is a lack of studies that examine its effects on lessening the negative consequences of GIWB.

In light of these gaps in knowledge, the present study utilizes the “Conservation of Resources theory” (Hobfoll, 1989) as well as the “Job-Demand Resources” (JD-R) model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) to resolve these gaps. It adopts an employee-centric perspective and examines employees’ psychological and behavioral responses to organizational environmental initiatives. Specifically, this study seeks to (1) examine the direct effects of GIWB on perceived greenwashing, green work exhaustion, and environmental commitment among employees in green hotels, (2) test the mediating effects of both perceived greenwashing and green work exhaustion in the linkage between GIWB and employees’ environmental commitment, and (3) investigate the moderating role of managerial support on the associations between GIWB and perceived greenwashing, green work exhaustion, and environmental commitment. Through exploring these potential effects, this study is one of the few research projects that empirically investigated the negative consequences of GIWB in hotel settings. Thus, it significantly contributes to the literature of sustainability of the hotel industry and also provides valuable practical recommendations.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Justification

2.1. Green Innovative Work Behavior GIWB

GIWB is the ability and efforts of personnel to come up with new ideas or work procedures that can minimize organization negative effects on the environment and improve its sustainable operations (Norton et al., 2015). GIWB is a more advanced degree or higher level of involvement in eco-friendly activities. It does not restrict employees from applying only standard green practices; it encourages them to invent nontraditional procedures and develop green solutions that improve eco-friendly performance of the organization (Chang, 2016). GIWB has become an important aspect of the sustainability ecosystem in many organizations. This is because it helps to overcome green obstacles and improves competitive positions of organizations (Dumont et al., 2017; Renwick et al., 2013). In addition, GIWB directs employees to align their eco-friendly efforts with the sustainability goals of the organization. This alignment increases employees’ commitment to green initiatives (Elshaer et al., 2024a; Y. J. Kim et al., 2019; Paillé & Raineri, 2015). GIWB also boosts the psychological empowerment of employees and helps them to make sense of their work, which translates environmental values into creative ideas and practices that support sustainability objectives in the long term (Robertson & Barling, 2013).

On the other hand, GIWB represents an additional job duty that requires extra efforts from employees, which can increase their sense of work fatigue or job stress. On this note, the COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989) assumes that employees designate a significant part of their resources to actively participate in GIWB. This includes allocating time and physical, cognitive, and emotional efforts. Meantime, organizations should also provide enough resources (in terms of management support, green training, recognition, etc.). If organizations fail to do so for prolonged period of time, employees will struggle with depletion of their resources and may experience job fatigue, stress, and burnout. Consequently, they will conserve their resources by limiting their engagement in GIWB. In the same vein, looking at GIWB through the lens of the JD-R model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), it is a job demand that requires reasonable resources. In other words, GIWB mediates employees to outdo the standard or routine duties of their jobs and handle more sustainability tasks. As a result, employees may witness negative outcomes like work exhaustion when the job demands related to GIWB exceed the allocated resources for it.

Also, employees are more likely to doubt the genuineness of the organization’s sustainability allegations when they are not supported with sufficient resources and authentic support. This doubt can lead to employees’ skepticism and disengagement from green activities as they perceive these activities to be false environmental claims (i.e., perception of greenwashing) (Delmas & Burbano, 2011; Seele & Gatti, 2017). These perceptions negatively influence green innovation and commitment to environmental sustainability among employees. Accordingly, we can conclude that GIWB results in both positive and negative effects at the employee level. On the positive side, it helps in generating new green ideas and enhances employee environmental performance. On the negative side, GIWB also raises job demands and required resources as well as increases employees’ perceptions of an organization’s greenwashing practices. Hence, we postulate the following hypotheses for examination:

H1. 

Green Innovative Work Behavior (GIWB) is significantly and positively associated with employees’ perceptions of organizational greenwashing.

H2. 

Green Innovative Work Behavior (GIWB) is significantly and positively associated with employees’ experiences of green work exhaustion.

H3. 

Green Innovative Work Behavior (GIWB) is significantly and positively associated with employees’ environmental commitment.

2.2. Perceived Greenwashing

Greenwashing refers to the tendency of an organization to overstate or misrepresent their environmental practices or achievements. Organizations greenwash their eco-friendly practices in pursuit of projecting a favorable eco-friendly image without making actual sustainable efforts or changes (Delmas & Burbano, 2011; Lyon & Montgomery, 2015). The existing literature focused primarily on the concept of greenwashing from the consumer perspective. However, some previous studies highlighted that employees also represent a key segment of stakeholders who can perceive and evaluate the authenticity of eco-friendly claims of organizations (Jiang & Wong, 2016; Seele & Gatti, 2017). Employees are embedded inside the organization and directly witness organizational green processes. They have direct involvement and interactions in the daily operations, and they assess resource allocations and managerial support for sustainability practices. As such, employees are in a strong position in the organization to evaluate and decide if its environmental claims and goals are real or just superficial acts (Christensen et al., 2013).

The perceptions of employees regarding the authenticity of the environmental practices of the organization are critical. This is because negative perceptions often lead to unfavorable outcomes. In other words, when employees detect major inconsistencies between the actual green activities and what the organizations promote or claim, they will become skeptical and less engaging in environmental initiatives (E.-H. Kim & Lyon, 2015). The study of (Robertson et al., 2023) indicated that perceived greenwashing was positively related to employees’ perceptions of corporate hypocrisy, which led to increased turnover intentions. Also, greenwashing perceived by employees reduces their trust in the organization leadership, which in its turn demotivates them and inhibits their willingness to participate in sustainability activities (Testa et al., 2018a). The study of (Elshaer et al., 2025) reported that when employees perceive corporate greenwashing, they tend to engage in non-green behaviors that oppose environmental objectives of the organization. Therefore, it is imperative to explore the perspective of employees regarding greenwashing perceptions and the authenticity of the organization’s green efforts. In fact, doing so will contribute to the literature of sustainability management and respond to the call for examining the viewpoint of various stakeholders (Gatti et al., 2019).

Previous studies showed that the variance between an organization’s eco-friendly proclaims and its real operations lead to the perceptions of being superficial or even hypocritical (Seele & Gatti, 2017; Walker & Wan, 2012). These discrepancies will also make employees distrust the authenticity of the organization’s commitment to eco-friendly endeavors (Christensen et al., 2013). Employees may also experience a sense of hypocrisy and believe that their green activities are wasted and do not actually contribute to the sustainability of the organization (Robertson et al., 2023). In addition, extended exposure to unrealistic or fake claims about an organization about its environmental performance results in employees’ disappointment, frustration, and event disengagement (Glavas & Godwin, 2013). The study of (Li et al., 2022) revealed that perceived greenwashing negatively affects job performance. Likewise, the results of (Ma et al., 2024) reveal that perceived greenwashing is negatively related to employees’ green behaviors. Accordingly, it can be concluded that misleading or exaggerated claims about the hotel’s eco-friendly initiatives can weaken employees’ commitment to environmental activities and goals. Thus, we argue the following hypothesis:

H4. 

Perceived greenwashing is significantly and negatively associated with employee environmental commitment.

2.3. Green Work Exhaustion

Performing standard eco-friendly job duties can consume a significant amount of employees’ time and effort. GIWB usually requires additional physical, mental, and emotional efforts than regular green practices. As such, it can lead to employees’ fatigue and green work exhaustion. The D-R (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) provides a better perspective to explain this issue. According to the JD-R model, employees will experience fatigue or exhaustion when the job demands or duties are more than the resources available for the job. That is, when personnel have limited resources that do not match the required green tasks, they will witness work exhaustion and eventually detach from eco-friendly activities (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Schaufeli & Taris, 2014).

Prior research indicated that innovative green work could lead to role overload and eventually work strain and exhaustion. For example, the study of (Y. Zhang et al., 2019) revealed that employee’s involvement in green behaviors requires extra efforts that jeopardize the main job duties. Similarly, (Norton et al., 2015) noticed that pro-environmental behaviors can provide intrinsic rewards for employees as well as cause work tension when internal operations or incentives do not effectively support these behaviors. In simple terms, employees are expected to perform green activities or generate creative ones with limited available resources (e.g., time, budgets, limited support, etc.) (Paillé & Boiral, 2013). These low-resources and high-pressures work conditions erode employees’ perceived fairness and their motivations or interest in environmental issues. In the end, these challenging circumstances increase psychological fatigue and green work exhaustion among employees, leading to lower commitment to eco-friendly objectives. Hence, we propose the following hypothesis in order to examine this potential effect:

H5. 

Green work exhaustion is significantly and negatively associated with employee environmental commitment.

2.4. The Mediating Effects of Perceived Greenwashing and Green Work Exhaustion

This study sought also to examine the mediating roles of perceived greenwashing and green work exhaustion in exploring the pathways through which GIWB will be translated into employee environmental commitment. According to the COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989), these mediators represent two separate ways of resource loss. On the one hand, employees will perceive greenwashing when they detect significant difference between the real green practices and what the organization claims about its sustainability agenda. This difference leads to distrust in their organization’s pro-environmental efforts. This results in cognitive dissonance that reduces employees’ willingness to maintain environmental commitment (Nyilasy et al., 2014; Testa et al., 2018b). On the other hand, green work exhaustion refers to the depletion of employees’ emotional and physical resources. It occurs when the demands of sustainability initiatives exceed the resources (such as time, budgets, and managerial support) provided to employees. The resulting job strain depletes the resources of employees and undermines their motivation toward eco-friendly initiatives (Bissing-Olson et al., 2013; B. Zhang et al., 2021). As such, we propose the following hypotheses for examining the mediating roles of perceived greenwashing and green work exhaustion:

H6. 

Perceived greenwashing significantly mediates the association between GIWB and employees’ environmental commitment.

H7. 

Green work exhaustion significantly mediates the association between GIWB and employees’ environmental commitment.

2.5. The Moderating Role of Management Support

Management support plays an important role in the success of sustainability initiatives. Specifically, providing regular and real management support and allocating necessary resources for environmental initiatives encourage pro-environmental behavior among employees and stimulate their motivations toward green practices (Paillé & Raineri, 2015). In this context, management support includes assigning proper resources (e.g., budgets, personnel, training, etc.) for green activities, including green environmental practices in employees’ evaluations, recognizing and encouraging employees’ green inventions and behaviors (G. Tang et al., 2018).

According to the COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989), management support is a fundamental organizational instrument that averts skepticism and protects employee resources from depletion. It acts as a buffer that alleviates the potential strain and work exhaustion that stems from GIWB. Also, the JD-R framework indicates that organizational support loosens the high demands linked to green work and cause energy depletion (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). In contrast, when adequate organizational support and resources are absent, employees will experience fatigue and work overload because of GIWB, and ultimately withdraw from green obligations (Raineri & Paillé, 2016). Studies empirically reported that management support environmental initiatives like green human resource management (GHRM) (Amrutha & Geetha, 2020; Parida & Brown, 2021; Piwowar-Sulej & Iqbal, 2025), sustainable transformational leadership (Y. Tang et al., 2022), and corporate social responsibility (Sobaih et al., 2022) encourage GIWB and boost its favorable outcomes. Recently, the study of (Zaman et al., 2025) showed that the integration of effective GHRM practices favorably contributes to pro-environmental employee behavior. Likewise, (Arshad et al., 2025) showed that inclusive leadership has a positive influence on employees’ green behaviors. In a hospitality-specific setting, the study of (Jameel et al., 2025) indicated that supportive leadership had a favorable correlation with green innovative work behavior. Accordingly, we propose the following moderation hypotheses:

H8a. 

Management support significantly moderates the association between GIWB and perceived greenwashing.

H8b. 

Management support significantly moderates the association between GIWB and green work exhaustion.

H8c. 

Management support significantly moderates the association between GIWB and employees’ environmental commitment.

Drawing on the insights from the abovementioned literature, the present study introduces a conceptual model that integrates the discussed constructs and hypothesizes the proposed paths (Figure 1).

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Instruments and Scales

This explanatory study investigates the link among the study, employing a quantitative research design. Data was collected through a structured questionnaire comprising two sections. The first section collected data on participants’ demographic characteristics. The second section included items designed to measure the primary constructs under investigation. All measurement scales were taken from previous studies with minor amendments to fit the study context (see Appendix A). Green innovative work behavior (GIWB) was assessed by adapting four items borrowed from (Akhavan et al., 2015; Janssen, 2000). The perceived greenwashing (PG) construct was measured using a three-item scale adapted from (Ong et al., 2018), and this scale has also been employed in recent studies, such as (Wang et al., 2025). Employee Environmental Commitment (EEC) consists of seven items borrowed from (Raineri & Paillé, 2016), who designed their scale by selecting and adapting items from Meyer and colleagues’ measures of organizational commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990) and commitment to change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002) to reflect employees’ attachment and responsibility toward environmental concerns in the workplace. The measurement of green work exhaustion (GWE) relied on three items adapted from the burnout scale developed by (Schaufeli et al., 1995). Finally, a five-item scale was used to gauge the moderator variable (Management Support (MS)) (Lukes & Stephan, 2017). The questionnaire was translated into Arabic using the back-translation method (Brislin, 1980). Subsequently, five academics specializing in environmental management within the hotel industry and thirteen Green Certified Hotel employees reviewed the instrument. This process confirmed that the items were valid, clearly worded, and consistent with the study objectives. All constructs were operationalized on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree).

3.2. Sampling and Participants Selection

The population of this study comprises employees working in green hotels in Egypt, which are listed under the Green Star Hotel (GSH) program. Administered by the Egyptian Hotel Association under the auspices of the Ministry of Tourism, the GSH program represents Egypt’s national sustainability certification for environmentally friendly hospitality establishments. It enables hotels to improve environmental and social performance while reducing operational costs. Participating hotels are guided by accredited experts through structured training and audits to ensure compliance with program standards prior to certification (Green Star Hotel, 2025). There are 183 environmentally certified hotels in Egypt, comprising approximately 58,000 rooms in 17 Egyptian cities (Ahmed et al., 2025). Primary data was collected through an online questionnaire survey using a convenience sampling technique. This approach was adopted due to practical considerations such as time limitations, cost-effectiveness, and ease of access to participants. While concerns regarding the representativeness and generalizability of convenience sampling remain, it is considered effective—particularly when applied to large sample sizes (Jager et al., 2017). Accordingly, this limitation was acknowledged as one of the study’s constraints. The questionnaire’s link was initially sent to hotel managers and HR managers, who then shared it with employees and supervisors. The purpose of the study was explained, and the confidentiality and anonymity of the participants were assured. Respondents were also informed that the collected data would be used solely for research purposes. In addition, participants were clearly instructed that there were no right or wrong answers, and they retained the right to withdraw from participation at any stage without any consequences. The distribution of surveys took place between May and September 2025. A total of 419 employees completed the questionnaire form. All responses were complete because the electronic survey utilized a forced response setting. The sample consisted of 55.4% males and 44.6% females. Most participants (55.6%) were aged 30 to 45, with 28.9% under 30 and 15.5% over 45 years old. In terms of education, 74.0% held a university degree, 19.3% had secondary or technical qualifications, and 6.7% held postgraduate degrees.

3.3. Statistical Methods

To calculate the expected effects of common method bias (CMB), Harman’s single-factor method (suggested value should be below 50%) was conducted (Podsakoff et al., 2012). The findings revealed that one single factor can explain only 30.014% of the overall variance, signaling that CMB is not a concern. In addition, all outer variance inflation factors (VIFs) ranged between 1.693 and 3.384 (acceptable threshold: <5.0; see

Table 1. Construct reliability and validity statistics.

Factors and Variables	λ	VIF	t	σ	SK	KU
Green innovative work behavior (GIWB) (α = 0.920, CR = 0.943, AVE = 0.807, Inner VIF = 1.293)
GIWB_1	0.914	3.384	3.184	1.422	−0.137	−1.287
GIWB_2	0.908	3.247	3.119	1.429	−0.073	−1.326
GIWB_3	0.899	3.119	3.155	1.415	−0.104	−1.301
GIWB_4	0.870	2.625	3.141	1.384	−0.069	−1.267
Perceived greenwashing (PG) (α = 0.810, CR = 0.887, AVE = 0.724, Inner VIF = 1.789)
PG_1	0.864	1.812	3.167	1.307	−0.112	−1.114
PG_2	0.863	1.816	3.200	1.333	−0.122	−1.185
PG_3	0.827	1.693	3.172	1.362	−0.097	−1.228
Green work exhaustion (GWE) (α = 0.883, CR = 0.928, AVE = 0.811, Inner VIF = 1.361)
GWE_1	0.920	2.898	3.055	1.456	−0.040	−1.377
GWE_2	0.886	2.313	3.167	1.436	−0.145	−1.327
GWE_3	0.895	2.452	3.115	1.453	−0.111	−1.358
Employee environmental commitment (EEC) (α = 0.930, CR = 0.943, AVE = 0.703)
EEC_1	0.833	2.424	2.969	1.406	0.050	−1.263
EEC_2	0.850	2.675	2.936	1.412	0.084	−1.263
EEC_3	0.855	2.864	2.969	1.445	0.050	−1.324
EEC_4	0.818	2.328	3.002	1.442	0.049	−1.328
EEC_5	0.814	2.298	2.916	1.443	0.103	−1.326
EEC_6	0.853	2.791	2.931	1.448	0.078	−1.338
EEC_7	0.844	2.639	2.936	1.447	0.065	−1.341
Management support (MS) (α = 0.901, CR = 0.927, AVE = 0.717, Inner VIF = 1.137)
MS_1	0.840	2.205	2.671	1.377	0.315	−1.167
MS_2	0.861	2.484	2.704	1.369	0.293	−1.151
MS_3	0.825	2.138	2.594	1.351	0.375	−1.076
MS_4	0.856	2.625	2.520	1.358	0.455	−1.020
MS_5	0.851	2.485	2.649	1.397	0.310	−1.203

Note: factor loadings = λ, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients = α, composite reliability = CR, average variance extracted = AVE, Skewness = SK, Kurtosis = KU, mean = μ, standard deviation = σ.

) (Hair et al., 2019). Similarly, the inner VIFs ranged between 1.293 and 1.789, which is below the recommended threshold of 3.3, indicating no multicollinearity concerns among the predictors (Kock, 2015). Additionally, the skewness and kurtosis scores were ranged in the acceptable limits (skewness between −0.040 and 0.455; kurtosis between −1.377 and −1.020; see Table 1), confirming the assumption of normality in the data distribution.

The proposed model comprised GIWB as the predictor variable, PG and GWE as mediating variables, and EEC as the dependent variable. In addition, MS was included as a moderating variable. Data were analyzed using SmartPLS to test the hypothesized relationships, while SPSS (Version 25) was employed to generate descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis).

4. Results

4.1. Validity and Reliability Estimation

The reliability for each factor was evaluated by “Cronbach’s alpha” (λ), with scores ranging from 0.810 to 0.930. These scores are acceptable, as values > 0.7 displayed satisfactory reliability (Nunnally, 1994). Then, “convergent validity” (CV) was calculated by analyzing “Composite Reliability” (CR should be >0.70), which ranged from 0.887 to 0.943, and “Average Variance Extracted” (AVE preferred to be >0.50), which was wide-ranging between 0.703 and 0.811 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Therefore, the CV is adequate (see Table 1).

Furthermore, discriminant validity (DV) was evaluated by the “Fornell–Larcker matrix” and the “Heterotrait-Monotrait” (HTMT). In the “Fornell–Larcker matrix”, the √AVE for each factor should be >its correlations with other factors (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). As depicted in

Table 2. Fornell–Larcker criterion statistics.

	1	2	3	5	6
1. Employee Environmental Commitment	0.838
2. Green Innovative Work Behavior	−0.099	0.898
3. Green Work Exhaustion	−0.365	0.406	0.900
4. Managerial Support	0.356	−0.013	−0.192	0.847
5. Perceived Greenwashing	−0.391	0.340	0.347	−0.306	0.851

Note: bold values are squared AVE values.

, the √AVE values (noted in the bold diagonal values) range from 0.838 to 0.900, while the inter-factor correlations were shown <them and were all under the value of 0.406.

As for calculating the HTMT, values should be below the score of 0.90 and preferably under the value of 0.85 (Hair et al., 2019). This condition was fulfilled, as presented in

Table 3. HTMT values.

	1	2	3	5	6
1. Employee Environmental Commitment
2. Green Innovative Work Behavior	0.105
3. Green Work Exhaustion	0.402	0.450
4. Managerial Support	0.388	0.042	0.214
5. Perceived Greenwashing	0.448	0.391	0.409	0.357

, with the maximum HTMT value of 0.852. The DV of the measurement model employed in the current study is supported based on the findings of the Fornell–Larcker matrix and HTMT values.

4.2. Hypotheses Testing (Inner Model)

The results presented in

Table 4. Hypotheses assessment results.

Hypothesis	β	t	p	F2		Remark
Direct Paths
H1: GIWB → PG	0.307	7.482	0.000	0.124		✔
H2: GIWB → GWE	0.372	9.485	0.000	0.183		✔
H3: GIWB → EEC	0.100	2.060	0.039	0.011		✔
H4: PG → EEC	−0.235	4.880	0.000	0.057		✔
H5: GWE → EEC	−0.242	4.997	0.000	0.060		✔
Indirect mediating effect				Confidence intervals
H6: GIWB → PG → EEC	−0.072	3.971	0.000	−0.135	−0.052	✔
H7: GIWB → GWE → EEC	−0.090	4.230	0.000	−0.112	−0.041	✔
Moderating effects
H8a: GIWB × MS → PG	−0.206	5.133	0.000	−0.288	−0.125	✔
H8b: GIWB × MS → GWE	−0.229	5.830	0.000	−0.305	−0.152	✔
H8c: GIWB × MS → EEC	0.122	2.867	0.004	0.036	0.204
Employee Environmental Commitment		R2	0.286	Q2		0.186
Green Work Exhaustion		R2	0.255	Q2		0.192
Perceived Greenwashing		R2	0.251	Q2		0.169

Note: green innovative work behavior = (GIWB), employee environmental commitment (EEC), perceived greenwashing = (PG), green work exhaustion = (GWE), managerial support (MS), ✔ = supported.

and Figure 2 show that all direct hypotheses (H1–H5) were statistically supported. Green innovative work behavior (GIWB) had significant small to moderate positive effects on perceived greenwashing (PG) (β = 0.307, t = 7.482, p < 0.001) and on green work exhaustion (GWE) (β = 0.372, t = 9.485, p < 0.001). It also had a positive but weak impact on employee environmental commitment (EEC) (β = 0.100, t = 2.060, p = 0.039), reflecting weak direct association. Moreover, PG (β = −0.235, t = 4.880, p < 0.001) and GWE (β = −0.242, t = 4.997, p < 0.001) both showed significant moderate negative effects on EEC.

For the indirect (mediating) hypotheses, the findings confirm that the indirect effect of GIWB → PG → EEC was significant at β = −0.072, t = 3.971, p < 0.001, and CI [−0.135–−0.052] and the GIWB → GWE → EEC was also significant at β = −0.090, t = 4.230, p < 0.001 and CI [−0.112–−0.041]. Hence, the results support both mediating hypotheses (H6 and H7).

Regarding the moderating hypotheses, managerial support (MS) showed a significant moderating effect on the relationships between GIWB and PG (β = −0.206, t = 5.133, p < 0.001, CI [−0.288, −0.125]), GIWB and GWE (β = −0.229, t = 5.830, p < 0.001, CI [−0.305, −0.152]), and GIWB and EEC (β = 0.122, t = 2.867, p = 0.004, CI [0.036, 0.204]). The moderation analysis was conducted using the two-stage approach with mean-centered variables, and 5000 bootstrap samples were employed to ensure robustness. Therefore, the moderating hypotheses (H8a, H8b, and H8c) were all supported, (see Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5, simple slope graphs).

The study likewise calculated the endogenous constructs predictive power using R², Cohen’s f², and Q² values. According to (Cohen, 2013), effect sizes can be categorized as small (f² ≥ 0.02), medium (f² ≥ 0.15), or large (f² ≥ 0.35). As shown in Table 4, the f² values for all endogenous constructs in this study ranged between small and medium, indicating varying but meaningful levels of effect across the model. The model also demonstrated adequate explanatory power, with R² values of 0.286 (EEC), 0.255 (GWE), and 0.251 (PG), indicating acceptable levels of explained variance. The acceptable level of R² values varies depending on the research context. According to (Hair et al., 2011), R² values of 0.75, 0.50, and 0.25 represent substantial, moderate, and weak prediction power, correspondingly. On the other hand, (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011) noted that within the field of human behavior research, an R² value of 0.20 may still be considered strong.

Subsequently, the study model displayed a proper level of explanatory and predictive strength. Additionally, as depicted in Table 4, the Q² scores for the endogenous factors were all > zero, supporting the predictive strength of the model (Hair et al., 2019). Additionally, the “standardized root means square residual” (SRMR) and the “normed fit index” (NFI) were calculated, as suggested for PLS-SEM, to support the model fit. The SRMR score was 0.039, which is <the threshold of 0.08, showing an acceptable level of model fit (Henseler et al., 2015). Additionally, the “Bentler-Bonett Normed Fit Index” (NFI) was employed to evaluate the model’s fit (Henseler et al., 2016). Previous studies suggest that NFI values greater than 0.60 indicate an acceptable fit (Schuberth et al., 2023; Singh, 2009). In this paper, the attained NFI was 0.907, thus confirming the adequacy of the model fit.

5. Discussion

5.1. Findings and Theoretical Contributions

This study adopted an employee-centric perspective and focused on how employees perceive and respond to organizational environmental initiatives that are formulated at the strategic level. It contributes to the growing literature on hospitality sustainability and advances our understanding in three main ways. First, it conceptualizes the paradoxical aspects of GIWB through integrating and empirically confirming perceived greenwashing and exhaustion into the sustainability behavior literature. Second, this study approached greenwashing as a multidirectional construct that can exert effects on both internal and external stakeholders (employees and customers, respectively). Third, this study extends the applications of COR and JD-R theories to sustainability management in the hospitality industry by identifying management support as a contextual moderator that preserves resource gain and mitigates depletion cycles in sustainability-oriented and resource-intensive workplaces.

Prior studies (e.g., Dumont et al., 2017; Norton et al., 2015; B. Zhang et al., 2021) have only highlighted the positive effects of GIWB on engagement and commitment and overlooked potential adverse outcomes. Conversely, the present study extends this literature and affirms that GIWB can also evoke negative reactions, particularly when organizational resources are insufficient. Specifically, this study provides empirical evidence that green innovative work behavior (GIWB) can result in paradoxical outcomes for eco-friendly hotels. The findings showed that GIWB is positive but has a weak association with employees’ environmental commitment. It can also increase perceptions of greenwashing and green work exhaustion, particularly when management support is insufficient. In other words, the results indicated that sustainability initiatives/practices represent resource-intensive work activities that can deplete employees’ psychological and emotional resources, which in turn triggers employees’ fatigue and skepticism in spite of their pro-environmental motivations. This duality of outcomes concurs with the JD-R model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) that GIWB is a job demand that requires reasonable organizational resources, such as management support. It is also in line with the COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989) that employees tend to conserve their physical and mental resources from depletion caused by GIWB by withdrawing from commitment to pro-environmental behaviors.

Furthermore, while the perceived greenwashing discourse has traditionally focused on consumer perspectives and responses (Delmas & Burbano, 2011; Seele & Gatti, 2017), this study shifts this attention to the employee perspective of greenwashing. Typically, employees operate inside the organizations and thereby they are capable of evaluating the extent of the authenticity of eco-friendly activities. The findings of this study revealed that hotel employees can experience greenwashing perceptions and detect hotels’ exaggerated green claims, which in its turn decreased their commitment to environmental goals. These results are in line the findings of previous studies (E.-H. Kim & Lyon, 2015; Robertson et al., 2023).

Additionally, this study showed that GIWB can contribute to employees’ green work exhaustion. This highlights the mental, physical, and emotional strain caused by innovative eco-friendly behaviors. Earlier studies (Bissing-Olson et al., 2013; Paillé & Boiral, 2013) showed that employees’ involvement in pro-environmental behaviors can be satisfying and psychologically rewarding. However, this study argues otherwise and shows that innovative environmental practices can be exhausting and consume substantial physical and cognitive efforts. These ramifications can be aggravated when management fails to provide reasonable support and resources for employees to perform environmental initiatives.

Furthermore, when interpreting the effect sizes of the proposed model’s relationships, it is important to recognize that the direct effect of GIWB on EEC (H2) was weak because it does not represent an isolated, independent relationship within the model. The hypotheses H1–H5 should therefore not be considered as a set of standalone associations, but rather as interconnected components of a conditional causal system. Specifically, the influence of GIWB on EEC is primarily transmitted through mediating variables (GWE and PG). These mediators provide a reasonable explanatory basis for the observed weakness of the direct effect, underscoring the need to integrate mediation logic into the interpretation of the model’s causal pathways.

On a positive note, the findings also showed that management support can play a moderating role and avert the negative outcomes of GIWB. The results confirmed that management support alleviates the positive connection between GIWB and both perceived greenwashing and work exhaustion. It also fortifies the positive influence of GIWB on environmental commitment among employees. This result aligns with precedent studies of (Raineri & Paillé, 2016; Renwick et al., 2013) who reported that managerial support acts as a key organizational resource that helps translate sustainability effort into genuine commitment instead of cynicism or work fatigue.

5.2. Practical Suggestions

The findings of this study provide several actionable implications for hotel managers, human resource practitioners, and sustainability officers. Such implications seek to balance green innovation with employee well-being in green-oriented workplaces.

The empirical findings of this study revealed that management support averted the negative effects of green innovative work behavior (GIWB) on both perceived greenwashing and work exhaustion, as well as enhanced their environmental commitment. It was also reported by previous studies that employees tend to make extra environmental efforts when they perceive genuine organizational support (Elshaer et al., 2024b; Paillé et al., 2013). Thus, hotel managers are strongly advised to provide consistent and visible forms of managerial backing. This includes establishing green mentoring programs whereby supervisors provide regular feedback and recognition for employees’ eco-innovations. It also involves ensuring efficient and transparent allocation of resources. In this context, hotel managers can communicate and publicly announce the allocated budgets or resources to sustainability projects to both external and internal stakeholders, i.e., employees. This helps in preventing employees’ skepticism and perception of greenwashing. This recommendation is consistent with the findings of (Delmas & Burbano, 2011). Additionally, since green human resources management practices support pro-environmental activities (Elshaer et al., 2023; Zaman et al., 2025), hotel managers are encouraged to undertake some practices that reflect genuine interest in green initiatives such as holding regular sustainability meetings to review sustainability achievements, encourage new practices, and recognize best practices and sustainability champions.

This study empirically showed that green innovative behaviors can be physically, emotionally, and cognitively exhausting. Thus, hotel managers can take precaution measures to mitigate this fatigue. This includes equally distributing environmental duties among all teams. Also, hotel managers should include environmental tasks in the job descriptions as well as performance appraisals. This will ensure that pro-environmental practices are part of the job. It also prevents sustainability efforts from becoming additional workload that consumes employee physical and mental resources. This practical suggestion is also based on the findings of the prior study by (Alreahi et al., 2022).

Hotel managers are also advised to initiate well-being programs that support employees engaging in green innovation activities and to alleviate work fatigue. Studies showed that organizational practices directed at preserving employee well-being can also reduce fatigue and burnout (Karatepe, 2013). On this note, hotel managers can organize stress management workshops and mindfulness sessions and allow employees to take recovery breaks during demanding and prolonged eco-friendly projects. Hotel managers can also enable open communication about sustainability fatigue. This allows employees to express any physical, emotional, or mental strain caused by GIWB. Last but not least, recognition is a strong motivational instrument in sustaining GIWB and alleviating work fatigue. This includes offering incentives such as additional paid leave, green bonuses, or recognition certificates for employees who excel in environmental performance.

For example, the El Gouna Hotels Group in Egypt has adopted the “Educating and Empowering” program for its employees to inform them and reinforce their participation in formulating and implementing planned environmental goals (El Gouna Hotels, 2024). This initiative provides employees with self-appreciation and knowledge that motivates them to adhere to the environmental practices already implemented, thereby weakening their perceptions of greenwashing and reducing their green work exhaustion as a result of their active involvement and empowerment.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research

This study has some limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the use of a self-reported questionnaire survey may introduce bias concern. Thus, future studies may utilize multi-source data such as supervisor ratings or actual data on employee performance metrics to examine the causal relationships between GIWB, exhaustion, and environmental commitment. Second, the study sample included only employees from green star hotels in Egypt. Accordingly, the implications of this study can be applied to similar settings. Also, further studies can test our model through multiple countries and perform cross-cultural comparisons. Also, the study adopted a cross-sectional design which can limit the inference of causal relationships. As such, future studies can adopt a longitudinal design to establish causal relationships among tested variables. Finally, future research can expand the proposed model in this study and examine new moderators such as transformational leadership or green organizational cultural. If possible, studies can also adopt an experimental design or mixed-methods approach to support or challenge the findings of this study.

5.4. Conclusions

Overall, this study showed that productive behaviors such as GIWB can yield both positive and negative outcomes depending on the contextual factors associated with the process. GIWB positively contributes to employees’ environmental commitment. However, it is also linked to less favorable outcomes such as green work fatigue and employees’ perceptions of greenwashing. This is particularly apparent when managerial support is absent or insufficient. To tackle such a dilemma, hotels ought to provide reasonable support for their eco-friendly initiatives.