Unlike traditional leadership approaches that prioritize productivity or innovation as primary objectives, Eco-L focuses on cultivating an environmentally engaged workforce that actively participates in sustainable practices (Zafar et al., 2023; Hasan et al., 2024). This style resonates with the growing importance of sustainability in corporate settings, aligning leadership strategies with the urgent need for ecological stewardship (Hernández and Munoz, 2022; Zafar et al., 2023; Biswas et al., 2022). Leaders operating within this framework act as role models, embedding ecological principles into organizational practices and motivating employees to voluntarily adopt responsible/eco-friendly behaviors (Uddin et al., 2021). This dedication to ecological/eco-friendly values empowers employees to take proactive actions that exceed formal role expectations, contributing to broader OCBE.

OCBE is voluntary employee behaviors that exceed their formal duties and responsibilities aimed at promoting the organizational environmental/ecological objectives (Biswas et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2023). Such behaviors may include conserving resources, advocating for eco-friendly practices, and participating in sustainability initiatives without direct incentives. Research has shown that Eco-L plays a pivotal role in shaping these behaviors by fostering a culture that values sustainability and ecological responsibility (Hasan et al., 2024; Zafar et al., 2023). Leaders who actively support environmental initiatives create a sense of shared purpose, motivating employees to engage in green practices driven by intrinsic values and organizational alignment (Abdou et al., 2023; Mandal and Pal, 2024).

The theoretical underpinnings of Eco-L's impact on OCBE can be understood through the lens of SET. It posits that when employees perceive their leaders consistently focused on advancing ecological sustainability and ethical responsibility, they feel a moral obligation to reciprocate these values through positive voluntary PEB (Blau, 1968). Eco-centric leaders demonstrate care for the environment and the wellbeing of their teams, cultivating loyalty and trust that stimulate employee involvement in organizational green initiatives (Hasan et al., 2024). By instilling a clear vision for sustainability and creating an eco-supportive organizational climate, these leaders inspire employees to internalize environmental goals, resulting in reciprocation by engaging OCBE (Biswas et al., 2022). Building on this foundation, hypothesis one can be articulated as:

Recent empirical investigations have revealed that eco-leadership styles are key drivers of employees' G-Com, playing a crucial role in strengthening their dedication to sustainable environmental practices (Abbas et al., 2022; Orgun et al., 2024). For example, ethical leadership significantly enhances G-Com by promoting values such as fairness and responsibility to achieve sustainability goals (Hameed et al., 2022). Supporting this view, research involving 448 employees from 5-star hotels in Turkey demonstrated that green leadership positively influences employees' commitment to sustainability. Leaders who actively endorse eco-friendly practices inspire employees to adopt similar values and show greater dedication to sustainability (Orgun et al., 2024). Similarly, a study of 170 Chinese SMEs in the manufacturing sector found that CEO environmentally specific transformational leadership strengthens G-Com among top management. This leadership style focuses on setting clear sustainability goals, modeling eco-friendly behaviors, and empowering teams to take ownership of environmental practices (Yang and Zhang, 2023).

In this study, the nexus between Eco-L and employees' G-Com can also be explored through the lens of SET (Blau, 1968). In the context of Eco-L, employees perceive environmentally friendly leadership actions as organizational support, which they reciprocate through a stronger commitment to sustainability initiatives. More specifically, eco-centric leaders prioritize environmental sustainability, advocate for green initiatives, and foster a workplace culture that values ecological responsibility (Ojo and Fauzi, 2020; Ye et al., 2023). When employees observe these leadership behaviors, they feel obligated to align their values and behaviors with the organization's green vision. This exchange-based relationship strengthens their psychological attachment to sustainability, leading to higher levels of G-Com (Abbas et al., 2022; Luu, 2019; Cop et al., 2020). Based on the above discussion, hypothesis two can be articulated as:

Exciting literature documents the positive interplay between employees' G-Com and OCBE. Previous studies have indicated that employees who are emotionally committed to fulfilling their organization's environmental objectives are inclined to exhibit OCBE (Abbas et al., 2022). For example, results based on 222 participants randomly selected from four industrial units in Pakistan concluded that senior management's dedication to environmental objectives is essential, as it significantly enhances environmental performance and promotes green training, subsequently fostering OCBE (Memon et al., 2022). Moreover, data collected from 308 academics across five higher education institutions in Malaysia showed that G-Com had a substantial effect on employees' PEB (Noor Faezah et al., 2024). In addition, Ren et al.'s (2023) study findings stated that voluntary employee green behavior (VEGB) is significantly correlated with employees' affective commitment to the organization. Similarly, in the banking sector context, findings from research conducted in two developing nations, Ecuador and Kazakhstan, indicated that employees' affective commitment significantly promotes voluntary environmental behaviors (VEB), implying that when staff feel emotionally attached to their organization, they are inclined to participate in eco-friendly actions and support responsible/green initiatives at workplace (Saifulina et al., 2021). Following the previous conclusions, hypothesis three is formulated as follows.

Exciting literature revealed that eco-leadership emphasizes achieving harmony between organizational goals and environmental sustainability (Hasan et al., 2024). Leaders adopting this style model eco-friendly behaviors, such as eco-centric leaders, set clear environmental goals and cultivate a culture of shared ecological values (Uddin et al., 2021). As role models, they inspire employees to engage in voluntary environmental actions, contributing to promoting employees' OCBE (Abdou et al., 2023; Hasan et al., 2024). Further, eco-centric leaders shape employees' G-Com by embedding sustainability into their vision and practices (Hameed et al., 2022; Orgun et al., 2024). Employees who internalize these values develop a strong sense of obligation and emotional attachment to the organization (Musaddiq et al., 2024; Ren et al., 2023), which motivates them to support its environmental goals. This attachment makes them more likely to engage in OCBE, with G-Com serving as a catalyst that drives proactive, environmentally conscious actions (Song et al., 2023).

Accordingly, based on the previous conclusions and grounded in SET, this study argues that interrelationships in organizations are built upon reciprocal exchange. Eco-centric leaders demonstrate care for both the environment and their employees, foster a culture of trust, and strengthen employee loyalty. In return, employees develop a sense of obligation to align their actions with the environmental values promoted by their leaders, ultimately resulting in increased OCBE. G-Com mediates this relationship by serving as the emotional and psychological link between leadership practices and voluntary environmental behavior. As a result, hypothesis four is proposed as:

ESE/GSE signifies the individual's perceived ability to effectively engage in environmentally friendly practices (Mughal et al., 2022). In this research, Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) is employed to conceptualize how ESE impacts the link between eco-centric leadership and OCBE. SCT emphasizes the role of self-efficacy in shaping individuals' behaviors by highlighting the interaction between personal, environmental, and behavioral factors (Bandura, 1999). In the context of eco-centric leadership, SCT explains how employees' ESE—trust in their ability to engage effectively in sustainable practices—moderates the influence of leadership on OCBE (Ahuja et al., 2023; Faraz et al., 2021). Grounded in the lens of SCT, we assume that when employees have greater ESE, they are more likely to translate eco-centric leadership guidance into proactive environmental behaviors effectively. Conversely, those with lower self-efficacy may require stronger leadership reinforcement to exhibit OCBE. Accordingly, hypothesis five is formulated as follows:

The study's theoretical framework is presented in Figure 1.

The target population for this study comprised employees working in environmentally friendly five-star hotels in Saudi Arabia. These hotels were selected because of their strong commitment to environmental sustainability, which aligns with the study's focus on eco-centric leadership (Eco-L), green commitment (G-Com), and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment (OCBE) (Abdou et al., 2023). Hotel selection was based on the ETIC Hotels ranking system, which categorizes properties into gold, silver, and bronze levels according to their sustainability performance (Abdou et al., 2023).

This research focused exclusively on gold-rated five-star hotels, totaling 28 establishments. Gold-rated properties were intentionally chosen because they demonstrate the highest level of sustainability commitment, ensuring that participants worked in hotels with well-established environmental policies and practices. This created a consistent and relevant context for examining the relationship between Eco-L and pro-environmental behaviors.

A convenience sampling method was used due to practical access limitations. Formal approval from hotel human resource managers or directors was necessary, and only nine of the contacted hotels agreed to participate. Employees from these hotels were invited to complete a self-administered questionnaire. While this sampling approach was essential to gather reliable data within logistical constraints, it was also ensured that all respondents came from hotels with strong sustainability programs.

Following (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994) guidance, the sample size for this study was determined while considering the number of items under examination, applying their recommended ratio of 1:10 (item to sample). With 24 items in this study, a sample size of 240 respondents would be considered adequate. Further, this decision also aligns with the recommendation by (Hair et al. 2019), which indicates that a minimum sample size of 155 is required for PLS-SEM when expecting minimum path coefficients (Pmin) between 0.11 and 0.20 at a significance level of 0.05. In addition, it meets Boomsma's (1982) suggestion that a minimum of 200 samples is suitable for structural equation modeling.

Participating staff were asked to review and complete an informed consent form. They were informed about the study's purpose, voluntary participation, and their right to withdraw at any time. Confidentiality and anonymity were assured, and the data were used only for research purposes. A total of 450 questionnaires were distributed (50 per hotel). Of these, 312 were collected, but only 296 (65.8%) were valid for analysis. Responses with missing data or straight-line marking were excluded. The data collection process took approximately three months, from August to November 2024. Table 1 lists the demographic details of the participants.

To conduct this research, the researcher followed a quantitative method where data were obtained through a self-administered questionnaire that participants filled out independently. The questionnaire was designed based on established and validated scales from previous studies to ensure reliability and consistency. It consisted of five key sections. The first part focused on obtaining demographic details. The second, third, and fourth sections focused on assessing perceptions of Eco-L, G-Com, ESE, and OCBE, respectively. Participants rated their agreement with statements measuring Eco-L attributes, G-Com, ESE, and OCBE on a five-point Likert scale, “1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree.”

More specifically, the second part focused on assessing employees' perceptions of Eco-L. The 6-item scale used for this assessment was adapted from prior research by (Zafar et al. 2023), emphasizing leaders' roles in promoting environmental values, setting sustainability-oriented goals, and inspiring employees to engage in eco-friendly initiatives. Samples of the scale's items are “Our leader inspires the employees with the environmental plans” and “Our leader encourages the employees to achieve environmental targets.”

The third section of the questionnaire measured participants' G-Com based on an 8-item scale derived from (Le and Tham 2024), based on (Afsar and Umrani 2020). Participants were invited to indicate how much they agreed with statements that described their emotional attachment, identification with, and responsibility toward environmental sustainability within their hotels. Examples of these items are “I really care about environmental issues in my hotel,” and “I feel it would be a mistake not to support my hotel's environmental efforts.”

The fourth section focused on assessing employees' environmental self-efficacy. The ESE scale, derived from (Chen et al. 2015), was employed to gauge employees' confidence in executing PEB within the workplace. This six-item scale assesses individuals' perceived competence in engaging in actions that contribute to environmental sustainability. Example items include “I feel competent in effectively handling environmental tasks” and “I can find creative solutions to environmental problems.”

The fifth section assessed employees' OCBE using a ten-item scale validated and adapted from (Abdou et al. 2023) based on the work of (Boiral and Paillé 2012). Items in this section aim to measure employees' voluntary, discretionary behaviors surpassing official work duties and supporting environmental initiatives. Three key dimensions structure the scale, including four items measuring “eco-civic engagement,” three assessing “eco-initiatives,” and three focusing on “eco-helping.” One item for eco-engagement is “I volunteer for projects, endeavors, or events that address environmental issues in my hotel,” for eco-helping is “I encourage my colleagues to adopt more environmentally conscious behavior,” and for eco-initiative is “I voluntarily carry out environmental actions and initiatives in my daily work activities.”

After developing the survey in English, it was translated into Arabic to ensure accessibility for native speakers. To maintain accuracy and prevent any alteration of meaning, the questionnaire was then back-translated into English. This process ensured linguistic consistency and conceptual clarity. Moreover, to further validate the questionnaire of the study, four hospitality academics reviewed its content and provided feedback, verifying that the research tool effectively measured the intended constructs. Their input helped refine the questionnaire, enhancing its clarity and alignment with the study's objectives. Additionally, a pilot survey was administered to 35 hotel employees who were not involved in the main study. This preliminary test assessed the questionnaire's feasibility, evaluating its coherence, clarity, and ease of comprehension. The pilot study ensured that the survey items were well-defined, consistently presented, and suitable for measuring Eco-L, employee G-Com, ESE, and OCBE in the hospitality industry context.

The collected data was analyzed using SPSS version 25 and PLS-SEM version 4.1.0.9. Both measurement and structural models were evaluated. Bootstrap tests were applied to confirm the robustness of the model relationships. PLS-SEM was utilized because of its effectiveness in handling both reflective and formative constructs, making it suitable for complex research models. Furthermore, it is well regarded for its robustness in handling non-normal data and its capacity to analyze intricate models with multiple latent variables and indicators without imposing strict sample size requirements. Additionally, PLS-SEM emphasizes predictive accuracy, making it an effective tool for examining relationships between constructs and forecasting outcomes based on empirical data (Hair et al., 2019).

The measurement model was assessed based on several criteria to ensure its reliability and validity, focusing on convergent and discriminant validity. Convergent validity (CV) was assessed using four criteria. These included outer loading, Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability (rho_c), and average variance extracted (AVE) (Hair et al., 2019). Results in Table 2 and Figure 2 illustrate that all item loadings significantly exceeded the recommended 0.708 threshold, as outlined by (Hair et al. 2019). Moreover, composite reliability (CR) values, reflecting how well the indicators measure the latent construct, were above 0.70, confirming their adequacy. The results in Table 2 further indicate that all rho_c values for latent variables exceeded 0.70, ranging from 0.892 for Eco-L to 0.968 for OCBE.

Similarly, Cronbach's alpha, assessed using the same 0.70 threshold, showed values between 0.854 (Eco-L) and 0.936 (OCBE), confirming good internal consistency reliability across the study variables. Additionally, the AVE values reflect the extent to which the latent construct's indicators capture variance, surpassing the 0.50 benchmark, ranging from 0.578 (Eco-L) to 0.755 (OCBE). These results strongly confirm that the measurement items used in this study show good convergent validity. The findings indicate that the items accurately reflect the intended constructs.

Further, Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) were utilized in this study to determine if multicollinearity problems existed. A threshold of three is typically used, where values above this level indicate concerns (Hair et al., 2019). The results in Table 2 confirm that all constructs' items have VIF values below this limit, demonstrating that multicollinearity is not problematic and that the model remains robust.

Following the evaluation of the CV, discriminant validity (DV) was evaluated through the approach of (Henseler et al. 2015). According to this approach, the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio was utilized to evaluate DV, with a recommended threshold of 0.90. However, DV concerns arise when HTMT values exceed 0.90. The findings in Table 3 confirm that DV is not an issue in this study, as all HTMT values remain below the 0.90 threshold, affirming that discriminant validity is properly established.

After assessing the measurement model, the next step in PLS-SEM is evaluating the structural model. This process involves examining the coefficient of determination (R²), the significance and relevance of path coefficients, and the model's predictive relevance using the Q²predict procedure. First, the R² value, also known as in-sample predictive power (Rigdon, 2012), was calculated. As shown in Figure 3, the R² value for the combined effects of Eco-L, G-Com (mediator), and environmental self-efficacy (moderator) on OCBE is 0.793. This means the model explains 79.3% of the variance in OCBE. In other words, almost four-fifths of the variations in OCBE are influenced by these predictors. This indicates a high level of predictive power for the structural model (Hair et al., 2019). Further, in terms of the R² value for the effect of Eco-L on employees' G-Com, the results revealed that the model explained 19.7% of the variance in G-Com. Although the R² value for Green Commitment (0.197) is slightly below the often-cited threshold of 0.20, it remains acceptable within the context of behavioral and social sciences research (Hair et al., 2019). Moreover, to ensure robustness and address potential endogeneity concerns, a Gaussian copula test (Park and Gupta, 2012) was conducted for the relationship between Eco-centric Leadership and Green Commitment. The results showed a non-significant coefficient (t = 1.766, p = 0.078), indicating that endogeneity is not present. This finding confirms that the path estimates obtained from PLS-SEM are reliable and not biased by endogeneity, which further supports the credibility of the results despite the modest R².

Secondly, the Q²predict statistic was used to evaluate the model's predictive relevance for the endogenous constructs. This measure is a key part of the PLSpredict procedure. A Q²predict value greater than zero means the model has predictive relevance. It shows the model performs better than a simple average-based prediction of the dependent variable (Hair et al., 2019). As shown in Table 4, the Q²predict values for both constructs were positive (G-Com = 0.190; OCBE = 0.617). This confirms that the structural model has strong predictive relevance.

Thirdly, a bootstrapping approach with 5,000 sub-samples was used to test the study's hypotheses and evaluate the statistical significance of path coefficients. A coefficient was considered significant if the p-value was below 0.05 and the t-value exceeded 1.96.

As shown in Table 5, the analysis revealed several significant findings. First, Eco-L positively influences OCBE (β = 0.411, t = 8.460, p < 0.001), supporting H1. This means that higher Eco-L levels are strongly associated with OCBE. Second, there is a significant positive relationship between Eco-L and G-Com (β = 0.444, t = 9.490, p < 0.001), confirming H2. This suggests that higher Eco-L levels increase employees' G-Com. Third, the link between G-Com and OCBE was also significant (β = 0.455, t = 2.434, p < 0.05), supporting H3. This shows that G-Com plays a vital role in enhancing employees' OCBE.

Fourth, the mediation analysis examined how G-Com mediates the relationship between Eco-L and OCBE. The results in Table 4 (β = 0.202, t = 2.297, p < 0.05) confirm that G-Com acts as a significant mediator, supporting H4. However, the direct effect of Eco-L on OCBE is still significant even when G-Com is included as a mediator. This indicates partial mediation. In other words, while G-Com helps explain the relationship between Eco-L and OCBE, Eco-L still directly influences OCBE (Zhao et al., 2010).

In addition to reporting path coefficients and t-statistics, we compared the direct and indirect effects of Eco-L on OCBE and calculated the Variance Accounted For (VAF). As shown in Table 4, the direct effect Eco-L → OCBE is β = 0.411 (STDEV = 0.049; t = 8.460; p < 0.001; 95% CI [0.313, 0.504]) and the indirect effect via G-Com is β = 0.202 (STDEV = 0.088; t = 2.297; p = 0.022; 95% CI [0.035, 0.378]). The total effect of Eco-L on OCBE is therefore β = 0.613, yielding VAF = 0.202/0.613 = 0.330. Following common guidelines (e.g., Hair et al., 2019), a VAF around 0.33 indicates partial mediation—consistent with the finding that both the direct and indirect paths are significant (Zhao et al., 2010). We also report percentile bootstrap 95% confidence intervals for the indirect path, which excludes zero, further confirming the presence of a significant mediating effect.

Fifth, the analysis examined how ESE influences the relationship between Eco-L and OCBE. The results in Table 5 and Figure 4 show that ESE acts as a moderator, making the positive relationship between Eco-L and OCBE stronger (β = 0.063, t = 2.314, p < 0.05). This finding supports Hypothesis 5. It suggests that while Eco-L generally boosts OCBE, this effect is even stronger for employees with higher levels of environmental self-efficacy.

From a theoretical perspective, this study makes several contributions to the literature on eco-centric leadership (Eco-L) and employees' pro-environmental behaviors (EPB) in the hospitality sector. First, the study proposes and empirically validates a novel integrative framework that links Eco-L to organizational citizenship behavior for the environment (OCBE), with green commitment (G-Com) as a mediating mechanism and environmental self-efficacy (ESE) as a moderating factor. By drawing on Social Exchange Theory (SET) and Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), the framework explains not only whether but also how and when leadership shapes employees' voluntary pro-environmental actions. This dual-theoretical approach enables a richer explanation of leadership's influence on sustainability-oriented behavior, particularly in the underexplored context of eco-friendly hotels. Second, the findings extend SET by illustrating that Eco-L fosters OCBE through a reciprocal exchange process, in which employees interpret eco-centric leadership as a form of organizational support for environmental sustainability. This perceived support encourages employees to “give back” through discretionary environmental behaviors beyond their formal job descriptions. Moreover, G-Com emerges as a key psychological mechanism that strengthens this exchange relationship: when employees internalize sustainability values, their commitment translates into more consistent and proactive OCBE.

Third, the study advances SCT by identifying ESE as a boundary condition that strengthens the Eco-L–OCBE relationship. Employees with high ESE are more likely to translate leadership cues into tangible environmental behaviors because they believe in their capacity to make a difference. This aligns with SCT's assertion that individuals' self-beliefs shape their interpretation of environmental signals and subsequent actions. The results thus highlight the interactive influence of leadership and psychological resources in fostering sustainable work practices. Fourth, in the context of green hospitality, this is one of the first empirical investigations to assess ESE's moderating role within the Eco-L literature. This addresses a recognized research gap and responds to recent scholarly calls (e.g., Hasan et al., 2024; Zafar et al., 2023; Faraz et al., 2021) to explore personal, organizational, and psychological resources as boundary conditions in leadership–sustainability dynamics across different cultural and industry settings.

This research offers practical insights for hospitality organizations, particularly eco-friendly hotels, by highlighting the role of Eco-L, G-Com, and ESE in fostering employees' OCBE. First, hotel management should prioritize eco-centric leadership development programs to foster sustainable workplace behaviors. This can be achieved by integrating sustainability training into leadership development initiatives and embedding eco-centric values into organizational policies and decision-making processes.

Second, since G-Com was found to significantly mediate the Eco-L–OCBE relationship, organizations should strengthen employees' psychological commitment to sustainability. This can be achieved by aligning corporate ecological goals with employees' personal values, involving staff in setting environmental targets, recognizing contributions to green initiatives, and creating opportunities for employees to propose innovative sustainability solutions. These steps help translate leadership influence into lasting employee commitment, which in turn drives OCBE.

Third, our findings reveal that ESE moderates the Eco-L–OCBE link, meaning that Eco-L is more effective for employees who feel confident in their environmental abilities. Therefore, training programs should go beyond general sustainability awareness and instead target skill development and confidence-building. Examples include hands-on workshops for waste reduction or energy-saving techniques, mentorship programs where experienced “green champions” guide others, and regular feedback sessions that reinforce employees' belief in their ability to make a meaningful environmental impact.

Fourth, developing policies that support voluntary PEB is also essential. Hotel management should integrate formal policies that empower employees to take action in voluntary sustainability initiatives beyond their required job duties. This can be realized by creating green teams or sustainability committees within the organization, encouraging employees to participate in sustainability initiatives, and implementing sustainability incentive programs, such as rewards for employees who take the lead in green initiatives.