Abstract
Companies are adopting innovative and environmentally friendly methods and technologies to mitigate the adverse effects of their products and services on the natural environment. Various internal and external factors influence a company’s ability to comply with such sustainability standards. This study specifically examines the connection between a company’s sustainable supply chain operations and a crucial internal factor, namely leadership. It focuses on comparing and contrasting the impacts of transformational and transactional leadership on green supply chain management (GSCM) and the overall sustainable performance of the company. Using a quantitative approach, the author conducted surveys among employees and managers and utilized structural equation modeling to analyze the model. The findings indicate that transformational leadership significantly impacts GSCM practices and sustainable organizational performance (OSP). However, the association between transactional leadership and GSCM is relatively weak. Additionally, it is observed that GSCM positively contributes to OSP. The results emphasize the importance of upper-level management involvement in green initiatives, particularly GSCM, to enhance the company’s environmental performance and ensure its long-term sustainability.
Highlights
-
1)
Transformational leadership serves as a driving factor in ensuring sustainability in a firm supply chain performance.
-
2)
Transactional leadership has a relatively weak role in organizational sustainable supply chain performance.
-
3)
A firm’s sustainable supply chain performance strengthens its capabilities to improve its environmental performance.
-
4)
A firm’s Top management must take constructive measures to ensure sustainability in their supply chain for improved environmental performance.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Among the most significant factors in today’s corporate environment are environmental concerns (Qing et al., 2024) that can potentially improve the lives of present and upcoming groups (Pan et al., 2022). As a result, most firms and their leaders focus on enhancing the efficiency of their resources (Zhou et al., 2023) while minimizing the negative implications on society, human health, productivity, and the environment (Shang et al., 2024). Businesses are trying to implement the green concept (fulfilling needs while protecting the environment) in all the functions across the value creation activities (Jiakui et al., 2023; Habib, 2022). Among many operations, the supply chain seems to contribute most towards environmental hazards due to its activities, including production, transportation, and use of plastic for packaging (Fu et al., 2022; Awan et al., 2023). The pressure is mounting, and firms must adopt green practices in their supply chain activities. Green supply chain activities are being implemented by industries to combat the growing rivalry in the field of sustainability for manufacturing (Fu et al., 2023), marketing, and consumption of their products and services (Hijjawi, 2022). Firms have used several strategies to compete and combat in the field, including corporate social responsibility (CSR), introducing recyclable and reusable products, etc. (Tong et al., 2023).
The need for transactional and transformational leadership in green firm performance arises from their complementary roles in fostering sustainability within organizations (Awan et al., 2022). Transactional leadership, emphasizing clear structures, goal-setting, and performance monitoring, provides the necessary framework for implementing and maintaining green practices (Habib, 2023a). Through transactional leadership, organizations can establish environmental policies, ensure compliance with eco-friendly standards, and manage day-to-day operational aspects of sustainable practices. On the other hand, transformational leadership plays a crucial role in inspiring a collective vision and commitment to environmentally responsible actions. Transformational leaders motivate and engage employees, fostering a sense of shared responsibility for sustainability goals. Their ability to stimulate creativity and innovation is essential for developing and implementing novel eco-friendly strategies (Dalwai et al., 2023). Therefore, balanced integration of transactional and transformational leadership is vital to creating a holistic approach to green firm performance, combining structured processes with visionary inspiration to drive sustainable practices and long-term success (Habib & Mourad, 2022a). Well-established concepts of green, sustainable supply chain include the use of wood wastes and agricultural residues to produce board, binder-less board, and paper or to convert these organic wastes to clean fuels and petrochemical substitutes via pyrolysis. Organic wastes may also be converted chemically by hydrolysis to sugars, which may be fermented to give bioethanol.
To attract customers and build value in the supply chain, many businesses portray themselves as socially and ecologically responsible (Fan et al., 2023) by using recyclable products, eco-friendly procedures, and a company-wide “green culture” (Fu et al., 2022; Mobarak, 1983a). Companies are applying Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) practices to gain financial advantages while preserving the environment’s long-term viability (Chienwattanasook & Onputtha, 2022). Many enterprises use the GSCM environmental sustainability mode to decrease emissions during supply chain activities (Heydari et al., 2023). Some businesses find a new focus and give back to the community in exchange for their environmental impact, such as by promoting renewable energy. However, this is contingent upon the firm’s green approach and the organization’s vision and objective (Zhao et al., 2022).
Organizations are searching for methods and tools that help them address urgent economic issues (Najam et al., 2022) while also emphasizing environmental and social concerns to improve their long-term sustainability (Ahmad & Wu, 2022) and increase profits and shareholder wealth (Abbas & Kumari, 2021). One such method is encouraging employees and members to take on social responsibility and work through “green” in every activity (Hmeedat & Albdareen, 2022). Simultaneously, firms have to ensure the overall performance of the employees and the business as a whole (Kumari et al., 2022a). Profit, increasing value for shareholders and the company, increased staff productivity, and overall success over time are all measures of long-term success (Hijjawi, 2022). Through time, people and their consumption are linked so that the current generation’s requirements are addressed without jeopardizing future generations (Abbas & Khan, 2022).
Businesses of all sizes and in every industry are increasingly concerned about managing their operations and functions, such as marketing, supply chain, human resources (Wei et al., 2023), and finance, in a sustainable way (Abbas et al., 2023; Kim et al., 2022). Several stakeholders, including the government, customers, environmentalists, and ecologists, continuously pressure firms to be more eco-friendly and green (Hu et al., 2022). To meet the demands, dynamic companies are taking steps to ensure their involvement in green practices (Abbas & Najam, 2024) and be recognized for their efforts (Wang et al., 2022). Supply chain and environmental factors have become more critical worldwide scientific research decisions. Multiple firms are using the novel GSCM and quality management and linking them with ecological sustainability to decrease emissions during supply chain activities (Zhao et al., 2022). For that purpose, the role of leaders and an effective information system is essential as they have to provide direction to the firm (Yu et al., 2022).
A business’s obligation to sustainability is ultimately determined by its leadership’s belief in the value of green commitment (Stahl et al., 2020). The formulation of a company’s strategy is driven mainly by leadership (Kumari et al., 2022a). In addition, executives’ support is critical to GSCM collaboration because it reflects the company’s attitude toward the enterprise as green (Huo et al., 2021). Dynamic leadership conveys the realities of today and the hopes for the future. They have the capacity or talent to constructively lead a group of people in an organization (Bhutto et al., 2021). Leaders can achieve their organizational objectives with less time, effort, and expense by creating an open system that encourages constructive participation. To ensure the success of a strategy, executives must influence the behavior of their employees (Ahmad & Karadas, 2021a).
The study makes a notable contribution to exploring the intersection of a company’s economic and social values with its strategies for goal attainment. This intricate relationship has seldom been investigated despite the pivotal role of leadership styles, specifically transactional and transformational leadership, in the broader context of GSCM and sustained organizational success. Notably, there is a shortage of research in this domain, particularly in underdeveloped nations such as Pakistan. This study’s results are significant for policymakers, executives, and all organizational stakeholders, offering valuable insights into leveraging GSCM and leadership strategies for long-term performance enhancement. The study’s ramifications extend to various sectors, including industries, academic institutions, the business realm, the nonprofit sector, and beyond, providing a wealth of knowledge that can be applied across diverse domains.
This research examines the relationship between organizational leadership styles, an essential internal component, and sustainable supply chain operations. Specifically, it compares how transformational and transactional leadership affects the company’s sustainable performance and GSCM. The author employed a quantitative methodology, surveying managers and staff and utilizing structural equation modeling to examine the data.
2 Literature review
2.1 Theoretical background and hypotheses development
Multiple authors have presented diverse theories focusing on organizational aspects, such as leadership, behavior, reward and punishment, etc. Building on the Natural Resource-Based View (NRBV) by Hart (1995) and the Stakeholder theory by Freeman (1994), the current research explains the impact of both styles of leadership on GSCM and sustainable performance. RBV explains the rarity, indispensability, value, and non-substitutability of internal resources and capabilities lead to a competitive edge for an organization (Habib & Dalwai, 2023; Barney, 1991). According to the theory, firms can gain a long-term competitive advantage by leveraging their resources effectively (Dalwai et al., 2023; Nuta et al., 2024). The effective use of these resources increases and capitalizes on internal strengths while limiting external environmental vulnerabilities (Habib & Kayani, 2024; Zimon et al., 2024).
Environmental limits such as ecosystem degradation and exhaustion threaten the organization’s resources and capabilities. Sustainable development, pollution prevention, and ecological balance are all suggested by NRBV as ways for businesses to obtain an edge in the marketplace (Habib, 2023b). Evidence like this indicates that GSCM is a valuable strategic asset that is hard to replicate and can boost an organization’s success (Choi & Hwang, 2015). Problems, such as the creation and exchange of wealth and the connection between ethics and capitalism, have emerged due to the increased emphasis on economic incentives and harsh competition. A predicament has arisen for political leaders due to these issues: how to develop viable solutions (Habib, 2022b; Parmar et al., 2010). Therefore, the notion of the stakeholder has emerged at the forefront. Freeman (1994) differentiated stakeholders into internal stakeholders, including leaders, employees, and owners, and external stakeholders, including customers, suppliers, distributors, government, and society. Stakeholder theory proposes that the association between these internal and external stakeholders is better for achieving mutual goals. Table 1 represents the summary of the literature on studied constructs.
2.2 Transformational and transactional leadership
Leaders must be able to inspire, convince, and facilitate others to contribute to the success of an organization (Habib & Mourad, 2022a; Zhang et al., 2022). Leaders help their employees succeed by doing their jobs and delegating the work to others. Over the years, researchers have studied and characterized leadership styles into different types (Kumari, Ali et al., 2022b). As per Bass (2000), transformational leaders expect their subordinates to do well and try to change their values and self-concepts to become more motivated and ambitious. According to some academicians, a company’s ability to learn is directly related to the effectiveness of its transformational leadership (Bilan et al., 2020). In transactional leadership, leaders and subordinates swap their connections so that the subsidiary receives compensation and status in exchange for following the leader’s orders.
Studies in management are shifting their attention to the “transformational leadership paradigm” (Begum et al., 2022; Huo et al., 2021; Zhao & Huang, 2022). Bass (2000) has been credited with helping to spread the ideas of Burns’ transformational leadership theory. Transactional leadership occurs when a leader contacts their followers, intending to exchange something of value (Habib & Kiyani, 2022). Yet, transformational leaders must do more than demand compliance from their followers; they must also inspire them to alter their priorities, beliefs, and outlooks. Leaders with the ability to change the perspectives of their followers are called transformational leaders. This metamorphosis inspires Employees to put aside personal aspirations and contribute to the group’s success (Bass & Avolio, 1994). A transformational leader can motivate their followers with optimism and sound reasoning (Hwang et al., 2022; Vermeulen et al., 2020).
Transformational leadership has four components: idealized influence, inspiring drive, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration (Jiang et al., 2017). Idealized influence refers to how a leader inspires followers to establish trust and follow the leader. Leaders who encourage their people with a compelling vision are known as inspiring motivators (Khan & Abbas, 2022). A leader may inspire their team to think beyond the box and accomplish more by challenging their minds. The leader’s concern for the needs of each follower is shown in their level of individual respect (Reza, 2019). Which leadership stance is most effective for achieving successful performance is still debated. Transformational leadership impacts the entire thinking, producing a shared understanding that results in success in organizational learning. On the other hand, transactional leadership may be accompanied by punishing behavior and contingent rewards, which are considered the source of efficacy by such administration (AlNuaimi et al., 2021). Transforming leadership produces a reciprocal stimulation and elevation connection that converts followers into leaders and may transform leaders into moral actors (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987).
2.3 Leadership and organizational sustainable performance
There is much interest in sustainable business performance among different stakeholders. Elkington (2018) coined the triple bottom line idea to measure a company’s long-term viability and growth for sustainable development. As a result, the organization exhibits a strong feeling of responsibility for preserving natural resources utilized by future generations (Zhao & Huang, 2022). Suppose the green idea is implemented in the company’s HRM, leadership, and innovation policies. In that case, its community’s environment and social well-being may be improved. HRM, leadership, and innovation may assist in reducing the environmental and social implications of corporate activity (Rossi et al., 2020). The maintenance and improvement of the company’s competitive advantage and performance are two primary goals of green procurement (GP) adoption. One may argue that leadership is just as crucial to a company’s attempts to boost its role as any other resource (AlNuaimi et al., 2021). The success of a company’s implementation of GP is highly linked to the leadership style of its top management. Froehlich et al. (2014) claim that an experienced leadership style might be crucial for individual and organizational growth. To achieve a long-term competitive advantage, organizations must engage in organizational learning.
Sustainable performance necessitates enhancing the collaboration of leadership, human resource functions, and business culture (Pham et al., 2022). To reduce waste and improve corporate environmental performance, leaders must emphasize the importance of ecological concerns (Burawat, 2019; García-Morales et al., 2008; El-Shinnawy et al., 1983). Leadership involvement and participation in green teams contribute to improved environmental awareness and ecologically sound sustainable performance (Althnayan et al., 2022), significantly influencing the company’s financial outcomes (Shoaib et al., 2022). In the current study, it is argued that transformational and transactional leadership styles are directly associated with a firm sustainable performance. Thus, it is proposed that.
H1
Transformational leadership has a significant positive impact on organizational sustainable performance.
H2
Transactional leadership has a significant positive effect on organizational sustainable performance.
2.4 Leadership and GSCM
GSCM is a multidimensional idea constituting different levels, including external and internal GSCM dimensions (Bon et al., 2018). According to Sarkis et al. (2011), environmental considerations are integrated into inter-organizational processes in supply chain management. Employees can help their work become environmentally friendly for the current and upcoming groups by adopting ecologically mindful habits and building slight lifestyle adjustments (Abbas & Dogan, 2022). The “green work climate” employees perceive at work, and their green behavior significantly impacts their green habits, making them more mindful of devising sustainable ways to be sustainable (Khan & Abbas, 2022). Bhutto et al. (2021) reported a more upbeat outlook on life for employees who work in an environmentally conscious environment. Green initiatives, such as supplier collaboration, purchasing, design, reverse logistics, product launches, and employee green learning, can all have a positive impact on a company’s financial performance, such as profit, market share, sales volume, organizational health, as well as its operational show (Chen et al., 2021).
According to Micheli et al. (2020), green supply chain management helped boost the performance of 169 Italian manufacturing companies operating in diverse markets. Manufacturing practices connected to environmentally friendly supply chain management can favor a company’s sustainability efforts (Ahmad & Karadas, 2021b). It involves lowering environmental accidents and waste disposal costs, enhancing environmental education and management, and making up for lost investment capital (Chienwattanasook & Onputtha, 2022). Furthermore, leaders’ efforts and sustainability orientation have been acknowledged as an effective means of incorporating new ideas, practices, and methods into green supply chain activities and raising sustainability awareness across the supply chain (Feng et al., 2022; Micheli et al., 2020). Thus, the authors postulate that;
H3
Transformational leadership has a significant positive impact on the green supply chain management system.
H4
Transactional leadership has a significant positive impact on the green supply chain management system.
Sustainable performance can be ensured through green procurement and environmental cooperation (EC), which has been shown to increase suppliers’ and consumers’ propensity to engage in environmentally friendly behaviors and reduce their propensity for non-sustainable ones (Zaid et al., 2018). Various green supply chain activities are being researched to improve organizational sustainable performance, including green purchasing, manufacturing, and investment recovery (Cankaya & Sezen, 2018; Mobarak et al., 1982b). Similarly, Green et al. (2012) determined that implementing internal practices related to Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM), such as eco-design and internal environmental management, improves environmental performance. Holt and Ghobadian (2005) discovered that using external Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) practices, such as green purchasing, results in improved economic performance, including cost savings, increased profit, sales, and market share. Recent research by Basana et al. (2022) and García Alcaraz et al. (2022) have demonstrated that green supply chain activities benefit enterprises’ sustainable performance. Rizki et al. (2022) have also studied the link between a different dimension of GSCM and sustainable performance. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed (Fig. 1):
H5
The GSCM system has a significant positive impact on organizational sustainable performance.
3 Research methodology
3.1 Population and sample size
This sample was drawn from entry-level to senior management at businesses in Pakistan’s largest cities, including Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Lahore, Faisalabad, Sialkot, Karachi, and Peshawar. Targeting companies in these locations made sense, as they represent the country’s most important economic centers, where a formal framework exists in which leadership styles may be examined. Data were collected from respondents using a non-probabilistic method of convenience sampling. Over a wide range of industries and company sizes, 459 questionnaires were sent out to businesses. Five hundred surveys were sent out, and 257 were filled out and returned. After checking for missing values and form errors, 253 were good enough for further investigation.
3.2 Tools and techniques
To examine the direct relationship between leadership styles and an organization’s sustainable performance and the mediating role of GSCM, the researcher used the SEM technique using AMOS v.23 and SPSS v.23 empirical and structural analyses. Sample adequacy was checked by the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test, showing a value of 0.879, according to the minimum value of 0.6 required by Kaiser and Rice (1974). Variance inflation factor (VIF) checked the multicollinearity part, which presented a value of 1.0, following the maximum limit of 4 Hair et al. (2010) suggested. The problem of common method bias (CMB) was checked through Harman’s test of a single factor; the results revealed that the contribution of a single factor was 40.37%.
3.3 Demographic analysis
Respondents’ demographic data were collected in the first section of the questionnaire. There were 116 female and 137 male responses out of 253. The median age of those who participated was over 40. Most people who completed the survey have at least a master’s degree. Targeting those in managerial roles meant that the majority of respondents had between 16 and 20 years of work experience. The respondents’ demographic data is displayed in Table 2.
3.4 The measurement instrument
Questions pertaining to the study’s variables were located in the questionnaire’s second section. The scales for the study were adapted with minor modifications. Transformational & transactional leadership items were adopted from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Bass (MLQ) (Bass & Aviolo, 2004). Seven items are used for measuring transformational leadership, and six items are used for measuring transactional leadership style. Organizational sustainability performance is measured with 11 items proposed by Enticott (Enticott et al., 2009), and GSCM practices are measured with nine adopted items from Isaac Obiso (2011). All the responses were measured through a 5-point Likert scale. The study’s preliminary results illustrated the constructs’ internal consistency, showing values between 0.751 and 0.882. The values in Table 2 satisfy the minimal threshold of 0.7 recommended by Hair et al. (2010).
4 Data analyses and results
Before conducting the factor analysis, sample adequacy was checked for data validity. For this purpose, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test was conducted, which requires a minimum value of 0.6, as suggested by Kaiser & Rice (1974). The test result depicted a value of 0.873, following the recommended value. The variance inflation factor (VIF), used to assess multicollinearity, was found to be 1.0, within the acceptable range of 4, as defined by Hair et al. (2010). It indicates that there is no evidence of multicollinearity. Common method bias (CMB) also distorted the findings of the study. It was checked using Harman’s test of a single factor, and the test result exhibited the contribution of a single factor as 40.28%, which falls within the maximum limit of 50% (Podsakoff et al., 2012) explaining the nonexistence of CMB.
4.1 Model assessment
The measurement model was first checked for its validity and reliability. Table 3 shows statistics for the reliability, validity, and average variance extracted (AVE) and factor loading of the study variables, including green supply chain management, sustainable organization performance, transformational leadership, and transactional leadership. The Cronbach alpha and composite reliability values are in excellent agreement with the minimum criteria of 0.7 set by Molina et al. (2007) (Table 3). Factor loadings of all the items of the constructs were checked to ensure convergent validity. All the loadings were more than 0.6, which guarantees the constructs’ validity, as Awang (2012) suggested.
Moreover, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) value exceeds 0.5 for all constructs, aligning with the recommendation by Molina et al. (2007). To establish empirical discriminant validity of the constructs, we examined the correlation coefficient between each pair of independent variables. We found that the correlation coefficient did not surpass 0.9, which aligns with the recommendation set by Hair et al. (2010). In Table 4, the correlation between pairs of indicators followed AVE’s square roots, as Fornell and Larcker proposed (1981). Considering these data, it can be inferred that the instruments and the model meet the requirements for goodness, reliability, and validity, thus validating the proposed hypotheses.
4.2 Measurement model
Various indicators have been proposed to assess the adequacy of fit for the measurement model, as Kaynak (2003) suggested. The ratio of chi-square to the degree of freedom is 1.417, within the required bounds of three by Bagozzi and Yi (1988) and two by Byrne (1989). Other indicators (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Bollen, 1986; Byrne, 1989) show values that either meet or surpass the suggested lower limit of 0.9. These indicators include GFI, AGFI, NFI, CFI, and TLI. The RMSEA value is 0.036, and the SRMR value is 0.0391 for the measurement model, both complying with the prescribed maximum threshold of 0.080 by Browne and Cudeck (1992) and Hu and Bentler (1998). These indicators’ values for the structural model also satisfy the criteria outlined in Table 5. In light of these findings, it is ascertained that both the measurement and structural models align well with the collected data (Table 6).
4.3 Hypotheses testing
SEM is used to analyze the hypothesis of the current study. Firstly, impact of transformational and transactional leadership was analyzed on sustainable organizational performance. It was found that transformational leadership positively and significantly impacts OSP and GSCM activities, with coefficients of 0.273 for OSP and 0.363 for GSCM. The respective p-values of these relations were 0.007 and 0.013. Hence H1 and H3 are accepted. The impact of transactional leadership upon OSP and GSCM depicted that transactional leadership positively and significantly predicts OSP, but its impact on GSCM was insignificant. These relations had coefficients of 0.431 and 0.154, respectively, with p-values of 0.032 and 0.061. Therefore, H2 is also accepted, but H4, which has an insignificant p-value, is rejected. The impact of GSCM upon OSP showed a positive and significant effect with a coefficient of 0.327 and a p-value of 0.009, leading to the acceptance of H5.
5 Discussions
This research examined the importance of transformational and transactional leadership in GSCM and sustainable organizational performance. The path analysis indicated that both leadership styles positively and significantly impact the organization’s sustainable performance with 0.273 and 0.431 beta-values with 0.007 and 0.032 p-values, respectively, leading to the acceptance of H1 and H2. These findings support previous literature by Shin et al. (2023) and Piwowar-Sulej and Iqbal (2023), who investigated the leaders’ role in minimizing waste and improving sustainable performance. Based on these results, leadership is critical in driving firms toward sustainable performance. Thus, the administration has to play a pivotal role in transforming an organization into a committed green firm.
The authors then examined the relationship between transformational and transactional leadership styles and GSCM. Transformational leadership and supply chain management have a significant positive link with 0.363 beta and 0.013 p-values. In contrast, transactional leadership presented an insignificant connection with the green supply chain with 0.154 beta and 0.061 p-values, respectively. These findings suggested the acceptance of H3 and rejection of H4. The result of H3 aligns with the proposed literature by Garengo and Betto (2024) have suggested a positive link between transformational leadership and firm operational activities. The results of H4 were not in line with our proposed hypothesis. Still, literature support was found following the results. Langton and Mafini (2022) found a minimal impact of transactional leadership on the execution of supply chain management in manufacturing organizations.
Mulyani and Basrowi (2024) also suggested the involvement of leadership in improving environmental awareness and ecologically safe sustainable performance. The green supply chain has also been found to have a significantly positive link with the organization’s sustainable performance, with 0.327 beta and 0.009 p-values, leading to the acceptance of H5. Behl et al. (2024) concluded that different activities of the green supply chain have a significantly positive impact on the organization’s sustainable performance. Moreover, Basana et al. (2022) have also suggested a positive link between GSCM and OSP. According to this study’s empirical data, employees should be encouraged to behave in an environmentally friendly manner by implementing GSCM techniques. Sustainable social, environmental, and economic performance can be achieved by following green supply chain practices like eco-friendly recruitment and selection and eco-friendly training of employees. All these activities are possible when leadership encourages and supports the implementation of GSCM.
6 Conclusion
GSCM is crucial for companies looking to operate sustainably and responsibly. It not only helps in environmental conservation but also brings about economic benefits, improved brand reputation, and a competitive edge in the market. As the global focus on sustainability grows, adopting GSCM practices will become increasingly crucial for businesses across various industries. This section delves into the study’s theoretical framework, emphasizing leadership’s crucial role in GSCM, sustainability, and corporate competitiveness. Drawing on the Natural Resource-Based View (NRBV) and stakeholder theory, the study posits that effective leadership is instrumental in realizing GSCM strategies, which, in turn, contribute to enhanced sustainable performance and competitiveness for the organization. The empirical findings presented in the study highlight specific relationships between leadership styles and key outcomes. Transformational leadership demonstrates a positive and significant association with GSCM and the sustainable implementation of organizational practices. On the other hand, the transactional leadership style shows a comparatively weaker connection with GSCM but exhibits a significant and positive correlation with sustainable corporate performance.
Crucially, the study introduces the concept of GSCM as an intervening factor between leadership styles and sustainable performance. Implementing GSCM practices mediates the relationship between leadership styles and overall sustainable organizational performance. By scrutinizing the effects of leadership styles on sustainable performance, this study provides a pragmatic sign that elucidates leadership’s pivotal role in implementing environmentally conscious supply chain practices and ensuring long-term sustainability for the organization.
6.1 Policy implications
Encouragement from above helps workers adopt practices that are better for the environment. Green actions can potentially lessen the use of fossil fuels, release greenhouse gases, and deplete natural resources. Energy consumption, recycling efforts, and waste management are reduced because of the staff’s positive attitudes and environmental consciousness. How businesses interact with suppliers profoundly affects supply chain management (GSCM). Managing your relationships with your suppliers and striving for an open and honest supply chain impact your customers’ pleasure. Success in doing so might be rewarded financially when clients renew their patronage. The low costs of non-green purchases should be assessed against the threats to sustainability.
Organizations with large purchases should be conscious of how long-term use of green platforms may damage a business’s reputation and bottom line. For this reason, the economy’s short-term cost-effectiveness must be replaced with the corporation’s long-term sustainable growth. They are adopting an environmental quality system (like ISO 1401) and using green technologies (Chen, 2005). As a result, forming a long-term supply chain outside of corporate walls requires government policy and regulation. The organizations’ leadership is urged to encourage environment-friendly methods in their operations. In addition to GSCM techniques, environmental-specific transformational leadership is essential in encouraging pro-environmental behaviors among employees. Employee pro-environmental behavior is improved by leaders’ influence, academic stimulation, personal consideration, and inspiring drive. To effectively apply these practices, all organizations should stress developing leadership and training in GSCM strategies.
6.2 Study limitations and future directions
There are several restrictions on this research. Firstly, only employees of Pakistan’s emerging metropolitan cities were included in the study, which minimizes its generalizability. Future research should be conducted in other emerging or developed locations. Secondly, quantitative methodologies were employed solely in this investigation. In the future, researchers may use a combination of methods to discover the elements that foster environmental and social responsibility in the workplace.
Further study is desirable to comprehend the part of leadership and motivation in employee engagement in a green supply chain and try out new ways to manage the supply chain that are more environmentally friendly. Besides, a different moderating phenomenon, such as green organizational culture, should be examined. Future research using a variety of approaches may yield more accurate answers to existing problems. Data collection from a larger population may also produce more significant insights. Researchers can also look into green or circular premium and sustainability certification in firms and investigate how it impact firm reputations, operations, profitability, etc.
Data availability
Data for the current study can be provided upon request to the corresponding author.
References
Abbas, J., & Dogan, E. (2022). The impacts of organizational green culture and corporate social responsibility on employees’ responsible behaviour towards the society. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 0123456789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20072-w.
Abbas, J., & Khan, S. M. (2022). Green knowledge management and organizational green culture: An interaction for organizational green innovation and green performance. Journal of Knowledge Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-03-2022-0156.
Abbas, J., & Kumari, K. (2021). Examining the relationship between total quality management and knowledge management and their impact on organizational performance: A dimensional analysis. Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEAS-03-2021-0046.
Abbas, J., He, C., Belgacem, S., ben, Pawar, P. S., Najam, H., & Abbas, J. (2023). Investment in renewable energy and electricity output: Role of green finance, environmental tax, and geopolitical risk: Empirical evidence from China. Energy, 126683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.126683.
Abbas, J., & Najam, H. (2024). Role of environmental decentralization, green human capital, and digital finance in firm green technological innovation for a sustainable society. Environment, Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04783-3
Ahmad, A. F., & Karadas, G. (2021a). Managers’ perceptions regarding the effect of leadership on organizational performance: Mediating role of green supply chain management practices. SAGE Open, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211018686.
Ahmad, A. F., & Karadas, G. (2021b). Managers’ perceptions regarding the effect of leadership on organizational performance: Mediating role of green supply chain management practices. SAGE Open, 11(2), 21582440211018690.
Ahmad, M., & Wu, Y. (2022). Combined role of green productivity growth, economic globalization, and eco-innovation in achieving ecological sustainability for OECD economies. Journal of Environmental Management, 302, 113980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113980.
AlNuaimi, B. K., Singh, S. K., & Harney, B. (2021). Unpacking the role of innovation capability: Exploring the impact of leadership style on green procurement via a natural resource-based perspective. Journal of Business Research, 134(May), 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.05.026.
Althnayan, S., Alarifi, A., Bajaba, S., & Alsabban, A. (2022). Linking environmental transformational leadership, environmental organizational citizenship behavior, and organizational sustainability performance: A moderated mediation model. Sustainability, 14(14), 8779.
Awan, U., Bhatti, S. H., Shamim, S., Khan, Z., Akhtar, P., & Balta, M. E. (2022). The role of big data analytics in manufacturing agility and performance: Moderation–mediation analysis of organizational creativity and of the involvement of customers as data analysts. British Journal of Management, 33(3), 1200–1220.
Awan, U., Braathen, P., & Hannola, L. (2023). When and how the implementation of green human resource management and data-driven culture to improve the firm sustainable environmental development? Sustainable Development.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Basana, S. R., Suprapto, W., Andreani, F., & Tarigan, Z. J. H. (2022). The impact of supply chain practice on green hotel performance through internal, upstream, and downstream integration [PhD Thesis]. Petra Christian University.
Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of Leadership in Learning organizations. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(3), 18–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190000700302.
Bass, B. M., & Aviolo, B. J. (2004). Sample Items From the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5X-Short. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, 2004.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Transformational leadership, organizational culture. International Journal of Public Administration, 17(3–4), 541–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900699408524907.
Begum, S., Ashfaq, M., Xia, E., & Awan, U. (2022). Does green transformational leadership lead to green innovation? The role of green thinking and creative process engagement. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(1), 580–597.
Bhutto, T. A., Farooq, R., Talwar, S., Awan, U., & Dhir, A. (2021). Green inclusive leadership and green creativity in the tourism and hospitality sector: Serial mediation of green psychological climate and work engagement. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(10), 1716–1737. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1867864.
Bilan, Y., Hussain, H. I., Haseeb, M., & Kot, S. (2020). Sustainability and economic performance: Role of organizational learning and innovation. Engineering Economics, 31(1), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.31.1.24045.
Bollen, K. A. (1986). Sample size and Bentler and Bonett’s nonnormed fit index. Psychometrika, 51(3), 375–377.
Bon, A. T., Zaid, A. A., & Jaaron, A. (2018). Green human resource management, green supply chain management practices and sustainable performance. 8th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (IEOM),(Bandung, Indonesia) March, 6–8.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258.
Burawat, P. (2019). The relationships among transformational leadership, sustainable leadership, lean manufacturing and sustainability performance in Thai SMEs manufacturing industry. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management.
Byrne, B. M. (1989). A primer of LISREL: Basic applications and programming for confirmatory factor analytic models
Cankaya, S. Y., & Sezen, B. (2018). Effects of green supply chain management practices on sustainability performance. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management.
Chen, C. C. (2005). Incorporating green purchasing into the frame of ISO 14000. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(9), 927–933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.04.005.
Chen, L., Jia, F., Li, T., & Zhang, T. (2021). Supply chain leadership and firm performance: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Production Economics, 235(March), 108082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108082.
Chienwattanasook, K., & Onputtha, S. (2022). The impact of Inspirational Leadership on Green Supply Chain Management and Organizational Performance of Food and Beverage companies. SSRN Electronic Journal, 5(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4086035.
Choi, D., & Hwang, T. (2015). The impact of green supply chain management practices on firm performance: The role of collaborative capability. Operations Management Research, 8(3), 69–83.
Dalwai, T., Habib, A. M., Mohammadi, S. S., & Hussainey, K. (2023). Does managerial ability and auditor report readability affect corporate liquidity and cost of debt? Asian Review of Accounting, (ahead-of-print).
El-Shinnawy, N. A., Heikal, S. O., & Fahmy, Y. (1983). Saccharification of cotton bolls by concentrated sulphuric acid. Research and Industry, 28(2), 123–126.
Elkington, J. (2018). 25 years ago I coined the phrase triple bottom line. Here’s why it’s time to rethink it. Harvard Business Review, 25, 2–5.
Enticott, G., Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2009). The use of multiple informants in public administration research: Data aggregation using organizational echelons. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(2), 229–253. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mun017.
Fahmy, Y. E. H. I. A. (1982). Pyrolysis of agricultural residues. Part I. prospects of lignocellulose pyrolysis for producing chemicals and energy sources. Cellulose Chemistry and Technology, 16(3), 347–355.
Fahmy, T. Y., & Mobarak, F. (2013). Advanced Binderless board-like green nanocomposites from undebarked cotton stalks and mechanism of self-bonding. Cellulose, 20, 1453–1457.
Fahmy, Y., Fadl, M. H., & El-Shinnawy, N. A. (1975). Saccharification of cotton stalks. Research and Industry, 20(1), 7–10.
Fahmy, Y., Mobarak, F., & Schweers, W. (1982). Pyrolysis of agricultural residues. Part II. Yield and chemical composition of tars and oils produced from cotton stalks, and assessment of lignin structure. Cellul Chem Technol ;(Romania), 16(4).
Fahmy, Y., Fahmy, T. Y., Mobarak, F., El-Sakhawy, M., & Fadl, M. (2017). Agricultural residues (wastes) for manufacture of paper, board, and miscellaneous products: Background overview and future prospects. Background Overview and Future Prospects International Journal of ChemTech Research, 10(2), 424–448.
Fahmy, T. Y., Fahmy, Y., Mobarak, F., El-Sakhawy, M., & Abou-Zeid, R. E. (2020). Biomass pyrolysis: Past, present, and future. Environment Development and Sustainability, 22, 17–32.
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. Journal of Cleaner Production, 411, 137262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137262.
Feng, T., Li, Z., Shi, H., & Jiang, W. (2022). Translating leader sustainability orientation into green supply chain integration: A missing link of green entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 409–421.
Froehlich, D., Segers, M., & Van den Bossche, P. (2014). Informal workplace learning in Austrian banks: The influence of learning approach, leadership style, and organizational learning culture on managers’ learning outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(1), 29–57.
Fu, Q., Abdul Rahman, A. A., Jiang, H., Abbas, J., & Comite, U. (2022). Sustainable supply chain and business performance: The impact of Strategy, Network Design, Information Systems, and Organizational structure. Sustainability, 14(3), 1080. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031080.
Fu, Q., Abbas, J., Alarif, G. B., Sial, M. S., Brugni, T. V., & Adamwal, N. (2023). I act in an environmentally responsible fashion since my firm is socially responsible: A pathway for transition to a responsible society. Journal of Cleaner Production, 414, 137523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137523.
García Alcaraz, J. L., Díaz Reza, J. R., Soto, A., Hernández, K. C., Escobedo, G., Happonen, A., Puig, I., Vidal, R., & Jiménez Macías, E. (2022). Effect of Green Supply Chain Management practices on Environmental Performance: Case of Mexican Manufacturing companies. Mathematics, 10(11), 1877.
García-Morales, V. J., Lloréns-Montes, F. J., & Verdú-Jover, A. J. (2008). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational performance through knowledge and innovation. British Journal of Management, 19(4), 299–319.
Green, K. W., Zelbst, P. J., Meacham, J., & Bhadauria, V. S. (2012). Green supply chain management practices: Impact on performance. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal.
Habib, A. M. (2022). Does the efficiency of working capital management and environmental, social, and governance performance affect a firm’s value? Evidence from the United States. Financial Markets Institutions and Risks (FMIR), 6(3), 18–25.
Habib, A. M. (2023a). Do business strategies and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance mitigate the likelihood of financial distress? A multiple mediation model. Heliyon, 9(7).
Habib, A. M. (2023b). Does real earnings management affect a firm’s environmental, social, and governance (ESG), financial performance, and total value? A moderated mediation analysis. Environment Development and Sustainability, 1–30.
Habib, A. M., & Dalwai, T. (2023). Does the efficiency of a firm’s Intellectual Capital and Working Capital Management Affect its performance? J Knowl Econ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01138-7.
Habib, A. M., & Kayani, U. N. (2022). Does the efficiency of working capital management affect a firm’s financial distress? Evidence from UAE. Corporate Governance, 22 No, 1567–1586. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-12-2021-0440.
Habib, A. M., & Kayani, U. N. (2023). Evaluating the Super-efficiency of Working Capital Management Using Data Envelopment Analysis: Does COVID-19 Matter? Oper Res Forum, 4, 40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43069-023-00217-4.
Habib, A. M., & Kayani, U. N. (2024). Price reaction of global economic indicators: Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia–Ukraine conflict. SN Business & Economics, 4(1), 19.
Habib, A. M., & Mourad, N. (2022). Analyzing the efficiency of working capital management: A new approach based on DEA-Malmquist technology. Operations Research Forum (Vol. 3, p. 32). Springer International Publishing. 3.
Habib, A. M., & Mourad, N. (2022a). Analyzing the efficiency of Working Capital Management: A New Approach based on DEA-Malmquist Technology. Oper Res Forum, 3, 32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43069-022-00155-7.
Hair, J. F., Celsi, M., Ortinau, D. J., & Bush, R. P. (2010). Essentials of marketing research (Vol. 2). McGraw-Hill/Irwin New York, NY.
Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 986–1014.
Heydari, H., Taleizadeh, A. A., & Jolai, F. (2023). Financing a two-stage sustainable supply chain using green bonds: Preventing environmental pollution and waste generation. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 117, 105583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2022.105583.
Hijjawi, G. S. (2022). Impact of Green Supply Chain on Supply Chain performance. WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics, 19(1), 441–452. https://doi.org/10.37394/23207.2022.19.40.
Hmeedat, O., & Albdareen, R. (2022). The impact of Green Human resources Management practices on the relationship between commitment to social responsibility and sustainable performance. Information Sciences Letters, 11(4), 1013–1022. https://doi.org/10.18576/isl/110402.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424.
Hu, X., Khan, S. M., Huang, S., Abbas, J., Matei, M. C., & Badulescu, D. (2022). Employees’ Green Enterprise motivation and green creative process Engagement and their impact on Green Creative performance. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19105983. Article 10.
Huo, B., Wang, K., & Zhang, Y. (2021). The impact of leadership on supply chain green strategy alignment and operational performance. Operations Management Research, 14(1–2), 152–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-020-00175-8.
Hwang, J., Abbas, J., Joo, K., Choo, S. W., & Hyun, S. S. (2022). The effects of types of Service providers on Experience Economy, brand attitude, and brand loyalty in the Restaurant Industry. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063430.
Isaac Obiso, E. (2011). A Survey Of Green Supply Chain Management Practices In The Petroleum Marketing Firms In Kenya.
Jacobs, E., & Mafini, C. (2019). Transactional leadership, supply chain quality and business performance in the fast-moving consumer goods industry. Journal of Transport and Supply Chain Management, 13(1), 1–13.
Jiakui, C., Abbas, J., Najam, H., Liu, J., & Abbas, J. (2023). Green technological innovation, green finance, and financial development and their role in green total factor productivity: Empirical insights from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 382(1), 135131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135131.
Jiang, W., Zhao, X., & Ni, J. (2017). The impact of transformational leadership on employee sustainable performance: The mediating role of organizational citizenship behavior. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091567.
Kaiser, H. F., & Rice, J. (1974a). Little Jiffy, Mark Iv. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34(1), 111–117.
Kaiser, H. F., & Rice, J. (1974b). Little Jiffy, Mark Iv. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 111–117.
Kaynak, H. (2003). The relationship between total quality management practices and their effects on firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21(4), 405–435.
Khan, S. M., & Abbas, J. (2022). Mindfulness and happiness and their impact on employee creative performance: Mediating role of creative process engagement. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 44, 101027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101027.
Kim, H., Abbas, J., Haq, M. Z. U., Lee, J. H., & Hwang, J. (2022). Differences between robot servers and human servers in brand modernity, brand love, and behavioral intentions in the restaurant industry. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-03-2022-0214.
Kuhnert, K. W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: A constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 648–657.
Kumari, K., Abbas, J., Hwang, J., & Cioca, L. I. (2022a). Does servant Leadership promote Emotional Intelligence and Organizational Citizenship Behavior among employees? A structural analysis. Sustainability, 14(9), 5231. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095231.
Kumari, K., Ali, S. B., & Abbas, J. (2022b). The interplay between leaders’ personality traits and mentoring quality and their impact on Mentees’ job satisfaction and job performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 1–14.
Langton, I., & Mafini, C. (2022). Transactional leadership and its effect on supply chain management in manufacturing SMEs. EUREKA: Social and Humanities, 5, 10–30.
Micheli, G. J. L., Cagno, E., Mustillo, G., & Trianni, A. (2020). Green supply chain management drivers, practices and performance: A comprehensive study on the moderators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 259, 121024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121024.
Mobarak, F. (1983). Rapid continuous pyrolysis of cotton stalks for Charcoal Production. Holzforschung, 37(5), 251254. https://doi.org/10.1515/hfsg.1983.37.5.251.
Mobarak, F., Fahmy, Y., & Schweers, W. (1982). Production of phenols and charcoal from bagasse by a rapid continuous pyrolysis process. Wood Science and Technology, 16, 59–66.
Mobarak, F., Fahmy, Y., & Augustin, H. (1982a). Binderless lignocellulose composite from bagasse and mechanism of self-bonding.
Molina, L. M., Lloréns-Montes, J., & Ruiz-Moreno, A. (2007). Relationship between quality management practices and knowledge transfer. Journal of Operations Management, 25(3), 682–701.
Najam, H., Abbas, J., Álvarez-Otero, S., Dogan, E., & Sial, M. S. (2022). Towards green recovery: Can banks achieve financial sustainability through income diversification in ASEAN countries? Economic Analysis and Policy, 76, 522–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2022.09.004.
Nuta, A. C., Habib, A. M., Neslihanoglu, S., Dalwai, T., & Rangu, C. M. (2024). Analyzing the market performance of Romanian firms: Do the COVID-19 crisis and classification type matter? International Journal of Emerging Markets.
Pan, C., Abbas, J., Álvarez-Otero, S., Khan, H., & Cai, C. (2022). Interplay between corporate social responsibility and organizational green culture and their role in employees’ responsible behavior towards the environment and society. Journal of Cleaner Production, 366, 132878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132878.
Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder Theory: The state of the art. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 403–445. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2010.495581.
Pham, H. T., Pham, T., Quang, H. T., & Dang, C. N. (2022). Impact of transformational leadership on green learning and green innovation in construction supply chains. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.
Qing, L., Abbas, J., Najam, H., Ma, X., & Dagestani, A. A. (2024). Investment in renewable energy and green financing and their role in achieving carbon-neutrality and economic sustainability: Insights from Asian region. Renewable Energy, 119830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2023.119830.
Reza, M. H. (2019). Components of transformational leadership behavior. EPRA International Journal of Multidisciplinari Research, 5(3), 119–124.
Rizki, A. F., Murwaningsari, E., & Sudibyo, Y. A. (2022). Integration Green Supply Chain Management and environmental consciousness: Direct effects sustainability performance. International Journal of Social and Management Studies, 3(5), 198–213.
Rossi, E., Bertassini,, A. C., Ferreira,, C. S., Neves do Amaral,, W. A., Ometto, &, A. R. (2020). Circular economy indicators for organizations considering sustainability and business models: Plastic, textile and electro-electronic cases. Journal of Cleaner Production, 247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119137.
Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., & Lai, K. H. (2011). An organizational theoretic review of green supply chain management literature. International Journal of Production Economics, 130(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.11.010.
Shang, T., Samour, A., Abbas, J., Ali, M., & Tursoy, T. (2024). Impact of financial inclusion, economic growth, natural resource rents, and natural energy use on carbon emissions: The MMQR approach. Environment, Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04513-9.
Shoaib, M., Nawal, A., Zámečník, R., Korsakienė, R., & Rehman, A. U. (2022). Go green! Measuring the factors that influence sustainable performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 366, 132959. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2022.132959.
Stahl, G. K., Brewster, C. J., Collings, D. G., & Hajro, A. (2020). Enhancing the role of human resource management in corporate sustainability and social responsibility: A multi-stakeholder, multidimensional approach to HRM. Human Resource Management Review, 30(3), 100708. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.HRMR.2019.100708.
Tong, L., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., belgacem, S., ben, Najam, H., & Abbas, J. (2023). Role of environmental regulations, green finance, and investment in green technologies in green total factor productivity: Empirical evidence from Asian region. Journal of Cleaner Production, 380, 134930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134930.
Vermeulen, M., Kreijns, K., & Evers, A. T. (2020). Transformational leadership, leader–member exchange and school learning climate: Impact on teachers’ innovative behaviour in the Netherlands. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 1741143220932582.
Wang, S., Abbas, J., Sial, M. S., Álvarez-Otero, S., & Cioca, L. I. (2022). Achieving Green Innovation and Sustainable Development Goals through Green Knowledge Management: Moderating role of Organizational Green Culture. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7(4), 100272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100272.
Wei, F., Abbas, J., Alarifi, G., Zhang, Z., Adam, N. A., & Queiroz, M. J. de. (2023). Role of green intellectual capital and top management commitment in organizational environmental performance and reputation: Moderating role of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Cleaner Production, 405, 136847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136847
Yu, S., Abbas, J., Álvarez-Otero, S., & Cherian, J. (2022). Green knowledge management: Scale development and validation. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7(4), 100244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100244.
Zaid, A. A., Jaaron, A. A., & Bon, A. T. (2018). The impact of green human resource management and green supply chain management practices on sustainable performance: An empirical study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 204, 965–979.
Zhang, J., Cherian, J., Sandhu, Y. A. B., Abbas, J., Cismas, L. M., Negrut, C. V., & Negrut, L. (2022). Presumption of green electronic appliances purchase intention: The mediating role of personal moral norms. Sustainability, 14, 1–15.
Zhao, W., & Huang, L. (2022). The impact of green transformational leadership, green HRM, green innovation and organizational support on the sustainable business performance: Evidence from China. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja, 0(0), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2047086.
Zhao, L., Gu, J., Abbas, J., Kirikkaleli, D., & Yue, X. G. (2022). Does quality management system help organizations in achieving environmental innovation and sustainability goals? A structural analysis. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 0(0), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2100436.
Zhou, P., Abbas, J., Najam, H., & Alvarez-Otero, S. (2023). Nexus of renewable energy output, green technological innovation, and financial development for carbon neutrality of Asian emerging economies. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 58, 103371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2023.103371.
Zimon, G., Habib, A. M., & Haluza, D. (2024). Does the quality management system affect working capital management efficiency? Evidence from Polish firms. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1), 2292787.
Funding
Open access funding provided by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TÜBİTAK). This research did not receive specific grant or funding.
Open access funding provided by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TÜBİTAK).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors declare no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Abbas, J. Green supply chain management and firm sustainable performance: unlocking the role of transactional and transformational leadership in firm sustainable operations. Environ Dev Sustain (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-05035-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-05035-0