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.

Table 1 Prominent studies relating to studied variables
Full size table

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.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Conceptual framework

Full size image

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).

Table 2 Demographic profile of respondents
Full size table

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.

Table 3 Composite reliability and validity
Full size table

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.

Table 4 Constructs’ discriminant validity
Full size table

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).

Table 5 The goodness of fit for measurement and structural model
Full size table
Table 6 Hypothesis testing statistics
Full size table

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.