Employee Sustainability: How Green Practices Drive Employee Well-Being and Citizenship Behavior

Abstract

Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) has emerged as a critical study area, particularly because of its implications for employee well-being and citizenship behavior. This research aims to unravel the intricate relationships between GHRM practices, employee motivation, sustainability, well-being, and citizenship behavior within the hotel industry. Employing Ability–Motivation–Opportunity (AMO) theory as a foundational framework, a comprehensive model is developed and tested with data collected from four hundred ten hotel employees. Utilizing a cross-sectional methodology and employing the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) technique for hypothesis testing, this study reveals a substantial positive impact of GHRM on employee motivation, sustainability, well-being, and citizenship behavior. The findings of this research carry significant practical implications for the hotel industry, urging investment in GHRM practices. The investment can enhance employees’ understanding of the hotel’s green management initiatives, fostering motivation and encouraging proactive involvement in environmental protection and resource conservation. This study emphasizes the need for the hotel industry within the hospitality sector to prioritize the adoption of green HRM, highlighting its potential to elevate employee engagement and contribute to the sustainability of environmentally conscious practices. Furthermore, this paper recommends that the hotel industry reinforce sustainable practices among its workforce through training initiatives and environmental awareness seminars.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, heightened awareness of environmental issues has prompted increased attention from governments, stakeholders, organizations, consumers, and society at large [1]. This surge in environmental consciousness, coupled with evolving government regulations, has incentivized organizations to embrace green management practices [2,3]. As a result, organizations are increasingly adopting environmentally friendly practices to achieve sustainable outcomes [4]. Notably, the hospitality industry, exemplified by hotels, proactively reduces waste, educates employees, and conserves resources in their day-to-day operations [3]. In response to investors’ growing concerns about organic practices and environmental sustainability, environmentally friendly hotels that operate more sustainably through green initiatives and practices have emerged [5].

One strategic approach organizations employ to advance sustainability is Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) [6]. GHRM encompasses human resource management activities geared towards fostering positive ecological outcomes. Techniques such as green performance evaluation, job analysis, green training, and green rewards play a pivotal role in cultivating environmentally responsible behavior [7]. A job analysis aims to acquire data about the abilities, cultural background, and expertise expected for performing a particular task. While the job description provides an organized framework for illustrating the job opportunities, it may describe particular tasks and duties or skills, overall objectives, and areas of specialization that the employer is looking for. Furthermore, an accurate evaluation of an organization’s dedication towards green management is its rewards plan [8]. By endorsing environmentally friendly management practices, GHRM contributes to a deeper understanding of sustainable development [3].

GHRM involves the application of HRM techniques to facilitate an organization’s environmentally friendly use of resources. Businesses employing GHRM strategies express concern for the environment and enhance their reputation and attractiveness to prospective employees [9]. When employees feel pride in their work and develop an emotional connection with the organization, their commitment and dedication increase [10]. This emotional bond fosters positive attitudes and behaviors, enhancing the overall sense of belonging and connection to the organization [11]. The shared goal of individuals and organizations is well-being, as individuals who feel positive about themselves are more motivated to work and perform effectively [12].

This study addresses several research gaps identified in the literature. Firstly, there is a gap in the existing research regarding the role of Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) in promoting employee well-being and citizenship behavior [9]. To address this gap, the objective of this research is to investigate the impact of GHRM on employee well-being and citizenship behavior, thereby contributing to a deeper understanding of this aspect within the field of green management. Secondly, prior research has primarily focused on turnover intention when examining the linkage between GHRM and employee outcomes, neglecting other important factors such as motivation, sustainability, and well-being [13,14]. In response, this research aims to broaden the understanding of this relationship beyond turnover intention, by investigating its impact on motivation, sustainability, well-being, and citizenship behavior. Thirdly, while some studies have examined the relationship between motivation and employee outcomes, there is a need to specifically explore intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the context of well-being and citizenship behavior and how it influences alignment with organizational values [15]. Thus, the objective is to delve into the motivations, both intrinsic (IM) and extrinsic (EM), for employee well-being and citizenship behavior, to understand their role in aligning hotel employees with organizational values. Lastly, previous studies have predominantly focused on social exchange theory and stakeholder theory when examining the mechanisms through which GHRM influences employee behavior [16,17]. To contribute a novel perspective, this research aims to incorporate the Ability–Motivation–Opportunity (AMO) theory into the study of GHRM, offering a new theoretical framework for understanding this relationship [18].

Despite the significant body of research in this field, GHRM remains an emerging discipline within organizations, with ongoing developments in its understanding and implementation. While previous studies have explored GHRM from an organizational perspective, such as in the pharmaceutical sector and SMEs, this research uniquely concentrates on the employee perspective, specifically within the hotel industry [13,19].

2. Literature Review

2.1. Theoretical Background

In this research, we assess the current state of knowledge in the area of GHRM within the lodging sector by utilizing the AMO theory developed by Chowdhury et al. [18]. According to this theory, to understand employee efficiency, actions related to green HRM must take into consideration an individual performance with relevant skills such as motivation and determination [20]. According to this theory, green HRM practices can enhance employee behavior and align it with the organization’s green objective. It can lead to competent workers who exhibit green values [21]. Green HRM practices (GHRMPs) improve employees’ environmental expertise to fulfill organizational objectives, eventually leading to enhanced environmentally responsible behavior [22]. As a result, AMO fosters ecologically accountable behavior among the employees at the workplace [23]. Additionally, individuals acquire more knowledge and enthusiasm about preserving the environment and accomplishing green organizational objectives when an employer hires employees whose participation increases the dedication to environmental protection initiatives through knowledge sharing, resulting in employee evaluations and rewards based on their green behavior [20]. For these motives, the AMO theory was chosen to examine the impact of green HRM practices on the well-being and citizenship behavior of hotel employees. Within the AMO framework, the idea of opportunity is operationalized through employee well-being and citizenship behavior, which are indicative of employees’ proactive contributions to organizational sustainability initiatives and their engagement.

2.2. Hypotheses Construction

In the highly competitive hospitality environment, management aims to draw in and keep a broad spectrum of potential guests by upholding environmental sustainability through the effective use of Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) practices [24]. GHRM practices are human resource procedures and guidelines that affect the underlying corporate strategy for conserving and preserving natural resources. GHRM practices are tactics that support the growth of green personnel who promote and apply green culture [25]. Essential green knowledge must be integrated into HR policies (such as recruitment procedures, wages, appraisals, and training programs). GHRM combines green management with human resource management and has earned encouragement from researchers in various fields, especially the hotel industry [26]. The hospitality sector, which includes lodging, has been implementing sustainable management strategies progressively since the late 1980s [27]. Due to their substantial dependency on environmental resources, they are recognized as a major contributor to ecological destruction [13]. An increasing number of hotels understand how important GHRM practices are for effectively executing their green management programs [28]. The hospitality industry has adopted GHRM, which has demonstrated that hotels’ overall sustainable performance improves significantly when sustainable techniques are integrated into human resource policies, including hiring, training, and evaluation [29]. HR managers must train the workforce and encourage teamwork because employees perform efficiently in a team. Individuals in many organizations originate from diverse cultural backgrounds and have different values and opinions [30]. Research focusing on small and medium-sized organizations revealed that employees who believe their organization is committed to sustainable practices and environmental responsibility are more likely to connect with its values and take pride in them [20]. As a result, a strong psychological relationship between the employee and employer raises motivation and job satisfaction [31]. Acknowledgement and incentives for environmentally friendly actions are also essential for motivating individuals. Green appreciation increases employee motivation by having a beneficial impact on job fulfillment. By establishing the constructive feedback cycle and reinforcing the value of sustainability, a reward system that recognizes ecological behavior encourages employees to continue their green behavioral patterns [30,31]. Additionally, green human resource practices are being conceptualized on the basis of five basic concepts of HRM [green job analysis and description (GJAD), green recruitment (GR), green selection and training (GT), green performance (GP), and green rewards (GR)], which gives an in-depth overview of this paradigm. Furthermore, the measurement of employee motivation is categorized on the basis of intrinsic motivation (IM) and extrinsic motivation (EM).

In conclusion, GHRM utilizes a variety of strategies to affect employee motivation favorably. Based on prior hospitality research, findings support that organizations can develop a work environment by recognizing green behavior, offering training programs, encouraging employees to participate in decision-making, and promoting environmental values and a sense of responsibility [7].

Hypothesis 1. 

Green HRM [(a) GJAD, (b) GT, (c) GP, (d) GR, and (e) GRW] has a positive influence on hotel employee motivation [(a) IM, (b) EM].

Incorporating environmentally friendly techniques into an organization’s human resource management is known as “green human resource management (GHRM)”. Its goal is to increase the commitment to sustainability, encourage behavior change, and raise employee understanding of environmental issues to advance sustainability and employee involvement in sustainable practices [11]. Organizations may encourage sustainable practices and impact employee behavior by implementing green initiatives. GHRM practices, such as eco-friendly policies and establishing green teams, benefit employees’ adoption of sustainable behavior [32]. GHRM practices (GJAD, GS, GT, GP, and GR) have a favorable impact on employees’ dedication towards environmental sustainability at work [33]. However, research has organized sustainability into three subcategories [economic factors (EFs), environmental factors (EVFs) and social factors (SFs)]. Employees consider sustainability a fundamental value when companies prioritize and include it in HR procedures. This encourages employees to identify with and support sustainable operations. GHRM practices have a favorable impact on employees’ dedication towards environmental sustainability at work [33]; furthermore, by getting involved in sustainability, organizations encourage employees and create a sense of ownership over sustainability initiatives by allowing them to offer ideas, participate in decision-making, and work on sustainability activities [11]. It is concluded that GHRM is essential to the advancement of both organizational and employee sustainability. Hence, our second hypothesis is as follows:

Hypothesis 2. 

Green HRM [(a) GJAD, (b) GS, (c) GT, (d) GP, and (e) GR] has a positive influence on hotel employee sustainability [(a) EFs, (b) EVFs, and (c) SFs].

Employee motivation is the primary source of work-related outcomes, including performance, interpersonal relationships, well-being, and accomplishments [15]. The driving force that motivates a person to pursue a particular objective is known as motivation. It is a collection of internal mechanisms that affect a person’s beliefs and behaviors through time, including their intensity, direction, and stability. Intrinsic (IM) and extrinsic motivation (EM) encourage employees to achieve their objectives [34,35]. Further, previous research discusses the significance of these two aspects for employees’ psychological (PSYW) and life well-being (LW) [36]. Intrinsic motivation deals with the self-growth of employees, while extrinsic motivation focuses on external factors such as social support from co-workers, getting rewards, and the organization’s work environment. Therefore, if an individual is motivated, the employee’s well-being is enhanced [37]. Based on the literature, the following hypothesis was formulated:

Hypothesis 3. 

Hotel employee motivation [(a) IM and (b) EM] positively influences hotel employee well-being [(a) PSYW and (b) LW].

Employee citizenship behavior is a positive attitude at work that promotes individual activities and the workplace. By fostering positive, effective, and voluntary attitudes and behaviors, employee citizenship behavior helps to boost personal productivity and foster strong working relationships [35,38]. Motivation is the internal forces that push people to act or perform. A motivational strategy serves as a trigger, encouraging people to perform in a way that supports a particular objective [39]. According to the previous literature based on the services industry, motivated individuals act more kindly in social environments. Furthermore, employee motivation helps people to function in dynamic work situations. Employee citizenship behavior is characterized as going above and beyond job duties to support coworkers and promote the organization [40].

Therefore, motivated employees are more likely to experience an increased sense of loyalty and devotion to the organization. Based on the arguments mentioned, the following hypothesis was formulated, a pictorial representation of proposed hypotheses can be viewed in Figure 1:

Hypothesis 4. 

Hotel employee motivation [(a) IM and (b) EM] has a positive influence on hotel employee citizenship behavior.

Employee sustainability relates to the adoption of sustainable activities and behaviors by employees, which substantially affects their overall well-being [41]. According to the literature on the hotel industry, employees’ social and psychological well-being is all positively impacted when they actively engage in sustainable initiatives and adopt sustainable behavior [7,42]. When individuals in the hospitality sector commuted sustainably by riding a bicycle or walking, they had better physical health outcomes, such as lower rates of cardiovascular diseases and obesity. In this case, sustainable practices favor employee well-being and the environment [43]. Happier and more satisfied employees actively engage in sustainability activities and experience a feeling of personal achievement from their sustainable behaviors [44]. Sustainable practices, including cutting back on waste or saving resources, can improve individual feelings of accomplishment, self-efficacy, and a sense of purpose, which are all essential for psychological well-being [41]. Therefore, the sustainability of hotel employees has a positive influence on hotel employee well-being.

Hypothesis 5. 

Hotel employee sustainability [(a) EFs, (b) EVFs, and (c) SFs] has a positive influence on the well-being [(a) PSYW and (b) LW] of hotel employees.

Employee sustainability fosters a sense of responsibility for the organization and its stakeholders, influencing employee citizenship behavior. A greater responsibility and responsive work environment arise from employees’ active participation in sustainability activities and the adoption of sustainable ideas, favorably influencing their citizenship behavior [45]. Researchers found that individuals participating in sustainable activities indicated higher organizational recognition or a feeling of connection and affiliation with their employer [46]. Employee involvement in social activities correlated well with their perception regarding their organization’s environmental responsibility. Employees’ desire to participate in their formal roles is enhanced by their positive opinion of the organization’s sustainable endeavor [47], such as economic factors (EFs), environmental factors (EVFs), and social factors (SFs). Therefore, employee sustainability contributes to employees’ willingness to engage in employee citizenship behavior.

Hypothesis 6. 

Hotel employee sustainable practices [(a) EFs, (b) EVFs, and (c) SFs] have a positive influence on the citizenship behavior of hotel employees.

A healthier and safer workplace is accomplished by green human resource practices such as enhancing the indoor atmosphere, minimizing exposure to dangerous substances, and encouraging an ergonomic workplace. Organizations that adopted green human resource practices saw increases in the well-being of their employees [48]. The sense of purpose, significance, and job satisfaction can be increased in an encouraging work environment that prioritizes ecological standards and sustainability [49]. Higher levels of psychological wellness have been observed among employees of organizations that used green human resource procedures. GHRM strategies enhance employee well-being, including offering environmental training, creating a joyful work atmosphere, and getting employees involved in sustainable activities [6]. A greater sense of emotional wellness has been identified by employees who thought their employer was environmentally conscious [44]. In a nutshell, GHRM practices, as mentioned above (GJAD, GS, GT, and GR), provide a healthy environment to enhance psychological and life well-being.

Hypothesis 7. 

GHRM [(a) GJAD, (b) GS, (c) GT, (d) GP, and (e) GR] has a direct and positive influence on hotel employee well-being [(a) psychological well-being (b) life well-being].

An organizational culture that priorities social and environmental responsibility is created through GHRM activities, which include supporting environmental principles and ecological initiatives and offering training on sustainable procedures [50]. Employees’ attitudes towards their contribution to supporting the organization’s sustainability initiatives are shaped by the abovementioned GHRM practices, such as green job analysis and description, green training, green selection, green recruitment, green performance, and green rewards, which also inspire employees to go above and beyond their responsibilities [51]. In a study addressing Green Human Resource Management, it was found that individuals who perceived their organization as environmentally sustainable showed a higher level of organizational identity, which benefits their citizenship behavior [45]. According to the arguments mentioned above, green HRM practices trigger the citizenship behavior of employees. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 8. 

GHRM [(a) GJAD, (b) GS, (c) GT, (d) GP, and (e) GR] has a direct and positive influence on hotel employee citizenship behavior.

Figure 1. Proposed Framework.

Figure 1. Proposed Framework.

3. Materials and Methods

The data for this study were obtained using a convenience sampling method targeting hotel employees working in four-star lodging properties located in Asian countries, such as Pakistan and similar regions. Convenience sampling was chosen due to the accessibility of the participants and the feasibility of conducting on-site surveys in these locations. All potential respondents were approached as they departed from their workplace, ensuring minimal disruption to their daily activities. The sample size of four hundred ten participants was determined to be optimal for focusing on Generation Z employees, who are recognized as an influential demographic expected to dominate the hotel industry in the coming years. Participants were pre-screened to determine their eligibility based on specific criteria. To qualify, respondents needed to demonstrate involvement in sustainable practices both at their workplace and within their households, aligning with this study’s focus on Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) and sustainability. During the pre-screening process, a brief overview of the study’s objectives was provided, and informed consent was obtained from all participants to ensure ethical compliance. Confidentiality and anonymity were guaranteed to encourage honest and accurate responses.

After pre-screening, eligible participants were invited to complete a structured questionnaire on-site, with guidance and assistance provided by professionally trained survey team members. The questionnaire was designed in English and included clear, straightforward vocabulary to ensure that all respondents could easily understand the questions. To validate the questionnaire’s content and readability, a pre-test was conducted with 22 lodging employees. Feedback from this pre-test led to minor adjustments in the phrasing of some items to enhance clarity and relevance.

The final questionnaire was divided into three sections. The first section included a brief explanation of the study’s purpose, ensured that all information provided would be held in confidence, and described that there would be no way to identify any one respondent with a specific response. This section informed all potential respondents that the survey completion process would take approximately five minutes, that individuals could discontinue completing the survey at any time, without penalty, and that no incentive would be provided for their participation. The survey’s second section contained information pertaining to demographic and behavioral variables such as age, gender, education, and length of time employed by the lodging industry. The third section included a series of statements associated with predefined variables used for hypothesis testing. Responses to all statements were assessed using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

This structured approach ensured that the data collected were both relevant and representative of the target population, providing a robust foundation for subsequent analysis. Furthermore, the research adhered to ethical guidelines, including obtaining informed consent, ensuring voluntary participation, and protecting participants’ confidentiality throughout the study.

Green HRM was measured using a twelve-item scale developed by Jabbour [52] and Yong and Mohd-Yusoff [53]. Example items are “The positions enable the acquisition of knowledge about environmental management” and “Environmental performance of the company attracts employees”. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation were measured using a 6-item scale adopted from Gagne et al. [54], which has items such as “I enjoy this work very much”, “I have fun doing my job”, and “This job affords me a certain standard of living”. Employee sustainability was assessed using a 15-item scale [55,56,57]. Employee well-being (psychological well-being, life well-being) was assessed using six items adopted from Zheng et al. [58]. The items of both types of well-being included “Compared with before, I am more satisfied with the current living environment “and “I benefited from my training in the organization”. However, employee citizenship behavior was measured using twelve items adapted from a previous study [59].

4. Results

A total of 438 respondents initially participated in this survey. From this total, 28 surveys were eliminated from inclusion due to incomplete responses, resulting in a data set of n = 410 usable responses. The demographic details of respondents can be described as primarily males (68.1%), who were 20 years of age or younger (50.9%). Individuals between 21 and 30 years of age reflected 32.4% of the total sample. A total of 46% of all respondents reported that they had earned a bachelor’s degree (Detail can be viewed in

Table 1. Demographic representation.

Demographics	Frequencies
Gender
Male	276
Female	134
Age
17–20	139
21–29	226
30–39	19
40–49	19
above 50	7
Education
Other	16
High school	17
Associate’s degree	156
Bachelor’s degree	193
Master’s degree	28

).

4.1. Preliminary Analysis

Reliability and Validity Measures

To measure the reliability and validity, the Smart PLS logarithm was used, once the values of the model fit the criteria established. Prior research has established that the standard root mean square (SRMR) should be less than 0.08. Since the value for this study’s model was lower than the required threshold (0.07), the model fit index indicated that the data fit the model [60].

Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) were used as reliability measures. The data’s internal consistency was examined using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, which varied between 0.777 and 0.958. Therefore, the scale’s internal consistency was deemed to be acceptable [61].

The relationship between two components that assess the same structure is known as convergent validity. To determine the convergent validity, researchers have determined that the average variance extracted (AVE) and factor loading of variables should be greater than 0.5 [62,63]. Using this method, the average variance extracted from each scale was found to be significantly greater than 0.5, detail mentioned in

Table 2. Convergent validity.

Variable	SR	FL	Alpha	CR	(AVE)
Employee citizenship behavior	ECB1	0.833	0.958	0.958	0.693
	ECB2	0.854
	ECB3	0.836
	ECB4	0.862
	ECB5	0.798
	ECB6	0.787
	ECB7	0.845
	ECB8	0.803
	ECB9	0.858
	ECB10	0.845
	ECB11	0.836
	ECB12	Deleted
Economic factor	EF1	0.812	0.932	0.937	0.734
	EF2	0.911
	EF3	0.881
	EF4	0.825
	EF5	0.851
Extrinsic motivation	EM1	0.895	0.914	0.916	0.780
	EM2	0.868
	EM3	0.877
Environmental factor	EVF1	0.810	0.942	0.942	0.766
	EVF2	0.875
	EVF3	0.906
	EVF4	0.893
	EVF5	0.889
Green job analysis and description	GJAD1	0.856	0.902	0.902	0.754
	GJAD2	0.862
	GJAD3	0.886
Green performance	GP1	0.780	0.880	0.881	0.657
	GP2	0.803
Green recruitment	GR1	0.875	0.900	0.901	0.820
	GR2	0.935
Green rewards	GRW1	0.849	0.832	0.831	0.711
	GRW2	0.837
Green training	GT1	0.829	0.890	0.890	0.730
	GT2	0.874
	GT3	0.859
Intrinsic motivation	IM1	0.908	0.888	0.886	0.723
	IM2	0.908
	IM3	0.722
Life well-being	LW1	0.774	0.929	0.930	0.688
	LW2	0.836
	LW3	0.850
	LW4	0.847
	LW5	0.846
	LW6	0.820
Psychological well-being	PSYW1	0.718	0.917	0.917	0.650
	PSYW2	0.843
	PSYW3	0.818
	PSYW4	0.852
	PSYW5	0.821
	PSYW6	0.778
Social factor	SF1	0.877	0.923	0.923	0.706
	SF2	0.869
	SF3	0.797
	SF4	0.854
	SF5	0.802

Note: CR is composite reliability, AVE is average variance extracted.

.

4.2. Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is frequently used in research to examine each construct’s impact on unreliable variables and determine which is more significant. Two prerequisites must be met for discriminant validity. First, according to [64], the concepts of the study must correlate and should not be higher than 0.85. Secondly, the AVE square root values must exceed the f-value of their predecessors [62]. The findings of the discriminant variable showed that all variables have been identified as being greater than 0.50. The square root of each variable is used to evaluate the correlation between them. Each variable’s systemized values are given in

Table 3. Discriminant validity.

	LW	GJAD	GR	GT	GP	GRW	IM	EM	SF	EF	EVF	PSYW	ECB
LW	0.829
GJAD	0.681	0.868
GR	0.643	0.731	0.905
GT	0.626	0.780	0.724	0.854
GP	0.826	0.581	0.577	0.541	0.811
GRW	0.566	0.519	0.462	0.550	0.560	0.843
IM	0.653	0.611	0.592	0.570	0.508	0.613	0.851
EM	0.587	0.479	0.494	0.481	0.458	0.510	0.582	0.883
SF	0.663	0.567	0.545	0.604	0.501	0.525	0.570	0.635	0.840
EF	0.544	0.483	0.517	0.463	0.378	0.516	0.586	0.527	0.493	0.857
EVF	0.679	0.586	0.487	0.538	0.534	0.593	0.542	0.646	0.558	0.561	0.875
PSYW	0.687	0.580	0.555	0.578	0.527	0.813	0.591	0.597	0.556	0.618	0.711	0.806
ECB	0.711	0.663	0.554	0.666	0.595	0.610	0.577	0.564	0.648	0.517	0.669	0.680	0.832

Note: LW is life well-being, GJAD is green job analysis and description, GR is green recruitment, GT is green training, GP is green performance, GRW is green rewards, IM is intrinsic motivation, EM is extrinsic motivation, SF is social sustainability, EF is environmental sustainability, PSYW is psychological well-being, and ECB is employee citizenship behavior. All the diagonal bold values are square root of AVE.

.

4.3. Common Method Bias

It was essential to examine the potential for common method bias (CMB). The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate any bias introduced by the data collection method across the constructs. To detect CMB, Harman’s Single Factor Test was conducted, which assesses whether a single factor accounts for the majority of the variance in the data [65]. In this study, the analysis revealed that the total variance explained by the first factor was 46%, which is below the 50% threshold, indicating that CMB is not a significant issue. This result gave the researchers confidence to proceed with the subsequent assessments of reliability and validity for the constructs.

4.4. Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis testing for this study employed structure equation modeling technique, and specifically for bootstrapping measurement application, which states that a p-value significantly less than 0.50 is required for the model to be accepted [63].

Table 4. Hypothesis testing.

Hypothesis	Description	Standardized Estimate
H1a	Green Job Analysis and Description → Intrinsic Motivation	0.758 *
b	Green Job Analysis and Description → Extrinsic Motivation	0.941 *
c	Green Training → Intrinsic Motivation	0.501 **
d	Green Training → Extrinsic Motivation	0.174 **
e	Green Performance → Intrinsic Motivation	0.824 ns
f	Green Performance → Extrinsic Motivation	0.670 ***
g	Green Recruitment → Intrinsic Motivation	0.128 *
h	Green Recruitment → Extrinsic Motivation	0.145 *
i	Green Rewards → Intrinsic Motivation	0.284 ***
j	Green Rewards → Extrinsic Motivation	0.172 ***
H2a	Green Job Analysis and Description → Economic Factors	0.748 *
b	Green Job Analysis and Description → Social Factors	0.396 ***
c	Green Job Analysis and Description → Environmental Factors	0.232 ***
d	Green Recruitment → Economic Factors	0.241 *
e	Green Recruitment → Social Factors	0.189 *
f	Green Recruitment→ Environmental Factors	0.221 **
g	Green Training → Economic Factors	0.186 ***
h	Green Training → Social Factors	0.179 **
i	Green Training → Environmental Factors	0.130 ***
j	Green Performance → Economic Factors	0.135 ns
k	Green Performance → Social Factors	0.328 *
l	Green Performance → Environmental Factors	0.109 ***
m	Green Rewards → Economic Factors	0.186 **
n	Green Rewards → Social Factors	0.128 ***
o	Green Rewards → Environmental Factors	0.137 ns
H3a	Intrinsic Motivation → Psychological Well-being	0.214 ***
b	Intrinsic Motivation → Life Well-being	0.354 ***
C	Extrinsic Motivation → Psychological Well-being	0.371 ***
d	Extrinsic Motivation → Life Well-being	0.084 ns
H4a	Intrinsic Motivation→ Employee Citizenship Behavior	0.072 ns
b	Extrinsic Motivation → Employee Citizenship Behavior	0.141 **
H5a	Economic Factors → Psychological Well-being	0.512 **
b	Economic Factors → Life Well-being	0.095
c	Social Factors → Psychological Well-being	0.178 **
d	Social Factors → Life Well-being	0.248 ***
e	Environmental Factors → Psychological Well-being	0.279 ns
f	Environmental Factors → Life Well-being	0.456 ***
H6a	Economic Factors → Employee Citizenship Behavior	0.178 **
b	Social Factors → Employee Citizenship Behavior	0.159 **
c	Environmental Factors → Employee Citizenship Behavior	0.316 ***
H7a	Green Job Analysis and Description → Psychological Well-being	0.156 *
b	Green Job Analysis and Description → Life Well-being	0.244 ***
c	Green Recruitment → Psychological Well-being	0.277
d	Green Recruitment → Life Well-being	0.341 **
e	Green Training → Psychological Well-being	0.456 ***
f	Green Training → Life Well-being	0.245
g	Green Performance → Psychological Well-being	0.112 *
h	Green Performance → Life Well-being	0.321 **
i	Green Rewards → Psychological Well-being	0.421 ***
j	Green Rewards → Life Well-being	0.177 **
H8a	Green Job Analysis and Description → Employee Citizenship Behavior	0.491 **
b	Green Recruitment → Employee Citizenship Behavior	0.087
c	Green Training → Employee Citizenship Behavior	0.241 ***
d	Green Performance → Employee Citizenship Behavior	0.141 ***
e	Green Rewards → Employee Citizenship Behavior	0.227 ***

Note: ns represents not significant, p-values are less than 0.05 *, 0.01 **, and 0.001 ***. In addition, statistical measures are presented in Appendix A Figure A1. This shows that most of the measurements were considered as accepted; however, the rest of the hypotheses that did not achieve acceptance are justified in the Discussion Section.

illustrates that GHRM (green job analysis and description) and intrinsic motivation have a significant positive relationship but are not supported by extrinsic motivation. Whereas green performance supported the hypothesis as being positive towards extrinsic motivation, it was not supported for intrinsic motivation (the p-value was >0.05). Additionally, GHRM (recruitment and rewards) was found to support the hypothesis. GHRM (job analysis, description, performance, recruitment, and rewards) supported the hypothesis with employee sustainability (environmental, social, and economic).

Employee motivation (intrinsic motivation) supported the hypothesis of psychological well-being, but extrinsic motivation rejected the theory as the significance value was greater than 0.05. Whereas the hypothesis between employee motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic) and ECB was within the acceptable threshold, employee sustainability (environmental, social, and economic) supported the hypothesis with employee well-being and ECB.

GHRM (job analysis, description, and rewards) supported the hypothesis with employee well-being (psychological and life) and ECB. Still, green recruitment did not support life well-being and ECB, as the significance value was not within the acceptable range.

4.5. Additional Analysis

Additional mediation testing was conducted utilizing the model in [66] to provide further explanation of and context for our findings. The results revealed a significant indirect relationship between GHRM and employee well-being through internal and external motivation. However, there is no significant relationship between GHRM and employee citizenship behavior through internal and external motivation. Conversely, there is also an indirect effect between GHRM and employee well-being and GHRM and ECB through employee sustainability, as there is partial mediation. All mediation analysis details are provided in

Table 5. Mediation measures.

Mediating Relationships Direct Relationship	Standardized Estimate	Type of Mediation
GJAD → EF → ECB GJAD → ECB	0.215 *** 0.491 **	Partial Mediation
GJAD → EF → LW GJAD → LW	0.122 NS 0.244 ***	No Mediation
GJAD → EF → PSYW GJAD→ PSYW	0.322 ** 0.156 *	Partial Mediation
GJAD → EM → ECB GJAD → ECB	0.412 *** 0.491 **	Partial Mediation
GJAD → EM → LW GJAD → LW	0.324 * 0.244 ***	Partial Mediation
GJAD → EM → PSYW GJAD→ PSYW	0.441 *** 0.156 *	Partial Mediation
GJAD → EVM → ECB GJAD → ECB	0.289 ** 0.491 **	Partial Mediation
GJAD → EVM → LW GJAD → LW	0.218 * 0.244 ***	Partial Mediation
GJAD → EVM → PSYW GJAD→ PSYW	0.121 NS 0.156 *	No Mediation
GJAD → IM → ECB GJAD → ECB	0.097 NS 0.491 **	No Mediation
GJAD → IM → LW GJAD → LW	0.301 0.244 ***	Partial Mediation
GJAD → IM → PSYW GJAD→ PSYW	0.298 * 0.156 *	Partial Mediation
GJAD → SF → ECB GJAD → ECB	0.128 NS 0.491 **	No Mediation
GJAD → SF → LW GJAD → LW	0.881 NS 0.244 ***	No Mediation
GJAD → SF → PSYW GJAD → PSYW	0.323 * 0.156 *	Partial Mediation
GP → EF → ECB GP → ECB	0.298 ** 0.141 ***	Partial Mediation
GP → EF → LW GP→ LW	0.282 ** 0.321 **	Partial Mediation
GP → EF → PSYW GP→PSYW	0.144 NS 0.112 *	No Mediation
GP → EM → ECB GP →ECB	0.158 NS 0.141 ***	No Mediation
GP → EM → LW GP-LW	0.224 * 0.321 **	Partial Mediation
GP → EM → PSYW GP → PSYW	0.346 ** 0.112 *	Full Mediation
GP → EVM → ECB GP →ECB	0.387 * 0.141 ***	Partial Mediation
GP → EVM → LW GP-LW	0.121 NS 0.321 **	No Mediation
GP → EVM → PSYW GP → PSYW	0.311 * 0.112 *	Partial Mediation
GP → IM → ECB GP →ECB	0.358 ** 0.141 ***	Partial Mediation
GP → IM → LW GP-LW	0.412 ** 0.321 **	Partial Mediation
GP → IM → PSYW GP→PSYW	0.167 NS 0.112 *	No Mediation
GP → SF → ECB GP →ECB	0.115 NS 0.141 ***	No Mediation
GP → SF → LW GP-LW	0.312 * 0.321 **	Partial Mediation
GP → SF → PSYW GP→PSYW	0.131 NS 0.112 *	No Mediation
GR → EF → ECB GR → ECB	0.271 * 0.141 ***	Full Mediation
GR → EF → LW GR→ LW	0.147 NS 0.341 **	No Mediation
GR → EF → PSYW GR → PSYW	0.241 ** 0.277 NS	Full Mediation
GR → EM → ECB GR → ECB	0.109 0.141 ***	No Mediation
GR → EM → LW GR→ LW	0.098 NS 0.341 **	No Mediation
GR → EM → PSYW GR → PSYW	0.357 ** 0.277 NS	Full Mediation
GR → EVM → ECB GR → ECB	0.141 NS 0.141 NS	No Mediation
GR → EVM → LW GR→ LW	0.413 * 0.341 **	Partial Mediation
GR → EVM → PSYW GR → PSYW	0.121 NS 0.277 NS	No Mediation
GR → IM → ECB GR → ECB	0.131 NS 0.141 NS	No Mediation
GR → IM → LW GR→ LW	0.331 * 0.341 **	Partial Mediation
GR → IM → PSYW GR → PSYW	0.449 ** 0.277 NS	Full Mediation
GR → SF → ECB GR → ECB	0.125 NS 0.141 ***	No Mediation
GR → SF → LW GR→ LW	0.426 * 0.341 **	Partial Mediation
GR → SF → PSYW GR → PSYW	0.422 * 0.277 NS	Full Mediation
GRW → EF → ECB GRW → ECB	0.445 * 0.227 ***	Partial Mediation
GRW → EF → LW GRW → LW	0.217 * 0.341 **	Partial Mediation
GRW → EF → PSYW GRW → PSYW	0.145 NS 0.421 ***	No Mediation
GRW → EM → ECB GRW → ECB	0.097 NS 0.227 ***	No Mediation
GRW → EM → LW GRW → LW	0.169 NS 0.177 **	No Mediation
GRW → EM → PSYW GRW → PSYW	0.153 NS 0.421 ***	No Mediation
GRW → EVM → ECB GRW → ECB	0.235 * 0.227 ***	Partial Mediation
GRW → EVM → LW GRW → LW	0.614 * 0.177 **	Partial Mediation
GRW → EVM → PSYW GRW → PSYW	0.619 ** 0.421 ***	Partial Mediation
GRW → IM → ECB GRW → ECB	0.164 NS 0.227 ***	No Mediation
GRW → IM → LW GRW → LW	0.167 NS 0.177 **	No Mediation
GRW → IM → PSYW GRW → PSYW	0.191 NS 0.421 ***	No Mediation
GRW → SF → ECB GRW → ECB	0.127 NS 0.227 ***	No Mediation
GRW → SF → LW GRW → LW	0.122 NS 0.177 **	No Mediation
GRW → SF → PSYW GRW → PSYW	0.122 NS 0.421 ***	No Mediation
GT → EF → ECB GT → ECB	0.235 NS 0.241 ***	No Mediation
GT → EF → LW GT → LW	0.195 NS 0.245 NS	No Mediation
GT → EF → PSYW GT → PSYW	0.179 NS 0.456 ***	No Mediation
GT → EM → ECB GT → ECB	0.152 NS 0.241 ***	No Mediation
GT → EM → LW GT → LW	0.158 * 0.245 NS	Full Mediation
GT → EM → PSYW GT → PSYW	0.194 NS 0.456 ***	No Mediation
GT → EVM → ECB GT → ECB	0.188 NS 0.241 ***	No Mediation
GT → EVM → LW GT → LW	0.105 NS 0.245 NS	No Mediation
GT → EVM → PSYW GT → PSYW	0.298 * 0.456 ***	Partial Mediation
GT → IM → ECB GT → ECB	0.616 * 0.241 ***	Partial Mediation

Note: LW is life well-being, GJAD is green job analysis and description, GR is green recruitment, GT is green training, GP is green performance, GRW is green rewards, IM is intrinsic motivation, EM is extrinsic motivation, SF is social factor, EF is economic factor, EVF is environmental factor, PSW is psychological well-being, ECB is employee citizenship behavior, NS is not significant. p-values are less than 0.05 *, 0.01 **, and 0.001 ***.

.

5. Discussion and Implications

Despite an abundance of research already completed in this area, Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) is considered to be a relatively new concept in organizations, with scholars documenting that GHRM has recently started [19]. Numerous studies on the advantages of GHRM for organizations have been published. So, the current study examined GHRM for hotel employees’ well-being and ECB. This study examined the relationship between GHRM, motivation, and employee sustainability for employee well-being and citizenship behavior. According to AMO theory, GHRM can improve employee conduct and help the organization to achieve its sustainable objectives. It might produce capable employees who embrace green values. GHRM increases the employee’s environmental expertise to meet organizational goals, ultimately resulting in more ecologically conscious behavior [21].

This study holds substantial implications for the hospitality sector, urging a heightened emphasis on prioritizing the adoption of Green Human Resource Management (GHRM). This prioritization is crucial, as it has the potential to cultivate engagement and sustainability among environmentally conscious employees within the sector. Reinforcing sustainable practices in the workforce can be achieved through targeted training initiatives and environmental awareness seminars, as highlighted by Al Hawari et al. [67].

The theoretical contributions of this research extend to the field of GHRM, particularly in the realm of non-green outcomes such as employee well-being and citizenship behavior. Traditionally, research has predominantly focused on the green behavior and engagement of employees in their respective organizations by Karatepe et al. [68] and Akhter et al. [69]. Grounded in AMO theory, this study elucidates the impact of GHRM on motivation, employee sustainability, well-being, and citizenship behavior. AMO theory demonstrates a significant positive effect on enhancing employee well-being and behavior, facilitating organizations in achieving their objectives. The results indicate that employee sustainability practices are intrinsically linked to motivation through intrinsic and extrinsic drivers, but they also align with the opportunity dimension by allowing employees to engage in sustainable activities that are both meaningful and impactful. This dual alignment emphasizes the integrative function of GHRM in promoting both opportunity and motivation within the AMO framework. It posits that GHRM positively influences motivation and green outcomes, including employee sustainability, aligning with the propositions in H1 and H2.

Furthermore, this study extends its scope and explores the additional impact of motivation and employee sustainability on employee well-being and employee citizenship behavior (ECB), as proposed in H3–H6. Importantly, GHRM is identified as a positive influencer not only on green outcomes but also on non-green outcomes such as employee well-being and citizenship behavior, as suggested in H7 and H8.

The findings of this study underscore the importance of fostering environmentally responsible behavior among employees, carrying significant practical implications for the hospitality sector. Management is urged to invest in Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) practices to enhance employees’ awareness of the hotel’s green management program, motivating them to actively contribute to environmental protection and the responsible use of finite resources. One actionable step is the implementation of periodic green training programs focused on environmental sustainability, fostering employee engagement and promoting citizenship behavior. It is essential for organizations to perceive these training initiatives not as mere expenses but as strategic investments.

Demonstrating organizational commitment to sustainability is paramount and can be evidenced through the establishment of fair green assessment methods and the introduction of green rewards. These GHRM initiatives signal the company’s dedication to environmental responsibility and sustainable workplaces. To enhance visibility, organizations should leverage social networking platforms and official websites as mediums for promoting their GHRM and sustainability programs. By doing so, stakeholders will perceive the business as actively investing in environmentally friendly workplace practices, acknowledging the importance of human involvement in green hotel management, assisting employees in addressing environmental challenges, and recognizing workers’ contributions towards sustainability.

Recognizing the significance of environmentally friendly and welcoming approaches in enhancing employee well-being and behavior is pivotal for organizational success and cultural development. This emphasis is particularly crucial in the hospitality industry, characterized by a service-oriented environment where staff members play a vital role in creating unique customer-facing interactions that significantly contribute to well-being and sustainability. This study underscores the importance of training and educating hospitality employees to be transparent and approachable, aligning with the overarching recommendation for the sector to prioritize these initiatives.

6. Conclusions and Future Research

In conclusion, this study delves into the influence of Green Human Resource Management (GHRM), motivation, and employee sustainability on the well-being and citizenship behavior of hotel employees. The collected data revealed noteworthy insights, indicating a substantial impact of GHRM on employee well-being and citizenship behavior. Furthermore, this study highlights the pivotal role of motivation and employee sustainability in mediating the connections between GHRM, well-being, and employee citizenship behavior (ECB). AMO theory underpins the conceptual framework, advocating for its application to enhance employee behavior and contribute to the organization’s pursuit of sustainable objectives.

While this study yields substantial results and contributions, it is not without limitations, thereby opening avenues for future research endeavors. The cross-sectional nature of this study poses challenges in establishing causal relationships. To address this, future research could adopt a longitudinal approach, allowing for a more in-depth exploration of the framework over an extended period. Additionally, expanding the scope of the investigation to encompass diverse organizational outcomes, including both green and non-green metrics such as hotel green performance, green activity, employee absenteeism, and green creativity, would enrich the understanding of the model’s applicability. Furthermore, extending the application of this model to diverse service industries such as healthcare, telecommunications, or tourism would contribute to a more comprehensive and nuanced comprehension of its implications. Future studies should focus on more comprehensive aspects of GHRM, encompassing economic, environmental, and social factors. Moreover, the effect of GHRM on organizational culture and leadership should be explored.