Skip to content
Frontiers
Search

Original Research

Frontiers in Sustainability ·

Volume 7 - 2026 | https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2026.1947444

Green human resource management and environmental performance in Chinese manufacturing firms: the mediating role of green innovation and the moderating role of corporate social responsibility

  • Shihuan Zhang1
  • Xianle Wang2
  • Wei Weng1*corresponding author
  • Fei Li1
  • Xiangyun Dong1
  • Lei Xiong1
  • Jingwei Zhang3
  • Qiuping Guo1
  • Haixia Zhang4
  • Jie Peng1
  1. 1Yunnan Normal University, Kunming, China
  2. 2Sichuan University of Architectural Technology, Deyang, China
  3. 3Fujian Polytechnic Normal University, Fuqing, China
  4. 4Kunming Children’s Hospital, Kunming, China
Article metrics0 viewsView details
PDFCiteMetrics

Abstract

This study examines how green human resource management (GHRM) relates to firms’ environmental performance (EP), considering green innovation (GI) as a mediator and corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a moderator. The proposed model was empirically tested using 387 valid survey responses collected from Chinese manufacturing firms. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was employed to analyze the data and evaluate the hypothesized relationships. GHRM was positively associated with EP both directly and indirectly through GI. GI mediated the relationship between GHRM and EP. Furthermore, CSR positively moderated the relationships between GHRM and GI, between GHRM and EP, and between GI and EP. These findings suggest that manufacturing firms can improve environmental performance by integrating innovation-oriented environmental initiatives with green human resource practices and a strong commitment to corporate social responsibility.

Keywords

1 Introduction

The worsening of environmental pollution, resource scarcity, and climate change has pushed firms’ environmental performance (EP) to the forefront of management and sustainability research. Although economic growth has supported industrialization, it has also intensified social and ecological pressures, making environmental sustainability an unavoidable strategic issue for firms (Waqas et al., 2020; Ye et al., 2024). Manufacturing deserves particular attention because its production activities often involve high energy demand, hazardous material use, intensive resource consumption, and large volumes of waste discharge. These characteristics can increase air and water pollution and further aggravate ecological degradation (Awan et al., 2021; Masud et al., 2023; Yousaf et al., 2025). Against this background, enhancing manufacturers’ environmental performance is not only necessary for pollution control but also important for advancing the green transition.

In recent years, research on green management has expanded considerably, with increasing scholarly attention devoted to areas such as green innovation (GI), green supply chain management, and green human resource management (GHRM) (Singh et al., 2020; Wu & Kung, 2020; Zhang et al., 2020). One of the most influential management strategies for improving environmental performance in this area of study is green human resource management (Khaskhely et al., 2022). Green human resource management is valuable because it connects environmental strategy with employees’ daily work behaviors by guiding them to participate in green practices and turning environmental goals into routine organizational actions (Masud et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2025). Still, environmental performance is unlikely to improve through a few isolated management policies; rather, it requires the synergistic effects of green skills, organizational support, and innovation-oriented initiatives (Paillé et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2025). Therefore, examining only the direct relationship between green human resource management and environmental performance may provide an incomplete explanation of how green human resource management generates environmental benefits (Adu Sarfo et al., 2024).

Green innovation may help explain the positive association between green human resource management and environmental performance. By redesigning products and upgrading production processes in environmentally oriented ways, GI helps firms lower emissions, improve resource efficiency, and optimise production routines, which ultimately supports stronger environmental outcomes (El-Kassar and Singh, 2019; Wang & Liu, 2022; Yousaf et al., 2025). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) may further shape the conditions under which green human resource management becomes more effective. Firms with a stronger corporate social responsibility orientation are more likely to embed environmental responsibility into managerial decisions and to provide the resources, legitimacy, and value alignment needed for green management practices. In this sense, corporate social responsibility can intensify the contribution of green human resource management to environmental performance (Masud et al., 2023) and make green human resource management more likely to stimulate green innovation (Yousaf et al., 2025). Prior research has examined green innovation as a mechanism linking green human resource management to environmental performance (Singh et al., 2020). Related studies have also considered the moderating role of corporate social responsibility in the direct relationship between green human resource management and environmental performance (Masud et al., 2023) and in the relationship between green human resource management and green innovation (Yousaf et al., 2025). However, these studies have positioned corporate social responsibility as a boundary condition for isolated relationships. It therefore remains unclear whether corporate social responsibility also conditions the realization of environmental benefits from green innovation and whether its boundary role extends across multiple stages of the process through which green human resource management contributes to environmental performance via green innovation. This gap motivates the following research objectives:

  • To examine the direct effects of green human resource management on green innovation and environmental performance, as well as the direct effect of green innovation on environmental performance.
  • To examine the mediating role of green innovation in the relationship between green human resource management and environmental performance.
  • To determine whether corporate social responsibility moderates the relationships between green human resource management and green innovation, between green innovation and environmental performance, and between green human resource management and environmental performance.

This study makes three distinct theoretical contributions by clarifying how corporate social responsibility shapes the process through which green human resource management promotes green innovation and environmental performance. First, it extends research that has examined corporate social responsibility as a boundary condition of either the relationship between green human resource management and environmental performance or that between green human resource management and green innovation. By additionally examining whether corporate social responsibility conditions the translation of green innovation into environmental performance, this study determines whether its moderating role is relationship-specific or operates across multiple stages of environmental value creation (1st theoretical contribution). Second, this study integrates AMO theory with the resource-based view to explain complementary mechanisms underlying the proposed relationships. AMO theory explains how green human resource management develops employees’ green abilities, motivation, and opportunities to participate, whereas the resource-based view explains how corporate social responsibility–related resources, organizational legitimacy, and stakeholder support facilitate the deployment of green human capital and innovation capabilities. This integration connects employee-level capability development with firm-level resource mobilization in explaining environmental value creation (2nd theoretical contribution). Finally, evidence from Chinese manufacturing firms provides a contextually distinct test of the proposed framework. By examining the direct, mediating, and moderating relationships within an emerging-economy manufacturing context, this study assesses the contextual applicability of the framework and clarifies its theoretical boundaries. It also establishes a foundation for future research comparing how institutional and industrial contexts may shape the effectiveness of green human resource management and corporate social responsibility (3rd theoretical contribution).

2 Literature review and hypotheses development

2.1 Ability-motivation-opportunity theory and the resource-based view

The ability-motivation-opportunity (AMO) theory proposes that employee contributions depend on their abilities, motivation, and opportunities to participate (Appelbaum et al., 2000; Gerhart, 2005). In green human resource management research, environmentally oriented recruitment and training strengthen employees’ environmental knowledge and skills (Baykal and Bayraktar, 2022; Singh et al., 2020), green appraisal and rewards reinforce their motivation to pursue environmental objectives (Pham et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2018), and participation and knowledge sharing create opportunities for green involvement (Masri & Jaaron, 2017; Mousa et al., 2025). Together, these practices support green commitment, creativity, behavior, and innovation participation (Bindeeba et al., 2025; Chen and Chang, 2013; Guerci et al., 2016). Green abilities help employees identify environmental problems, green motivation encourages them to propose solutions, and participation opportunities enable these ideas to be shared and implemented (Masri & Jaaron, 2017; Singh et al., 2020). These contributions may become embedded in environmental practices associated with EP (Khan et al., 2024; Singh et al., 2020). When employee-generated ideas are incorporated into cleaner products and processes, GI may improve resource efficiency and reduce emissions (El-Kassar and Singh, 2019; Wang & Liu, 2022), providing a pathway through which GHRM may be indirectly associated with EP.

The resource-based view (RBV) argues that valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable resources support sustained competitive advantage (Amit and Schoemaker, 1993; Barney, 1991). Human capital can become a strategic resource when embedded in firm-specific routines and path-dependent processes (Singh et al., 2020; Takeuchi et al., 2007); in green management, this logic extends to green human capital and organizational routines (Boxall and Steeneveld, 1999; Kissi et al., 2024; Tran, 2023) and to GI as an organizational capability embodied in greener products and processes (Singh et al., 2020; Wang & Liu, 2022). Although GI may improve resource efficiency and reduce emissions (Chiou et al., 2011; Wang & Liu, 2022), realizing these benefits requires sustained resources, organizational support, and external coordination (Zhang & Chen, 2023). CSR can provide legitimacy and stakeholder support (Wesselink & Osagie, 2020; Rodríguez-Cala et al., 2025), generate reputational, social, and institutional resources (Wu et al., 2024; Zhao et al., 2021), and align human resource practices with sustainability priorities (Freitas et al., 2020; Herrera and de las Heras-Rosas, 2020; Kong et al., 2020). These complementary resources are expected to support the development of GI from GHRM practices (Wesselink & Osagie, 2020; Freitas et al., 2020), the realization of environmental benefits from GI (Rodríguez-Cala et al., 2025; Wu et al., 2024), and the embedding of GHRM in environmental routines (Herrera and de las Heras-Rosas, 2020; Kong et al., 2020).

Taken together, AMO theory and the RBV provide complementary explanations for different but sequential stages of the proposed framework. AMO theory explains the micro-level process through which GHRM develops employees’ green abilities, motivation, and participation opportunities, thereby generating the employee-level contributions that support GI and EP. The RBV extends this explanation to the organizational level by clarifying how these contributions are embedded in firm-specific routines, transformed into green human capital and GI capabilities, and deployed to produce environmental outcomes. Thus, AMO theory explains how green resources are generated, whereas the RBV explains how they are organizationally embedded and converted into environmental value. CSR connects these mechanisms by shaping the resource conditions under which employee contributions are translated into GI, GI is translated into EP, and GHRM is embedded in environmental routines. Integrating the two theories therefore provides a multilevel explanation of the direct and mediating relationships among GHRM, GI, and EP, as well as the moderating role of CSR across these relationships.

2.2 Green human resource management and environmental performance

Green human resource management (GHRM) represents a distinctive human resource management approach that permeates diverse employee management practices with environmental considerations. These aspects include staffing, training, performance evaluation, reward arrangements, and employee participation. The goal is to make environmental goals an integral part of everyday organizational practices (Renwick et al., 2013). Unlike conventional human resource management, green human resource management focuses more explicitly on cultivating employees’ environmental values and guiding green behavior through formal human resource policies and routines (Chen et al., 2021).

Green human resource management connects firm-level environmental strategies with employees’ daily work behavior, which can contribute to better environmental outcomes at the organizational level. Specifically, by using environmental criteria in recruitment and training, firms can attract and develop employees who possess environmental awareness and green-related skills (Baykal and Bayraktar, 2022). By embedding environmental criteria into performance appraisals and pecuniary incentive schemes, organizations can cultivate greener practices and elicit stronger employee commitment to environmental management (Pham et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2018). In addition to enhancing organizational environmental performance, green human resource management promotes environmentally conscious behavior among workers (Khan et al., 2024). From an AMO perspective, green human resource management advances environmental goals by training workers to be more environmentally conscious, increasing their incentive to do so, and providing them with opportunities to do so. The RBV further suggests that the green human capital and organizational capabilities accumulated through green human resource management represent valuable organizational resources that support superior environmental outcomes (Singh et al., 2020). Thus, a subsequent hypothesis is presented:

H1: Green human resource management is positively associated with corporate environmental performance.

2.3 Green human resource management and green innovation

Green innovation (GI) involves environmentally oriented changes in products, processes, and managerial practices that help firms lower ecological burdens, improve resource efficiency, and limit emissions (Huang et al., 2009; Rennings, 2000). It generally includes product-level and process-level green innovation, allowing firms to upgrade products, operations, and management routines while improving environmental outcomes and sustainability (Bernauer et al., 2006; Oltra & Saint Jean, 2009; Tang et al., 2018).

Green innovation requires both technological resources and human resource management support (Li et al., 2026; Qian & Cao, 2025; Wang & Liu, 2022). Green human resource management can encourage green innovation by strengthening employees’ environmental commitment, green creativity, and innovation participation (Chen and Chang, 2013; Guerci et al., 2016; O’Donohue & Torugsa, 2016; Tang et al., 2018). It also supports the use of cleaner energy, green technologies, and low-emission production systems, thereby promoting product- and process-related green innovation through resource efficiency (Albort-Morant et al., 2016; Gunasekaran and Spalanzani, 2012). Therefore, green human resource management creates the human capital, organizational support, and behavioral foundations required to promote green innovation. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2: Green human resource management is positively associated with green innovation.

2.4 Green innovation and environmental performance

Green innovation serves as a mechanism that helps firms achieve better environmental outcomes. By redesigning products in environmentally oriented ways, firms can use fewer materials, generate fewer pollutants, and improve the ecological features of products during design and development (Li et al., 2020; Wang & Liu, 2022). Through green process innovation, firms can optimize production processes, improve energy efficiency, and reduce waste and pollutant emissions, thereby mitigating the adverse environmental impacts of production activities (Li et al., 2023; Wang & Liu, 2022). Thus, green innovation may be associated with lower resource consumption and pollutant emissions, as well as with better environmental performance.

Green innovation has been found to be negatively associated with firms’ pollutant emission intensity (Jiang et al., 2025) and positively associated with their environmental performance (Bindeeba et al., 2025). This mechanism is especially relevant to manufacturing firms, because their operations often involve intensive energy use and substantial emissions; thus, green innovation has become a critical strategic tool for addressing environmental pressures and enhancing environmental efficiency (Chiou et al., 2011). Although green innovation may entail substantial costs and uncertainty during implementation, its positive effects on pollution reduction, resource conservation, and environmental performance improvement have been widely supported (Fan et al., 2023; Khan et al., 2024). Thus, a subsequent hypothesis is presented:

H3: Green innovation is positively associated with corporate environmental performance.

2.5 The mediating role of green innovation

The linkage between green human resource management and environmental performance may be channeled through green innovation, which functions as an intervening conduit. Abilities, motivation, and involvement opportunities are the three main factors that influence employees’ green behavior, according to the AMO. Green training encourages employees to learn about the environment and become more environmentally competent, while green incentives motivate them to innovate in a greener way. Employees are more likely to come up with suggestions pertaining to the environment when they have chances to participate and share knowledge (Masri & Jaaron, 2017). As a result, green human resource management helps green innovation out by inspiring and educating workers to become more environmentally conscious and accountable.

Moreover, green innovation helps firms introduce cleaner ideas, methods, and practices that upgrade production and operations and lead to better environmental outcomes (El-Kassar and Singh, 2019; Wang & Liu, 2022). Environmental performance is likewise intricately intertwined with green innovation, environmentally benign products, and green solutions devised by employees (Singh et al., 2020). Thus, green human resource management may influence environmental performance both directly and through green innovation. Thus, a subsequent hypothesis is presented:

H4: Green innovation mediates the relationship between green human resource management and environmental performance.

2.6 The moderating role of corporate social responsibility

2.6.1 Corporate social responsibility moderates the relationship between green human resource management and green innovation

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) encapsulates firms’ endeavors to align pecuniary ambitions with civic and environmental undertakings while accommodating the concerns of societal claimants, including workforce members, patron consumers, regulatory administrations, and regional communal cohorts (Wesselink & Osagie, 2020). GHRM develops employees’ green awareness and capabilities through training, rewards, and participation arrangements with an environmental orientation, thereby supporting green innovation. However, the conversion of GHRM into GI may depend on whether firms have an organizational context that supports green objectives.

In firms with a stronger CSR orientation, stakeholder and sustainability concerns are more likely to be incorporated into managerial routines, offering resources and legitimacy for green training, knowledge sharing, and employee involvement (Wesselink & Osagie, 2020). The alignment between CSR and HRM also helps build a more coherent green management system, which can encourage employee participation, stimulate innovative ideas, and reinforce the implementation of green principles within organizations (Freitas et al., 2020; Herrera and de las Heras-Rosas, 2020; Kong et al., 2020).

Thus, a subsequent hypothesis is presented:

H5: Corporate social responsibility positively moderates the relationship between green human resource management and green innovation.

2.6.2 Corporate social responsibility moderates the relationship between green innovation and environmental performance

GI can reduce pollutant emissions and enhance resource efficiency through green product development, process improvement, and efficient resource use, ultimately improving EP (Khan et al., 2024; Singh et al., 2020). However, GI does not necessarily translate into environmental performance gains. Its implementation often entails substantial costs, long time horizons, and considerable uncertainty, requiring sustained resource commitment, organizational support, and external coordination (Zhang & Chen, 2023).

Companies that prioritize CSR are more likely to consistently incorporate green innovation findings into product design, as they place a higher emphasis on stakeholder expectations and environmental responsibility, production processes, and environmental governance practices, while alleviating resource constraints and external resistance through strong stakeholder relationships (Rodríguez-Cala et al., 2025). From the perspective of RBV, CSR represents a valuable intangible resource that enables firms to accumulate reputational capital, social capital, and institutional support. These resources, in turn, facilitate the effective implementation of green innovation initiatives (Wu et al., 2024; Zhao et al., 2021). Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H6: Corporate social responsibility significantly moderates the relationship between green innovation and environmental performance.

2.6.3 Corporate social responsibility moderates the relationship between green human resource management and environmental performance

GHRM can shape employees’ green awareness and behavior by embedding environmental requirements into training, appraisal, and participation practices, thereby contributing to firms’ environmental outcomes. However, this influence may be contingent on whether firms have a responsibility-oriented culture that supports sustainability. Because CSR and HRM both emphasize organizational sustainability, their alignment can help firms implement green management practices more effectively (Herrera and de las Heras-Rosas, 2020; Kong et al., 2020).

Firms with stronger CSR orientation usually attach more importance to environmental duties and stakeholder concerns, and are more likely to offer legitimacy, resources, and managerial support for GHRM practices. Well-developed management structures can further support CSR implementation, encourage employee involvement, and embed green principles into organizational routines (Freitas et al., 2020). The beneficial influence of GHRM on environmental performance is expected to be reinforced by CSR. Thus, a subsequent hypothesis is presented:

H7: Corporate social responsibility significantly moderates the relationship between green human resource management and environmental performance.

Accordingly, this study develops an integrated research model, as illustrated in Figure 1.

The conceptual framework of the study.
Figure 1. The conceptual framework of the study.

3 Research methodology

3.1 Measures

The quantitative methodology of this study was based on surveys. Items for the primary constructs and questions about the respondent’s demographics were included in the survey. All constructs were measured using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). The measurement items were adapted from validated scales reported in previous studies. The complete questionnaire is provided in the Appendix.

Given that the original measurement instruments were developed in English, the Chinese questionnaire was produced through a rigorous translation and back-translation procedure. To enhance the clarity and contextual appropriateness of the questionnaire, two experts in sustainability management and green human resource management reviewed the initial draft and evaluated its relevance and contextual fit. Several wording changes were made after expert review. Based on their feedback, several items were slightly revised. For example, “Every employee undergoes mandatory environmental training” was adjusted to “Every employee must receive environmental awareness training.”

Following the hierarchical specification adopted by Jamil et al. (2025), green human resource management was conceptualized as a higher-order construct reflected by three first-order dimensions: green ability, green motivation, and green opportunity. These dimensions were specified as first-order constructs because each captures a distinct domain of green human resource management and is measured directly through its corresponding items, whereas the higher-order construct represents the overarching green human resource management system shared by the three dimensions. The three dimensions were measured using 13 items adapted from Singh et al., (2020). Similarly, following Chen et al. (2006) and Jamil et al. (2025), green innovation was conceptualized as a higher-order construct reflected by two first-order dimensions: green product innovation and green process innovation. These dimensions capture the manifestations of firms’ environmental innovation in products and processes, while the higher-order construct represents their shared underlying domain of green innovation. Environmental performance was measured using five items adapted from Melnyk et al. (2003) and Daily et al. (2007), whereas corporate social responsibility was assessed using five items adapted from Sabokro et al. (2021) and Kim et al. (2018).

3.2 Sampling method and procedure

Chinese manufacturing firms provide a theoretically relevant empirical context for this study. The sector is resource-intensive and places substantial pressure on air, water, and soil (Kraus et al., 2020). Its global significance further increases the relevance of this context: China’s total industrial value added reached RMB 40.5 trillion in 2024, and its manufacturing sector has ranked first globally in scale for 15 consecutive years (Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the People’s Republic of China, 2025). Meanwhile, regulatory and stakeholder expectations make environmental responsibility particularly salient (Wang & Liu, 2022; Yuan & Cao, 2022). Under these conditions, the employee capabilities developed through green human resource management may be associated with green innovation, while the resource commitment and stakeholder coordination enabled by corporate social responsibility may condition the relationships between green human resource management and green innovation, between green innovation and environmental performance, and between green human resource management and environmental performance. Chinese manufacturing therefore offers an appropriate setting for testing the proposed framework.

Data were collected from December 2025 to March 2026 through Wenjuanxing, a widely used online survey platform in China (Chen et al., 2022). All participants provided online informed consent before completing the questionnaire. To improve the accuracy of the assessments of firms’ green human resource management practices, green innovation activities, corporate social responsibility practices, and environmental performance, purposive sampling was used to recruit four to five middle- or senior-level managers from each participating manufacturing firm (Gómez and Mouselli, 2018). The respondents held positions in senior management, human resource management, production and operations, R&D or technical management, and quality management. Meanwhile, eligible respondents were required to have relevant experience in human resource management, green management, or environmental management and to confirm that their firms had implemented GHRM-related initiatives during the preceding 3 years. Firms without such initiatives were excluded because the study focused on examining how variations in existing green human resource management practices were associated with green innovation and environmental performance, rather than on firms’ decisions to adopt green human resource management. Including firms with no green human resource management initiatives would provide respondents with little concrete organizational basis for evaluating the relevant practices and their outcomes. Only respondents who met these eligibility criteria were permitted to proceed with the survey.

A pilot test was conducted with 46 managers who did not participate in the main survey. The results indicated that the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for all constructs exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.70 (Bujang et al., 2018; Hair et al., 2020). The formal survey yielded 630 questionnaires from 143 manufacturing firms. Questionnaires were excluded if they were incomplete, had abnormal completion times, or exhibited evident patterned response behavior.

After data screening, the final sample comprised 387 valid responses from 126 manufacturing firms, representing a usable response rate of 61.4%. Of the respondents, 62.8% were male, 48.1% were between 31 and 40 years old, 52.5% held a bachelor’s degree, and 19.4% had between 11 and 15 years of work experience (see Table 1).

Table 1. Demographic information of respondents.

ItemsCategoriesFrequency%
GenderMen24362.8
Women14437.2
Age18–20112.8
21–30 years old (inclusive)11228.9
31–40 years old (inclusive)18648.1
41 years old or above7820.2
Work Experience (years)0–512432.1
6–106917.8
11–157519.4
16–206015.5
More than 205915.2
Education LevelHigh school or below266.7
Junior college (Associate degree)7419.1
Bachelor’s degree20352.5
Master’s degree7318.9
Doctoral degree112.8

4 Data analysis and results

The data were analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in SmartPLS 4. PLS-SEM was selected because the study is prediction-oriented and estimates a complex model involving mediation, moderation, and reflective–reflective higher-order constructs (Hair et al., 2020). Following the recommendations of Jamil et al. (2025), green human resource management and green innovation were modeled as second-order reflective–reflective constructs. The two-stage approach proposed by Ringle et al. (2012) was used to estimate these higher-order constructs. In the first stage, latent variable scores were obtained for the lower-order components of green human resource management, including green ability, green motivation, and green opportunity, as well as for the lower-order components of green innovation, including green product innovation and green process innovation. In the second stage, these scores were used as manifest indicators of the corresponding higher-order constructs. Corporate social responsibility and environmental performance were retained as first-order reflective constructs. The measurement model was assessed before evaluating the structural model.

4.1 Common method bias

To assess potential common method bias (CMB), two complementary statistical procedures were employed. First, a full-collinearity assessment was conducted using the construct scores obtained from the first-stage model. A random variable was introduced as the criterion variable, with all latent constructs specified as its predictors. The VIF values for corporate social responsibility, environmental performance, green human resource management, and green innovation were 1.012, 1.806, 1.624, and 1.393, respectively. All values were below the conservative threshold of 3.3 (Kock, 2015), suggesting a low risk of CMB based on this assessment. Second, Harman’s single-factor test was performed using an unrotated exploratory factor analysis in SPSS (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The first factor accounted for 32.51% of the total variance, indicating that no single factor accounted for the majority of the variance.

In addition to these statistical assessments, procedural measures were adopted during questionnaire design and administration to reduce potential method bias, drawing on Podsakoff et al., 2003. Respondents were assured that their answers would remain anonymous and confidential. They were also informed that there were no right or wrong answers and were encouraged to respond honestly according to the actual circumstances of their firms. Moreover, the questionnaire items were presented in a randomized order, and clear and concise instructions were provided to minimize ambiguity. Taken together, these findings and procedural measures alleviate concerns about CMB, although they do not rule out its presence.

4.2 Measurement model

Before estimating the structural model, the reliability and validity of all reflective constructs at both the first- and second-order levels were assessed. Table 2 summarizes the indicator loadings, Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability reported as rho_A and rho_C, and average variance extracted (AVE). All indicator and dimension loadings met the recommended criteria, Cronbach’s alpha, rho_A, and rho_C values exceeded 0.70, and all AVE values were above 0.50. These results support satisfactory indicator reliability, internal consistency, and convergent validity (Hair et al., 2020).

Table 2. Items loadings, average variance extracted (AVE), and composite reliability (CR) assessment.

ConstructIndicatorsLoadingsCronbach’s αCR (rho_a)CR (rho_c)AVE
First-order constructs
Green abilityGA10.8250.9000.9010.9230.668
GA20.819
GA30.811
GA40.825
GA50.817
GA60.805
Green motivationGM10.8360.8600.8610.9050.705
GM20.822
GM30.847
GM40.852
Green opportunityGO10.8580.8080.8090.8860.722
GO20.846
GO30.845
Green product innovationGPI10.8480.8370.8380.8910.672
GPI20.824
GPI30.824
GPI40.782
Green process innovationGPRI10.8640.8500.8530.8990.691
GPRI20.780
GPRI30.839
GPRI40.839
Corporate social responsibilityCSR10.8740.9220.9420.9380.751
CSR20.885
CSR30.903
CSR40.814
CSR50.854
Environmental performanceEP10.7910.8490.8500.8920.624
EP20.804
EP30.779
EP40.789
EP50.785
Second-order constructs
Green human resource managementGA0.9070.8560.8630.9120.776
GM0.871
GO0.865
Green innovationGPI0.8950.7430.7430.8860.795
GPRI0.889

GHRM, green human resource management; GA, green ability; GM, green motivation; GO, green opportunity; GI, green innovation; GPI, green product innovation; GPRI, green process innovation; CSR, corporate social responsibility; EP, environmental performance.

Discriminant validity was examined using the heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT) (Henseler et al., 2015). As shown in Table 3, all HTMT values for the first-order constructs were below the conservative threshold of 0.85. The second-order constructs—green human resource management and green innovation—also exhibited acceptable HTMT values with the other constructs, as reported in Table 4. In addition, the Fornell–Larcker results showed that the square root of AVE for each construct exceeded its corresponding inter-construct correlations, providing further support for discriminant validity at both the first- and higher-order levels (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

Table 3. Heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT) assessment for first-order constructs.

VariableGAGMGOGPIGPRICSREP
HTMT
GA
GM0.774
GO0.8060.747
GPI0.4380.3200.329
GPRI0.4370.3600.3720.698
CSR0.0780.0320.0730.1150.039
EP0.6350.6350.5950.5500.5090.063
Fornell–Larcker criterion
GA0.817
GM0.6820.840
GO0.6880.6230.850
GPI0.3800.2710.2710.820
GPRI0.3830.3080.3090.5910.831
CSR0.055−0.001−0.065−0.107−0.0090.867
EP0.5560.5440.4940.4650.4350.0450.790

GA, green ability; GM, green motivation; GO, green opportunity; GPI, green product innovation; GPRI, green process innovation; CSR, corporate social responsibility; EP, environmental performance.

Table 4. Heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT) assessment for second-order constructs.

VariableGHRMGI
HTMT
GHRM
GI0.511
Fornell–Larcker criterion
GHRM0.881
GI0.4110.892

GHRM, green human resource management; GI, green innovation.

Overall, the measurement model satisfied the established criteria for reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity, providing an adequate basis for evaluating the structural model.

4.3 Structural model

Before testing the hypotheses, collinearity in the structural model was assessed using the inner variance inflation factor. As shown in Table 5, all inner VIF values were below the recommended threshold of 5 (Hair et al., 2019), indicating that multicollinearity was not a concern. The model explained 53.3% of the variance in environmental performance (R2 = 0.533; adjusted R2 = 0.527) and 37.8% of the variance in green innovation (R2 = 0.378; adjusted R2 = 0.373), demonstrating acceptable explanatory power for both endogenous constructs. The Stone–Geisser Q2 values obtained through blindfolding were 0.324 for environmental performance and 0.292 for green innovation. Both values exceeded zero, supporting the model’s predictive relevance (Hair et al., 2019).

Table 5. Structural model assessment and hypothesis testing.

HypothesisPathβtpBias-corrected 95% CI [2.5, 97.5%]Inner VIFf2Conclusion
H1GHRM→EP0.4527.910<0.001[0.341,0.566]1.6320.268Supported
H2GHRM→GI0.3886.817<0.001[0.271,0.492]1.0020.241Supported
H3GI → EP0.1792.7590.006[0.058,0.311]1.6710.041Supported

GHRM, green human resource management; GI, green innovation; CSR, corporate social responsibility; EP, environmental performance.

The significance of the structural paths was assessed using 5,000 bootstrap resamples. Table 5 reports the path coefficients, t-values, p-values, 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals, and f2 effect sizes. The results showed that green human resource management had significant positive effects on environmental performance and green innovation, while green innovation had a significant positive effect on environmental performance. Thus, H1, H2, and H3 were supported. The structural model is illustrated in Figure 2. The corresponding effect sizes indicated medium effects for the first two relationships and a small effect for the third (see Table 5).

Structural model.
Figure 2. Structural model.

4.4 Mediating relationship

Using the same bootstrapping procedure, the specific indirect effect of green human resource management on environmental performance through green innovation was positive and significant (β = 0.069, t = 2.220, p = 0.026, 95% bias-corrected CI [0.021, 0.140]), supporting H4. The total effect was 0.521, with the indirect effect accounting for 13.24% of the total effect. As the indirect effect and the direct effect reported in Table 6 were both positive and statistically significant, GI represented complementary mediation according to Zhao et al., (2010).

Table 6. Mediation analysis.

HypothesisPathTotalDirectIndirecttp95% bias-corrected CIVAFMediation
H4GHRM→GI → EP0.5210.4520.0692.2200.026[0.021, 0.140]13.24%Complementary

GHRM, green human resource management; GI, green innovation; EP, environmental performance.

4.5 Moderating effect

The two-stage approach was used in SmartPLS 4 to estimate the moderating effects because it offers favorable parameter recovery and relatively high statistical power for detecting latent-variable interactions. By constructing interaction terms from latent variable scores, this approach avoids generating a large number of product indicators, thereby preserving model parsimony and reducing estimation complexity. It also remains flexible when the interacting constructs differ in their indicator structures, making it particularly appropriate for the present model, which incorporates multiple moderating relationships and higher-order constructs (Becker et al., 2018; Henseler and Chin, 2010).

The results of the interaction between green human resource management and corporate social responsibility on green innovation (β = 0.411, t = 6.238, p < 0.001, 95% bias-corrected CI [0.299, 0.507]) are shown in Table 7, which lend credence to H5. H6 is supported by the fact that environmental performance was favorably and substantially impacted by the interaction term between corporate social responsibility and green innovation (β = 0.125, t = 2.136, p = 0.033, 95% bias-corrected CI [0.020, 0.242]). The results of the interaction between corporate social responsibility and green human resource management strongly and favorably impacted EP (β = 0.249, t = 3.749, p < 0.001, 95% bias-corrected CI [0.126, 0.376]), lending credence to H7. The f2 effect sizes for the interaction effects associated with H5, H6, and H7 were 0.330, 0.032, and 0.116, respectively. To illustrate these moderating effects, the relationships were plotted at one standard deviation above and below the mean value of CSR. The steeper slopes of the red lines (high CSR) compared with the blue dashed lines (low CSR) indicate that the effects of green human resource management on green innovation and environmental performance are significantly enhanced in firms with high levels of CSR (see Figures 3, 4). Additionally, Figure 5 demonstrates that the positive effect of green innovation on environmental performance is more pronounced when CSR is high.

Table 7. Results of moderating effect test.

HypothesisPathβpt95% bias-corrected CIf2Result
H5GHRM×CSR → GI0.411p < 0.0016.238[0.299, 0.507]0.330Supported
H6CSR × GI → EP0.125p = 0.0332.136[0.020, 0.242]0.032Supported
H7GHRM×CSR → EP0.249p < 0.0013.749[0.126, 0.376]0.116Supported

GHRM, green human resource management; GA, green ability; GM, green motivation; GO, green opportunity; GI, green innovation; GPI, green product innovation; GPRI, green process innovation; CSR, corporate social responsibility; EP, environmental performance.

Moderating effect of corporate social responsibility on the relationship between green human resource management and green innovation.
Figure 3. Moderating effect of corporate social responsibility on the relationship between green human resource management and green innovation.
Moderating effect of corporate social responsibility on the relationship between green human resource management and environmental performance.
Figure 4. Moderating effect of corporate social responsibility on the relationship between green human resource management and environmental performance.
Moderating effect of corporate social responsibility on the relationship between green innovation and environmental performance.
Figure 5. Moderating effect of corporate social responsibility on the relationship between green innovation and environmental performance.

5 Discussion and implications

5.1 Discussion

This study examined the interplay among green human resource management, green innovation, environmental performance, and corporate social responsibility. The findings reveal that green human resource management improves both environmental performance and green innovation, reinforcing prior evidence that green human resource practices contribute to environmental outcomes and innovation-related capabilities (Bindeeba et al., 2025). Green innovation improves also environmental performance, consistent with prior evidence of a positive relationship between green innovation and environmental performance (Singh et al., 2020). Notably, the association between green innovation and environmental performance was weaker than that between green human resource management and environmental performance. This difference may reflect the fact that green human resource management can shape employees’ environmental behaviors across routine organizational activities (Bindeeba et al., 2025), whereas the environmental benefits of green innovation in Chinese manufacturing may depend on coordination across interconnected production and supply-chain activities and may be constrained by supply-chain risks (Wang & Liu, 2022).

Furthermore, green innovation mediated the relationship between green human resource management and environmental performance, corroborating the findings of Singh et al., (2020) in the context of Chinese manufacturing firms. Corporate social responsibility strengthened all three focal relationships. Its moderation of the relationships between green human resource management and green innovation and between green human resource management and environmental performance is consistent with Yousaf et al., (2025) and Masud et al., (2023), respectively. Meanwhile, the finding that corporate social responsibility strengthened the relationship between green innovation and environmental performance adds to prior evidence by suggesting that green innovation does not automatically generate environmental benefits; rather, its environmental value depends partly on the organizational context in which it is implemented. In the Chinese context, the moderating role of corporate social responsibility can be understood through the combined effects of institutional pressures and the relational embeddedness of manufacturing activities. Given the strong governmental and stakeholder expectations concerning corporate environmental responsibility in China (Yuan & Cao, 2022), corporate social responsibility may enhance organizational legitimacy and facilitate access to stakeholder support and complementary resources, thereby creating an enabling context in which employees’ green capabilities and green innovation are more likely to be translated into production practices. Moreover, because the environmental returns to green innovation depend on effective coordination across interdependent production and supply-chain activities (Wang & Liu, 2022), corporate social responsibility may also serve as a relational governance mechanism by signaling a credible long-term commitment to environmental goals, strengthening interorganizational trust, and facilitating the knowledge and resource exchange required to embed green innovation in routine operations.

5.2 Theoretical implications

Observational reckonings give rise to three theoretical implications. First, they furnish a more encompassing account of the linkage between GHRM and EP. Although prior research has substantiated the beneficial influence of GHRM on EP, the mechanisms through which this effect materializes remain insufficiently elucidated. Research on the ways in which GHRM creates environmental value may be enhanced by including GI into the model, as this study demonstrates that GHRM can indirectly improve EP via innovations in green products and processes.

Second, the literature concerning the antecedents of GI is further enriched and extended by the present study. Previous studies have mainly explained GI from environmental regulation, market pressure, and technological resource perspectives. This study further shows that HRM practices also constitute a key source of GI, because they develop employees’ green abilities, motivation, and participation in innovation.

Third, this study extends AMO theory and the resource-based view by identifying corporate social responsibility as an organizational boundary condition linking the development and deployment of green resources. AMO theory explains how green human resource management develops employees’ green abilities and motivation and creates opportunities for participation, whereas the resource-based view explains how these foundations become green human capital and innovation capability. The findings suggest that corporate social responsibility provides a complementary context in which these resources can be more effectively mobilized. This insight extends AMO theory by embedding employee-level mechanisms within a broader organizational context and refines the resource-based view by showing that the environmental value of green resources depends on both their possession and the conditions governing their deployment.

5.3 Practical implications

Several management implications for industrial businesses’ green transformation are provided by the results. First, manufacturers should move beyond the view that environmental performance depends only on pollution-control equipment or terminal treatment. Green human resource management also matters. Environmental objectives may become an integral element of day-to-day management when environmental criteria are integrated into hiring, training, performance reviews, incentives, and employee involvement. This helps enterprises raise environmental consciousness and green competencies among workers.

Second, green innovation should be treated as a practical route through which green human resource management produces environmental gains. Managers need to involve employees in green product development, process optimization, energy saving, emissions reduction, and pollution prevention. Another way to make green innovation more efficient is to share knowledge and work together across departments. In addition to assisting manufacturing companies in meeting environmental standards, these actions also boost resource efficiency and make them more environmentally competitive.

Finally, companies should make CSR a part of their overall strategy and company culture. A stronger CSR orientation can provide lasting institutional support and resource commitment for GHRM and green innovation, helping green practices move from formal policies to actual environmental results.

5.4 Limitations and further research

A number of caveats need to be mentioned. As a first caveat, the research relies on cross-sectional questionnaire data, which is great for identifying potential correlations but has limitations when it comes to tracking the evolution of causal relationships. Longitudinal evidence would help clarify how green human resource management, green innovation, corporate social responsibility, and environmental performance develop and interact across different stages. Secondly, despite the inclusion of statistical tests and procedural controls, common method bias cannot be totally eliminated as the data mostly came from self-reported surveys. Later studies may use multi-source data, such as human resource managers’ evaluations of green human resource management, R&D or production managers’ assessments of green innovation, and corporate environmental reports or objective emissions data for environmental performance. Thirdly, as the sample was drawn from Chinese manufacturing firms, the findings should be generalized with caution. The model could be further tested in service industries, high-technology firms, pollution-intensive sectors, or other national contexts. Fourth, because the sample comprised Chinese manufacturing firms that had implemented green human resource management practices within the previous 3 years, the findings should be generalized with caution. This screening criterion may have introduced selection bias by overrepresenting organizations already oriented toward environmental management and excluding firms with limited or no experience with such practices. Future research should include both adopters and non-adopters and use probability-based or stratified sampling. Lastly, green innovation was treated as an overarching construct. Future research could distinguish between green product innovation and green process innovation to gain a more nuanced understanding of how green human resource management influences environmental performance.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsus.2026.1947444/full#supplementary-material

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source

Footnotes

Edited by: Sady Mazzioni, Regional Community University of Chapecó, Brazil

Reviewed by: Kawar Mohammed Mousa, Near East University, Cyprus

Hussain Bux, Shah Abdul Latif University, Pakistan

Statements

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.

Data availability

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Ethics approval

The studies involving humans were approved by Ethics Committee of Zhejiang Gongshang University. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The ethics committee/institutional review board waived the requirement of written informed consent for participation from the participants or the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin because online informed consent was obtained through the anonymous online survey before participants could access the questionnaire.

Author contributions

SZ: Writing – original draft. XW: Methodology, Writing – original draft. WW: Writing – review & editing, Supervision. FL: Writing – review & editing, Investigation. XD: Supervision, Writing – review & editing. LX: Writing – review & editing. JZ: Writing – review & editing, Methodology. QG: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. HZ: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. JP: Writing – original draft.

References

  1. Adu Sarfo P., Zhang J., Nyantakyi G., Lassey F. A., Bruce E., Amankwah O. (2024). Influence of green human resource management on firm’s environmental performance: green employee empowerment as a mediating factor. PLoS One 19: e0293957. doi:, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0293957
  2. Albort-Morant G., Leal-Millán A., Cepeda-Carrión G. (2016). The antecedents of green innovation performance: a model of learning and capabilities. J. Bus. Res. 69, 4912 – 4917. doi: doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.052
  3. Amit R., Schoemaker P. J. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strateg. Manag. J. 14, 33 – 46. doi: doi:10.1002/smj.4250140105
  4. Appelbaum E., Bailey T., Berg P., Kalleberg A. L. (2000). Manufacturing Advantage: Why High-Performance Work Systems pay off. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  5. Awan U., Nauman S., Sroufe R. (2021). Exploring the effect of buyer engagement on green product innovation: empirical evidence from manufacturers. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 30, 463 – 477. doi: doi:10.1002/bse.2631
  6. Barney J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 17, 99 – 120. doi: doi:10.1177/014920639101700108
  7. Baykal E., Bayraktar O. (2022). Green human resources management: A novel tool to boost work engagement. Front. Psychol. 13: 951963. doi:, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.951963
  8. Becker J. M., Ringle C. M., Sarstedt M. (2018). Estimating moterating effects in PLS-SEM and PLSc-SEM: interaction term gerneration* data treatment. J. Appl. Struct. Equ. Model. 2, 1 – 21. doi: doi:10.47263/jasem.2(2)01
  9. Bernauer T., Engels S., Kammerer D., Seijas J. (2006). Explaining Green Innovation, CIS Working Paper No. 17. Zurich, Switzerland: Center for Comparative and International Studies (ETH Zurich and University of Zurich).
  10. Bindeeba D. S., Bakashaba R., Tukamushaba E. K., Atuhaire S. (2025). From green HRM to sustainable business performance: a two-stage meta-analytic SEM of the mediating role of green innovation. Cogent Bus. Manag. 12: 2536678. doi: doi:10.1080/23311975.2025.2536678
  11. Boxall P., Steeneveld M. (1999). Human resource strategy and competitive advantage: a longitudinal study of engineering consultancies. J. Manag. Stud. 36, 443 – 463. doi: doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00144
  12. Bujang M. A., Omar E. D., Baharum N. A. (2018). A review on sample size determination for cronbach’s alpha test: a simple guide for researchers. Malays J Med Sci 25, 85 – 99. doi:, doi:10.21315/mjms2018.25.6.9
  13. Chen Y. S., Chang C. H. (2013). The determinants of green product development performance: green dynamic capabilities, green transformational leadership, and green creativity. J. Bus. Ethics 116, 107 – 119. doi: doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1452-x
  14. Chen S., Jiang W., Li X., Gao H. (2021). Effect of employees’ perceived green HRM on their workplace green behaviors in oil and mining industries: based on cognitive-affective system theory. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18: 4056. doi:, doi:10.3390/ijerph18084056
  15. Chen Y. S., Lai S. B., Wen C. T. (2006). The influence of green innovation performance on corporate advantage in Taiwan. J. Bus. Ethics 67, 331 – 339. doi: doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9025-5
  16. Chen D., Ma Y., Martin X., Michaely R. (2022). On the fast track: information acquisition costs and information production. J. Financ. Econ. 143, 794 – 823. doi: doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.06.025
  17. Chiou T. Y., Chan H. K., Lettice F., Chung S. H. (2011). The influence of greening the suppliers and green innovation on environmental performance and competitive advantage in Taiwan. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 47, 822 – 836. doi: doi:10.1016/j.tre.2011.05.016
  18. Daily B. F., Bishop J. W., Steiner R. (2007). The mediating role of EMS teamwork as it pertains to HR factors and perceived environmental performance. J. Appl. Bus. Res. 23: 95. doi: doi:10.19030/jabr.v23i1.1411
  19. El-Kassar A. N., Singh S. K. (2019). Green innovation and organizational performance: the influence of big data and the moderating role of management commitment and HR practices. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 144, 483 – 498. doi: doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.12.016
  20. Fan Q., Abbas J., Zhong Y., Pawar P. S., Adam N. A., Alarif G. B. (2023). Role of organizational and environmental factors in firm green innovation and sustainable development: moderating role of knowledge absorptive capacity. J. Clean. Prod. 411: 137262. doi: doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137262
  21. Fornell C., Larcker D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18, 39 – 50. doi: doi:10.1177/002224378101800104
  22. Freitas W. R. S., Caldeira-Oliveira J. H., Teixeira A. A., Stefanelli N. O., Teixeira T. B. (2020). Green human resource management and corporate social responsibility: evidence from Brazilian firms. Benchmarking 27, 1551 – 1569. doi: doi:10.1108/BIJ-12-2019-0543
  23. Gerhart B. (2005). Human resources and business performance: findings, unanswered questions, and an alternative approach. Manag. Rev. 16, 174 – 185. doi: doi:10.5771/0935-9915-2005-2-174
  24. Gómez J. M., Mouselli S. eds. (2018). Modernizing the academic Teaching and Research Environment: Methodologies and Cases in Business Research. Berlin: Springer.
  25. Guerci M., Longoni A., Luzzini D. (2016). Translating stakeholder pressures into environmental performance – the mediating role of green HRM practices. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 27, 262 – 289. doi: doi:10.1080/09585192.2015.1065431
  26. Gunasekaran A., Spalanzani A. (2012). Sustainability of manufacturing and services: investigations for research and applications. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140, 35 – 47. doi: doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.05.011
  27. Hair J. F. Jr., Howard M. C., Nitzl C. (2020). Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. J. Bus. Res. 109, 101 – 110. doi: doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069
  28. Hair J. F., Risher J. J., Sarstedt M., Ringle C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 31, 2 – 24. doi: doi:10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
  29. Henseler J., Chin W. W. (2010). A comparison of approaches for the analysis of interaction effects between latent variables using partial least squares path modeling. Struct. Equ. Model. 17, 82 – 109. doi: doi:10.1080/10705510903439003
  30. Henseler J., Ringle C. M., Sarstedt M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 43, 115 – 135. doi: doi:10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
  31. Herrera J., de las Heras-Rosas C. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and human resource management: towards sustainable business organizations. Sustainability 12: 841. doi: doi:10.3390/su12030841
  32. Huang Y. C., Ding H. B., Kao M. R. (2009). Salient stakeholder voices: family business and green innovation adoption. J. Manag. Organ. 15, 309 – 326. doi: doi:10.5172/jmo.2009.15.3.309
  33. Jamil K., Zhang W., Anwar A., Mustafa S. (2025). Driving SME sustainability via the influence of green capital, HRM, and leadership. Sustainability 17: 6076. doi: doi:10.3390/su17136076
  34. Jiang X., Gao G., Fu S. (2025). The emission-reduction effects of green innovation in China’s heavily polluting industries under cost pressures. Sci. Rep. 15: 39862. doi:, doi:10.1038/s41598-025-23558-y
  35. Khan W., Nisar Q. A., Roomi M. A., Nasir S., Awan U., Rafiq M. (2024). Green human resources management, green innovation and circular economy performance: the role of big data analytics and data-driven culture. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 67, 2356 – 2381. doi: doi:10.1080/09640568.2023.2189544
  36. Khaskhely M. K., Qazi S. W., Khan N. R., Hashmi T., Chang A. A. R. (2022). Understanding the impact of green human resource management practices and dynamic sustainable capabilities on corporate sustainable performance: evidence from the manufacturing sector. Front. Psychol. 13: 844488. doi:, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.844488
  37. Kim M., Kim B., Oh S. (2018). Relational benefit on satisfaction and durability in strategic corporate social responsibility. Sustainability 10: 1104. doi: doi:10.3390/su10041104
  38. Kissi E. A., Segbenya M., Amoah J. O. (2024). Environmental sustainability among workers in Ghana: the role of green human resource management. Heliyon 10: e33380. doi:, doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33380
  39. Kock N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity assessment approach. Int. J. e-Collab. 11, 1 – 10. doi: doi:10.4018/ijec.2015100101
  40. Kong Y., Antwi-Adjei A., Bawuah J. (2020). A systematic review of the business case for corporate social responsibility and firm performance. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 27, 444 – 454. doi: doi:10.1002/csr.1838
  41. Kraus S., Rehman S. U., García F. J. S. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and environmental performance: the mediating role of environmental strategy and green innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 160: 120262. doi: doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120262
  42. Li B., Meng F., Yin S., Wen X. (2023). Effect of green value capture on the manufacturing firm performance considering green dynamic capabilities and profitability models. PLoS One 18: e0291773. doi: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0291773
  43. Li L., Msaad H., Sun H., Tan M. X., Lu Y., Lau A. K. (2020). Green innovation and business sustainability: new evidence from energy intensive industry in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17: 7826. doi: doi:10.3390/ijerph17217826
  44. Li Y., Li T., Ling Y., Feng X., Wang H., Liao C. (2026). A multi-method analysis of employee-driven green service innovation in hotels based on the ability-motivation-opportunity framework. Sci. Rep. 16: 4643. doi: doi:10.1038/s41598-025-34970-9
  45. Masri H. A., Jaaron A. A. M. (2017). Assessing green human resources management practices in Palestinian manufacturing context: an empirical study. J. Clean. Prod. 143, 474 – 489. doi: doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.087
  46. Masud M. M., Jafrin N., Mohammad Saif A. N., Al-Mamun A. (2023). The moderating effect of corporate social responsibility between green human resource management and organizations’ environmental performance. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 66, 2424 – 2446. doi: doi:10.1080/09640568.2022.2076069
  47. Melnyk S. A., Sroufe R. P., Calantone R. (2003). Assessing the impact of environmental management systems on corporate and environmental performance. J. Oper. Manag. 21, 329 – 351. doi: doi:10.1016/S0272-6963(02)00109-2
  48. Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the People’s Republic of China. (2025). Looking Back on the 14th Five-Year Plan Period: Building a Manufacturing Power–From Leading Scale to Leading Strength. Available online at:
  49. Mousa S. K., Fernandez-Crehuet J. M., Thaher Y. A. Y. (2025). Advancing sustainable performance in healthcare: mediating roles of green HRM and green innovation under green transformational leadership. Bus. Strategy Environ. 34, 5260 – 5282. doi: doi:10.1002/bse.4238
  50. O’Donohue W., Torugsa N. A. (2016). The moderating effect of ‘green’ HRM on the association between proactive environmental management and financial performance in small firms. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 27, 239 – 261. doi: doi:10.1080/09585192.2015.1063078
  51. Oltra V., Saint Jean M. (2009). Sectoral systems of environmental innovation: an application to the French automotive industry. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change. 76, 567 – 583. doi: doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2008.03.025
  52. Paillé P., Chen Y., Boiral O., Jin J. (2014). The impact of human resource management on environmental performance: an employee-level study. J. Bus. Ethics 121, 451 – 466. doi: doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1732-0
  53. Pham N. T., Thanh T. V., Tučková Z., Thuy V. T. N. (2020). The role of green human resource management in driving hotel’s environmental performance: interaction and mediation analysis. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 88: 102392. doi: doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102392
  54. Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., Lee J. Y., Podsakoff N. P. (2003). Common method biases in Behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879 – 903. doi: doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
  55. Qian Y., Cao L. (2025). Intelligence analysis of digital technology innovation empowering enterprise green transformation: an empirical examination of mediating and moderating effects. Sci. Rep. 15: 44115. doi: doi:10.1038/s41598-025-27885-y
  56. Rennings K. (2000). Redefining innovation - eco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological economics. Ecol. Econ. 32, 319 – 332. doi: doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00112-3
  57. Renwick D. W., Redman T., Maguire S. (2013). Green human resource management: a review and research agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 15, 1 – 14. doi: doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00328.x
  58. Ringle C. M., Sarstedt M., Straub D. W. (2012). Editor’s comments: a critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS quarterly. MIS Q. 36, iii – xvi. doi: doi:10.2307/41410402
  59. Rodríguez-Cala A., Rodó-Cobo M., Duran-García N., Zango-Martín I., Calmaestra-Carrillo E., Codern-Bové N. (2025). From commitment to action: aligning corporate social responsibility with sustainable development goals in the health sector. BMC Health Serv. Res. 25: 1569. doi: doi:10.1186/s12913-025-13447-5
  60. Sabokro M., Masud M. M., Kayedian A. (2021). The effect of green human resources management on corporate social responsibility, green psychological climate and employees’ green behavior. J. Clean. Prod. 313: 127963. doi: doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127963
  61. Singh S. K., Del Giudice M., Chierici R., Graziano D. (2020). Green innovation and environmental performance: the role of green transformational leadership and green human resource management. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change. 150: 119762. doi: doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119762
  62. Takeuchi R., Lepak D. P., Wang H., Takeuchi K. (2007). An empirical examination of the mechanisms mediating between high-performance work systems and the performance of Japanese organizations. J. Appl. Psychol. 92, 1069 – 1083. doi: doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1069
  63. Tang G., Chen Y., Jiang Y., Paillé P., Jia J. (2018). Green human resource management practices: scale development and validity. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 56, 31 – 55. doi: doi:10.1111/1744-7941.12147
  64. Tran N. K. H. (2023). An empirical investigation on the impact of green human resources management and green leadership on green work engagement. Heliyon 9: e21018. doi: doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21018
  65. Wang L., Zhang Z., Cui S., Zhu H. (2025). Green human resource management and corporate environmental performance: the mediating role of corporate reputation and green dynamic capability. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 63: e70000. doi: doi:10.1111/1744-7941.70000
  66. Wang M., Liu Z. (2022). How do green innovation strategies contribute to firm performance under supply chain risk? Evidence from China’s manufacturing sector. Front. Psychol. 13: 894766. doi: doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.894766
  67. Waqas M., Qianli D., Ahmad N., Zhu Y., Nadeem M. (2020). Modeling reverse logistics barriers in manufacturing industry of Pakistan: an ISM and MICMAC approach. J. Adv. Manuf. Syst. 19, 309 – 341. doi: doi:10.1142/S021968672050016X
  68. Wesselink R., Osagie E. R. (2020). “ Differentiating CSR managers roles and competencies: taking conflicts as a starting point,” in Research Handbook of Responsible Management, (Edw: Elgar Publ), 516 – 531. doi: doi:10.4337/9781788971966.00044
  69. Wu T., Kung C. C. (2020). Carbon emissions, technology upgradation and financing risk of the green supply chain competition. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change. 152: 119884. doi: doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119884
  70. Wu W., Tian Z., Wang G. (2024). Does CEO social capital affect corporate ESG performance? PLoS One 19: e0300211. doi: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0300211
  71. Ye Y., Qin Y., Yu R., Wu Q. (2024). Optimization of Chinese land spatial pattern in the transformation process of resource-based cities: a case study in Tongling City. Sci. Rep. 14: 6092. doi: doi:10.1038/s41598-024-53546-7
  72. Yousaf H. Q., Munawar S., Ahmed M., Rehman S. (2025). Environmental culture, green human resource management, green innovation, and environmental performance: the moderating role of corporate social responsibility. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 68, 1858 – 1880. doi: doi:10.1080/09640568.2023.2298263
  73. Yuan B., Cao X. (2022). Do corporate social responsibility practices contribute to green innovation? The mediating role of green dynamic capability. Technol. Soc. 68: 101868. doi: doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101868
  74. Zhang C., Chen D. (2023). Do environmental, social, and governance scores improve green innovation? Empirical evidence from Chinese-listed companies. PLoS One 18: e0279220. doi: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0279220
  75. Zhang J., Liang G., Feng T., Yuan C., Jiang W. (2020). Green innovation to respond to environmental regulation: how external knowledge adoption and green absorptive capacity matter? Bus. Strategy Environ. 29, 39 – 53. doi: doi:10.1002/bse.2349
  76. Zhao X., Lynch J. G., Chen Q. (2010). Reconsidering baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis. J. Consum. Res. 37, 197 – 206. doi: doi:10.1086/651257
  77. Zhao Y., Abbas M., Samma M., Ozkut T., Munir M., Rasool S. F. (2021). Exploring the relationship between corporate social responsibility, trust, corporate reputation, and brand equity. Front. Psychol. 12: 766422. doi: doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.766422

Citation

Zhang, S., et al. (2026). Green human resource management and environmental performance in Chinese manufacturing firms: the mediating role of green innovation and the moderating role of corporate social responsibility. Frontiers in Sustainability, Volume 7. https://doi.org/
Received
Accepted
Published
Volume
7 - 2026

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Zhang, Wang, Weng, Li, Dong, Xiong, Zhang, Guo, Zhang and Peng.

License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

*Correspondence: Wei Weng

Article metrics

Views
0
Downloads
0
Citations
0
Shares
0

Related articles

Systematic ReviewThermochemical and biochemical conversion technologies for the valorization of coffee-industry residues: a systematic reviewMaricielo Yzquierdo-Alejandría, César A. Chomlón-Perales, José A. Vásquez–CoronelOriginal ResearchCorporate social responsibility as a strategic resource: examining the mediating role of corporate reputation in securing competitive advantageHazem Aldabbas, Abdallah M. Elamin, Liza Gernal, Ahmed Z. E. Ahmed, Ruba M. IbnaufOriginal ResearchThe aesthetics of applying 3D printing in the design and manufacture of sustainable bags for womenRania Shawky Ghazy, Afnan Abdallah Al-Amri