Jun Zhang
Junbo Cui
Xinchen Chai- School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Beijing Institute of Petrochemical Technology, Beijing, China
Introduction: The hotel industry creates significant economic value but also intensifies environmental challenges. Frontline employees’ green behaviors (EGB) are crucial for translating organizational sustainability commitments into practice. This study applies the Drive–State–Pressure (DSP) model to examine how institutional pressures and individual agency jointly shape EGB.
Methods: Survey data were collected from 356 hotel employees in China. Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) was used to explore configurational pathways leading to task-oriented green behavior (TGB) and voluntary green behavior (VGB).
Results: Coercive, normative, and mimetic pressures promote TGB primarily through compliance, whereas VGB is driven by autonomy and normative alignment. Distinct combinations of pressures and individual states highlight the complex mechanisms underlying EGB.
Discussion: The findings extend institutional theory by bridging macro- and micro-level perspectives through the DSP model and offer practical strategies for sustainability governance. Methodologically, the study demonstrates the value of fsQCA for capturing configurational interactions in employee green behaviors.
1 Introduction
The hotel industry, a cornerstone of the global economy (Dutta, 2024), thrives on resource-intensive operations yet faces increasing pressure to adopt sustainable practices. In April 2024, the WTTC projected the sector’s economic impact to hit a record $11.1 trillion. However, in 2019, hospitality and tourism contributed 8–11% of global greenhouse gas emissions—3.9-5.4 billion tons of CO₂ (carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas) out of 48.9 billion tons CO₂e (carbon dioxide equivalent, a standard metric including CO₂ and other greenhouse gases; World Travel and Tourism Council, 2024). This dual reality—economic prominence and environmental impact—is under increasing scrutiny. Eco-conscious travelers prioritize sustainability and are willing to pay a premium for certified green accommodations (Velaoras et al., 2025), while investors integrate ESG compliance into investment criteria (Deloitte, 2023). Sustainability efforts ultimately rely on frontline hotel staff, who translate institutional policies into daily practice (Meirun et al., 2024).
Unlike manufacturing, where green behaviors occur backstage, hotel employees enact sustainability in real time—adjusting thermostats, minimizing plastics, and explaining policies—often under guest scrutiny (Li et al., 2020). This creates a sustainability paradox as employees juggle competing priorities: (1) efficiency vs. environment, where energy-saving may delay service (Yenidogan et al., 2021); (2) role ambiguity, with unclear protocols on balancing guest satisfaction and sustainability (Erdogan and Baris, 2007); and (3) motivation fragmentation, where pro-environmental values do not always translate into action (Ruepert et al., 2016). These contradictions expose the limits of frameworks that view green behavior as linear, overlooking the compromises between institutional demands and individual discretion.
Most theories explain employee green behavior (EGB) through individual motivation or structural pressures. The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB; Khalid et al., 2022) and Social Cognitive Theory (SCT; Zhao and Zhou, 2021) emphasize attitudes and self-efficacy but fail to explain why employees with strong environmental values neglect simple actions (e.g., switching off lights) under work pressure. Even integrative models (Yang et al., 2020) focus too much on psychological factors, overlooking institutional pressures that shape behavior.
Environmental green behavior (EGB) is not a uniform, linear process but an emergent outcome shaped by dynamic interactions between individual agency and organizational pressures. Employee sustainability engagement varies not only in intensity (Ciocirlan, 2023) but also in form (Norton et al., 2015), manifesting as either task-oriented green behavior (TGB)—compliance-driven, role-prescribed actions—or voluntary green behavior (VGB)—discretionary eco-innovation. A key challenge lies in understanding why some employees strictly adhere to corporate sustainability mandates (Sabbir and Taufique, 2022), while others exceed expectations by proactively shaping green initiatives (Ghani et al., 2024).
To address this, the Drive-State-Pressure (DSP) model is introduced. It adapts the Pressure-State-Response (PSR) framework—originally developed in the 1990s and later expanded by the OECD and UNEP—into organizational behavior. The DSP model conceptualizes green behavior as the joint outcome of motivational drivers (Drive), capability conditions (State), and institutional influences (Pressure). In doing so, it provides a dynamic alternative to linear models (Wiernik et al., 2016) and universal assumptions (Norton et al., 2015).
However, prior research on employees’ green behaviors (EGB) has largely relied on linear methods such as regression or SEM. These approaches capture the net effect of single factors but fail to reflect the causal complexity of organizational contexts (Norton et al., 2015; Eva et al., 2017). They overlook equifinality—different configurations of institutional and individual factors leading to similar outcomes—and causal asymmetry, where the presence and absence of outcomes follow different logics (Fiss, 2011). Moreover, linear-additive models implicitly assume that institutional and individual factors exert independent and cumulative effects. Such assumptions overlook the interactive and configurational nature of organizational contexts, where some factors only matter in combination with others or may substitute for one another. To address these limitations, this study employs fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA). The fsQCA examines how multiple conditions combine to generate outcomes. By embracing conjunctural causation and asymmetry, it offers a powerful tool for analyzing how institutional pressures and individual agency jointly shape employees’ task-oriented and voluntary green behaviors. The fsQCA examines how multiple conditions combine to generate outcomes, and by capturing conjunctural causation and asymmetry (Xing et al., 2025), it provides a powerful tool for analyzing how institutional pressures and individual agency jointly shape employees’ task-oriented and voluntary green behaviors.
This study contributes to environmental behavior research by developing the Drive-State-Pressure (DSP) model and applying fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA). First, it bridges the macro–micro divide in institutional theory by showing how coercive, normative, and mimetic pressures shape task-oriented (TGB) and voluntary green behaviors (VGB). Second, using a configurational approach, it identifies equifinal pathways where institutional forces and individual agency interact via substitution or amplification, challenging linear-additive models. Third, it resolves the compliance-innovation paradox, finding that (1) structured interventions drive TGB but hinder VGB, while (2) flexible institutional frameworks encourage discretionary environmental engagement. These insights advocate a shift from universal policies to context-adaptive strategies that align institutional structures with individual agency to foster sustainable behaviors.
2 Theoretical background and literature review
2.1 Research on employee green behavior
Employee green behavior (EGB), or employee pro-environmental behavior, refers to workplace actions that benefit the environment (Norton et al., 2015). As a key driver of organizational sustainability, EGB enhances environmental performance and supports sustainable development goals. Scholars often distinguish between two types of EGB: task-oriented green behavior (TGB), which involves environmentally conscious actions embedded in formal job duties such as waste segregation and use of eco-friendly materials (Sibian and Ispas, 2021), and voluntary green behavior (VGB), which encompasses discretionary initiatives such as proposing energy-saving solutions or championing sustainability innovations (Ren et al., 2023). This distinction is critical because TGB is typically compliance-driven, operating within structured control systems and institutional mandates (Norton et al., 2015), whereas VGB is rooted in autonomy and intrinsic motivation. From a managerial perspective, TGB ensures organizational adherence to environmental standards (Zhu et al., 2021), while VGB enables adaptive innovation and long-term sustainability (Zacher et al., 2023). Yet organizations often emphasize compliance through TGB while underutilizing the innovation potential embedded in VGB (Dewiana et al., 2024). Understanding the antecedents of both forms of behavior is therefore essential for balancing compliance enforcement with voluntary engagement.
2.2 From PSR to DSP: extending the framework
To theorize the multi-level antecedents of EGB, this study draws on the Pressure–State–Response (PSR) framework, which was first proposed by Canadian researchers in the early 1990s and subsequently developed and widely applied by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) in global environmental assessments. Over the past decades, PSR has been employed in diverse domains such as ecological security evaluation (Zhao et al., 2014), emergency impact assessment (Wei et al., 2012), and sustainable development research (Salemi et al., 2019). Importantly, the PSR framework has not remained static; it has inspired several derivative models, including the Drive–State–Pressure (DSP), Drive–State–Response (DSR), and the Drive–Pressure–State–Impact–Response (DPSIR) frameworks, all of which share a common causal structure for analyzing complex interactions among multiple influencing factors (Jun et al., 2012).
Although PSR originated in environmental science to explain how ecosystems adapt to external pressures (Li, 2004), subsequent studies demonstrate that its logic is not confined to ecological systems. It has also been applied at the individual level—for instance, in explaining psychological or behavioral responses under stress (Hughey et al., 2004)—suggesting its broader generalizability. The underlying logic of “external pressure–internal state–behavioral response” thus provides a transferable framework for analyzing adaptive behavior across domains.
Building on this theoretical commonality, the present study adapts PSR to organizational behavior by proposing the Drive–State–Pressure (DSP) model. This adaptation extends PSR in two key ways. First, the “Response” component is reconceptualized as “Drive,” underscoring that employees are not merely passive reactors but proactive agents whose intrinsic motivation propels environmentally responsible behavior. Second, the DSP model explicitly links institutional pressures (Pressure) with individual capability states (State) and motivational drives (Drive), thereby bridging institutional theory’s macro perspective and organizational behavior’s micro perspective. Within this framework, Drive refers to motivational drivers such as green values (GV), which provide employees with a stable and identity-congruent orientation toward environmental responsibility. State encompasses enabling conditions, including green self-efficacy (GSE)—the confidence to perform environmentally impactful actions—and job autonomy (JA)—the discretion to implement sustainability practices in one’s work. Pressure refers to institutional mechanisms that regulate behavior: green performance management (GPM) as coercive pressure, environment-oriented CSR (ECSR) as normative pressure, and green transformational leadership (GTL) as mimetic pressure. Together, these three dimensions explain how compliance-oriented behaviors emerge under coercive systems, while discretionary innovation is more likely to be fostered when intrinsic motivation and enabling states are strong.
2.3 The configurational approach and fsQCA
Traditional variable-centered approaches, such as regression or structural equation modeling, assume that each factor contributes independently and additively to outcomes (Howard and Hoffman, 2018). However, organizational behavior is often the result of conjunctural causation, where outcomes arise from specific combinations of conditions rather than isolated variables. The configurational approach addresses this complexity by emphasizing three key principles: equifinality, whereby different pathways of conditions may lead to the same outcome; causal asymmetry, whereby the conditions associated with the presence of an outcome may differ from those associated with its absence; and holistic combination, whereby conditions derive meaning from their configuration rather than from their independent effects (Fiss, 2011).
Within this paradigm, fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) has emerged as a powerful empirical method. Developed by Ragin, fsQCA operationalizes configurational theory by calibrating conditions as fuzzy sets and systematically examining how different combinations are sufficient or necessary for an outcome (Ragin, 2000; Ragin, 2008). Compared with regression-based models, fsQCA is particularly suited to the study of EGB, employees’ behaviors emerge from the interaction of institutional pressures, personal motivations, and capability states. Prior research has highlighted the role of institutional isomorphism in shaping behavior (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983), intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (Ryan and Deci, 2000), and individual efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997). Moreover, studies of ecological responsiveness demonstrate that green behaviors often result from the joint influence of external pressures, internal motivations, and organizational capabilities (Bansal and Roth, 2000). By capturing multiple and equally valid pathways, fsQCA allows researchers to account for both compliance-driven and voluntary forms of green behavior.
2.4 Hypotheses development
In summary, this study proposes the following hypotheses:
H1: Different combinations of institutional pressures (ECSR, GTL, GPM), capability states (GSE, JA), and motivational drivers (GV) are sufficient to generate task-oriented green behavior (TGB) as well as voluntary green behavior (VGB).
H2: The combinations of conditions that lead to the presence of TGB or VGB differ from those that lead to their absence.
H3: Employee green behavior (EGB) results from distinct Drive–State–Pressure configurations, with some configurations producing compliance-based TGB and others producing discretionary VGB.
Taken together, these hypotheses reflect the configurational nature of employee green behaviors within the DSP framework. The overall conceptual model is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
3 Research method
3.1 Data collection and respondents
From June 13 to June 17, 2024, online questionnaires were distributed to hotel industry employees in China via the Credamo platform. The sample focused on large-chain hotels across 23 provincial-level regions, including Beijing, Shanghai, and Nanjing. Of the 398 questionnaires distributed, 356 valid responses were retained after excluding those that failed attention checks. The final sample consisted of 228 females (64.0%) and 128 males (36.0%), with 67.7% holding a bachelor’s degree. Respondents had an average age of 32.08 years (SD = 8.21) and an average organizational tenure of 5.34 years (SD = 4.07).
3.2 Instrument
Data collection was conducted using a structured questionnaire. Employee green behavior (EGB) was measured with Bissing-Olson et al. (2013) 6-item scale, which differentiates between task-oriented green behavior (TGB; e.g., “I complete assigned tasks using environmentally friendly methods”) and voluntary green behavior (VGB; e.g., “I proactively initiate workplace environmental initiatives”). Responses were recorded on a five-point Likert scale, demonstrating high reliability (α = 0.862 for TGB; α = 0.899 for VGB).
Green values were measured using eight personal norm items adapted from Steg et al. (2005), demonstrating excellent internal consistency (α = 0.916). Green self-efficacy was assessed with Chen et al.’s (2015) 6-item scale (α = 0.889). Job autonomy was measured using Spreitzer’s (1995) 3-item scale (α = 0.834). Green performance management (GPM) was evaluated through four objective-assessment items from Dumont et al. (2017), demonstrating strong reliability (α = 0.900). Environment-oriented CSR (E-CSR) was assessed using the first four items from Farooq et al.’s (2017) scale (α = 0.843). Green transformational leadership (GTL) was operationalized through the green intellectual stimulation and personalized care subscales from Robertson’s (2018) 12-item instrument (α = 0.896). All measurement items are presented in the Appendix A.
3.3 NCA
Scholarly discourse often conflates necessity and sufficiency, though they are distinct (Chung, 1969). Necessary causality means an outcome cannot occur without a condition (“no X, no Y”), while sufficient causality means a condition alone ensures the outcome (“if X, then Y”; Dul, 2016). This study employs Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA) and Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) to disentangle these logics. NCA assesses whether the six DSP model factors—green values, green self-efficacy, job autonomy, green performance management, environment-oriented CSR, and green transformational leadership—are necessary for task-oriented (TGB) and voluntary green behavior (VGB), while QCA identifies sufficient causal configurations. The NCA was implemented in R (version 4.3.3) using the NCA package (version 4.0.1).
3.4 Bottom-up QCA
We employed fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) for two main reasons. First, fsQCA enables the exploration of equifinality, uncovering multiple and equally valid pathways that lead to employees’ green behaviors (Ragin, 2008; Fiss, 2011). Second, it accounts for causal asymmetry, recognizing that the conditions sufficient for the presence of task-oriented or voluntary green behaviors may not simply be the inverse of those leading to their absence (Ma et al., 2022). These features make fsQCA especially valuable for studying complex behavioral phenomena in organizational contexts.
However, adequacy analysis in QCA often encounters challenges regarding sufficiency, necessity, and completeness, as traditional top-down approaches face limitations such as rigid dichotomization and heavy reliance on counterfactuals. To overcome these issues, Ding (2023) proposed a bottom-up QCA method with four key innovations: (1) bypassing dichotomous truth table constraints, (2) minimizing counterfactual dependence, (3) scaling efficiently without inflating complexity, and (4) reducing omitted variable bias while ensuring validity. By generating parsimonious solutions through algorithmic iteration, this approach enhances rigor, replicability, and causal inference reliability in complex behavioral studies. In line with these methodological advancements, the configurational analyses in this study were conducted in R (version 4.3.3) using the QCA package (version 3.22), which enables robust and transparent implementation of fsQCA procedures.
3.5 Variable calibration
In fsQCA, the raw data need to be calibrated into fuzzy-set membership scores ranging from 0 to 1, which represent the degree to which a case belongs to a given condition. A score of 1 indicates full membership (the condition is at a high level), 0 indicates full non-membership (the condition is at a low level), and 0.5 represents the point of maximum ambiguity (the crossover point), where it is difficult to determine whether the condition is present or absent. Following prior methodological recommendations (Crilly et al., 2012), values that were exactly calibrated at 0.5 were adjusted slightly to 0.5001 to prevent these cases from being excluded during the truth table analysis.
We adopted an internal calibration strategy, meaning that the thresholds for high and low levels of each condition were defined relative to the distribution of the study sample rather than absolute external standards (Pappas et al., 2017). Specifically, for each condition we computed the sample mean and standard deviation, setting the mean as the crossover point (membership = 0.5). Full membership (membership = 1.0) was anchored at one standard deviation above the mean, while full non-membership (membership = 0.0) was anchored at one standard deviation below the mean. This parametric approach is widely used in organizational behavior research, where defining “high” or “low” levels in relative rather than absolute terms is more meaningful (Aiken et al., 1991). For example, an employee who scores 5 on a 7-point scale may appear high in absolute terms, but in comparison with peers in the same organization, this level could be relatively low. Thus, internal calibration captures the contextual nature of behavioral tendencies more appropriately.
The complete calibration anchor points for all antecedent conditions and outcome variables are presented in Table 1. For ease of interpretation, following prior studies (Xing et al., 2025; Ma et al., 2022), we refer to conditions or outcomes above the crossover point as “high” (presence of condition/outcome) and those below as “low” (absence of condition/outcome) throughout the results section.
Table 1. Calibration anchors for each fuzzy set.
4 Analysis
4.1 Reliability and validity analysis
All constructs were measured using multi-item scales adapted from prior validated research (e.g., Bissing-Olson et al., 2013). Although no pilot test was conducted prior to the formal survey, the adoption of well-established scales helped ensure measurement reliability and validity. To further assess the psychometric properties of the instruments, internal consistency reliability was examined using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients in SPSS 24.0, with all constructs demonstrating excellent reliability (α > 0.80), exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978). In addition, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted in AMOS 24.0 to evaluate construct validity. As shown in Table 2, the CFA results confirmed a good model fit (CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.06), with all factor loadings statistically significant (p < 0.001), thereby establishing measurement robustness. We further examined discriminant validity using the Fornell–Larcker criterion. As shown in Table 3, the square roots of AVEs (on the diagonal) are greater than the correlations between constructs (off-diagonal), indicating satisfactory discriminant validity.
Table 2. Overall model fitting results.
Table 3. Correlation matrix and discriminant validity.
4.2 Necessary conditions analysis
Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA) identifies necessary conditions by assessing the effect size (d) and statistical significance of antecedent variables, with necessity levels further quantified through bottleneck analysis. As shown in Tables 4, 5, the NCA results for task-oriented green behavior (TGB) and voluntary green behavior (VGB) indicate that no individual condition meets the necessity threshold (d > 0.1, p < 0.05) as per Dul et al. (2020) criteria. The analysis utilized two estimation methods: ceiling regression (CR) for continuous variables and ceiling envelope (CE) for discrete variables. Given the absence of necessary conditions for both behavioral types, bottleneck level analysis was deemed unnecessary.
Table 4. Analysis on the necessity of NCA to individual conditions of employees’ task-oriented green behavior.
Table 5. Analysis on the necessity of NCA to individual conditions of employees’ voluntary green behavior.
4.3 Data analysis and results
The fsQCA results were reported using the configurational notation system, as established and shown in Tables 6, 7. In these tables, filled circles (●) indicate the presence of a condition, crossed circles (⊗) signify its absence (Fiss, 2011), and blank cells represent logical remainders (i.e., conditions irrelevant to the causal recipe). This symbolic framework facilitates a clear visualization of core and peripheral conditions across sufficient configurations while ensuring methodological consistency with leading QCA studies.
Table 6. Configurations for employees’ implementing a high level of task-oriented green behavior.
Table 7. Configurations for employees’ implementing a high level of voluntary green behavior.
4.3.1 High-level task-oriented green behavior-driven path
Table 6 identifies eight pathways to high-level task-oriented green behavior (TGB), grouped into two frameworks: the Pressure-Dominant Path and the Agency-Pressure Synergy Path. The latter includes three subtypes: Single Agency-Mimetic Pressure, Agency-Composite-Coercive Pressure Synergy, and Composite Pressure-Single Agency Adaptation.
Across these pathways, the core statistical indicators—Inclusion Score (InclS), Proportional Reduction in Inconsistency (PRI), and Coverage Score (COVS)—demonstrate strong model consistency and explanatory power. The InclS values range from 0.751 to 0.784, indicating that each pathway accounts for approximately 75.1 to 78.4% of cases achieving high-level TGB, signifying robust explanatory strength. The PRI values range from 0.606 to 0.638, confirming that the identified configurations consistently contribute to TGB, although some behavioral variation arises due to contextual factors. The COVS values, ranging from 0.413 to 0.613, suggest moderate to high coverage, indicating that while each pathway plays a crucial role in explaining green behaviors, additional mechanisms may also contribute to observed TGB outcomes.
Category 1: Pressure–Dominant Path
The Pressure-Dominant Path (S1) demonstrates that a three-dimensional institutional matrix—coercive (GPM), normative (ECSR), and mimetic (GTL) pressures—can substitute for individual agency to drive high-level task-oriented green behaviors (TGB). Coercive pressure (GPM) enforces compliance through reward–punishment mechanisms, embedding green behaviors into formal controls (Juma and Moronge, 2015). Normative pressure (ECSR) reshapes cognitive schemas, internalizing green practices as professional ethics (Glavas and Kelley, 2014). Mimetic pressure (GTL) provides behavioral scripts, guiding employees with low green self-efficacy through role modeling (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Together, these pressures create a nested institutional system where TGB becomes an identity-driven practice rather than an imposed obligation.
This mechanism underscores how organizational pressure systems facilitate task-oriented green behaviors through an “institutional substitution effect,” transcending the motivation–ability paradigm. Effective management requires a multidimensional pressure synergy: integrating green performance indicators into appraisals for coercive isomorphism, leveraging CSR narratives for normative internalization, and using leadership exemplars to reinforce mimetic influence. Aligning these mechanisms embeds sustainability into employee behavior, fostering a deep-rooted green culture beyond mere compliance.
Category 2: Agency–Pressure Synergy Path
Single Agency–Mimetic Pressure–Driven Path
In S2a, employees’ intrinsic green values, combined with mimetic pressure from green transformational leadership, drive high-level task-oriented green behaviors. In S2b, even when the driving force comes from job autonomy rather than intrinsic values, mimetic pressure still facilitates the achievement of high-level task-oriented green behaviors. Both paths illustrate a compensatory coupling mechanism in which mimetic pressure complements distinct agency elements. In S2a, deep-seated green values motivate employees to align with organizational environmental goals through the self-consistency mechanism. At the same time, green transformational leadership provides proximal behavioral cues through role modeling and symbolic interaction (Farrukh et al., 2022), forming a dual-channel activation system of “value-driven behavior modeling.” This synergy reinforces self-concept and enables green behaviors to transcend inherent ability limitations.
In S2b, job autonomy provides employees with the decision-making space needed for behavior regulation (Wan et al., 2024), while green transformational leadership offers a replicable practice template (Weiss, 1977). This synergy simplifies the execution path by translating abstract environmental norms into concrete guidelines, thereby compensating for limited self-efficacy and facilitating efficient task-oriented green behaviors. The compensatory function of mimetic pressure in both paths illustrates the equifinality principle (Gresov and Drazin, 1997), demonstrating that different agency–pressure configurations—GV combined with GTL in S2a and JA combined with GTL in S2b—can lead to equivalent task-oriented green behavior outcomes. This observation aligns with institutional theory, which suggests that mimetic processes reduce uncertainty by providing socially sanctioned “recipes” for action.
Agency–Composite–Coercive Pressure Synergy Path
In the Agency–Composite–Coercive Pressure Synergy Paths (S3a–S3b), a fundamental shift in institutional logic is evident. Unlike mimetic pressure, coercive pressure, represented by green performance management (GPM), lacks an intrinsic meaning-making function. As a result, it requires the complementarity of agency elements—such as the combination of GV and GSE (S3a) or GV and JA (S3b)—to counterbalance its psychological costs. For instance, in S3a, the interplay between GV, GSE, and GPM enables a more constructive response to coercive pressure. When employees possess strong GSE, they are less likely to experience negative emotional reactions to GPM. Instead, they perceive coercive environmental mandates as opportunities to enhance self-management and actively engage in decision-making, rather than merely as external constraints (Deci and Ryan, 2012). This triadic synergy underscores that coercive pressure enhances task-oriented green behaviors (TGB) only when it is reinforced by agency factors that provide both intrinsic motivation and the operational competence needed to navigate organizational demands.
The critical factor in this dynamic is the complementary interplay between coercive pressure and agency elements. A single agency factor alone is insufficient to counterbalance the psychological costs associated with coercive pressure. Instead, an effective response requires a dual configuration—combining motivational drivers (green values) with state-related elements (such as green self-efficacy and job autonomy). In this mechanism, green values mitigate the external attribution tendencies triggered by coercive demands, fostering a sense of personal commitment rather than external obligation. Simultaneously, state-related elements provide the necessary psychological capital for execution, ensuring that institutional pressure is effectively translated into concrete behavioral outcomes. Compared with the “single-agency-mimetic-driven” path—where mimetic pressure alone activates the behavior chain—coercive pressure, due to its inherent lack of meaning-making capacity, necessitates a complementary agency combination to achieve both value internalization and path simplification.
Composite Pressure–Single Agency Adaptation Path
This situation encompasses three paths—S4a, S4b, and S4c—that facilitate high-level task-oriented green behaviors. In S4a, employees’ green values, combined with normative pressure from environment-oriented CSR and coercive pressure from green performance management, effectively drive TGB. In this process, CSR reshapes employees’ cognitive frameworks to institutionalize green values (Glavas and Kelley, 2014), while performance management establishes a behavioral baseline (Juma and Moronge, 2015). Together, they create a dual assurance mechanism that converts composite institutional pressure into a structured value-realization channel, reducing cognitive dissonance and reinforcing both value identification and institutional compliance.
In S4b, a single ability factor—green self-efficacy—works in tandem with normative pressure from CSR and mimetic pressure from green transformational leadership. In this scenario, CSR establishes a cognitive benchmark, while leadership demonstrates the practical feasibility of green practices (Glavas and Kelley, 2014), creating a reinforcing effect that continuously strengthens self-efficacy. This process enables a smooth transition from ability validation to the internalization of organizational norms, thereby fostering TGB.
In S4c, even when green self-efficacy is the sole agency element, its combination with coercive and mimetic pressures ultimately leads to high-level TGB. Specifically, green performance management enforces result control, reinforcing the necessity of the behavior (Juma and Moronge, 2015), while green transformational leadership simplifies execution through process demonstrations. Under these conditions, green self-efficacy serves as a buffering mechanism, allowing employees to reinterpret coercive institutional demands as opportunities to showcase and further develop their capabilities, ultimately driving behavioral transformation.
In both Pressure-Dominant and Agency-Pressure Synergy models, institutional pressures compensate for the limitations of individual agency. Normative pressure legitimizes values, coercive pressure sets behavioral baselines, and mimetic pressure ensures feasibility. This supports DiMaggio and Powell (1983) isomorphism framework, demonstrating how structured pressures enhance agency efficiency. While mimetic pressure can activate green behavior with a single agency factor, coercive pressure requires complementary agency elements for value internalization and execution. Ultimately, a multidimensional pressure synergy network offers a more stable and effective approach to fostering sustainable workplace behaviors.
4.3.2 High-level voluntary green behavior-driven path
This study identifies three distinct pathway combinations leading to high-level voluntary green behaviors (VGB) among hotel employees: the Efficacy-Norm Compensation Path (S1), the Singular Pressure Breakthrough Path (S2), and the Autonomy-Institution Synergy Path (S3). These pathways illustrate how organizational pressures and individual agency elements interact to foster voluntary green engagement in the absence of explicit mandates. Across these three paths, the InclS values range from 0.815 to 0.832, indicating that each pathway accounts for 81.5 to 83.2% of cases exhibiting high-level VGB, underscoring the strong explanatory power of the model. The PRI values, ranging from 0.605 to 0.615, suggest that while these pathways reliably predict voluntary green behavior, slight variations in behavioral expression may arise due to contextual factors. The COVS values, which range from 0.287 to 0.32, indicate that these configurations explain a moderate proportion of observed voluntary green behaviors. This suggests that while these pathways play a significant role in shaping VGB, additional influencing factors may also be at play.
In Path 1, green self-efficacy enhances internal motivation (Tabernero and Hernández, 2011), while environment-oriented CSR (ECSR) shapes organizational identity (Glavas and Kelley, 2014), creating a dual-motivation mechanism. Self-efficacy strengthens agency, and ECSR provides meaning. Notably, the absence of coercive pressure enhances self-determination, allowing normative pressure to shift from constraint to value resonance. Green self-efficacy plays a crucial role in this internalization process by reducing uncertainty and reinforcing commitment to sustainable actions (Saleem et al., 2024).
In Path 2, environment-oriented CSR reshapes employees’ social identity cognition through institutional narratives (Glavas and Kelley, 2014), creating an “organizational identity transfer” effect. In this process, corporate environmental responsibility is reframed as an extension of employees’ professional roles, fostering deeper behavioral commitment (Robertson and Barling, 2013). The absence of coercive pressure plays a key regulatory role by preventing cognitive overload that could arise from conflicting institutional and value-based mandates. Without coercive enforcement, employees experience low-resistance internalization, where CSR-driven descriptive norms (observing others’ behaviors) and injunctive norms (perceived expectations) jointly shape green behavioral scripts. This mechanism aligns with the dual-process model of social information processing (Chaiken, 1980), in which organizational CSR simultaneously conveys both what is done and what should be done.
In Path 3, job autonomy activates employees’ innovative agency by providing opportunities for job crafting. This compensatory mechanism allows employees to explore alternative green practices, even in the absence of explicit self-efficacy cues. The lack of mimetic pressure serves as a behavioral catalyst, encouraging employees to deviate from conventional templates and reinterpret institutional expectations through personalized strategies. In other words, without traditional reinforcement elements—such as leadership modeling or efficacy-based motivation—the cognitive flexibility enabled by job autonomy allows employees to reconstruct environmental problem-solving approaches (Wan et al., 2024). This transformation reframes institutional constraints as opportunities for self-challenge. These findings emphasize the strategic role of selective institutional pressures and agency-driven mechanisms in shaping voluntary green behaviors, highlighting that no single pathway dominates. Instead, a dynamic interplay of factors enables employees to engage in sustainable practices beyond formal mandates.
5 Conclusion, implication and limitation
5.1 Conclusion and discussion
Drawing on the DSP framework and configurational approach, this study investigated how institutional pressures (ECSR, GTL, GPM), capability states (GSE, JA), and motivational drivers (GV) combine to shape task-oriented and voluntary green behaviors. Consistent with our hypotheses, the results confirm that employee green behaviors emerge not from isolated predictors but from distinct configurations of antecedent conditions, thereby demonstrating the principles of equifinality and causal asymmetry.
Our findings align with prior research in showing that institutional pressures are critical in shaping compliance-oriented behaviors, while personal values and efficacy underpin discretionary engagement (Wang et al., 2018). At the same time, the results deviate from traditional perspectives that portray external pressures solely as restrictive. We find that under certain configurations, the selective absence of pressure can encourage agency-driven innovation, offering a more nuanced understanding of how organizations can foster voluntary green behaviors (Zafar et al., 2022).
By mapping multiple viable pathways to both TGB and VGB, this study extends configurational theorizing in organizational behavior. It demonstrates that sustainability engagement cannot be reduced to single “critical factors” but instead arises from diverse pressure–state–drive combinations. This insight contributes theoretically by bridging institutional and motivational perspectives, and practically by suggesting that managers should design adaptive systems: structured pressure regimes to secure task compliance and enabling environments that cultivate autonomy and intrinsic motivation for voluntary engagement.
In conclusion, this study highlights that organizational green behavior is not governed by one dominant mechanism but emerges through multiple, equally effective pathways. Recognizing this diversity helps move beyond linear models toward a more realistic understanding of how institutions and individuals interact to advance sustainability.
5.2 Theoretical implications
This study advances environmental behavior research through three key theoretical contributions, each critically engaging with existing literature while offering novel insights into the interplay between organizational systems and individual agency. First, this research bridges the macro–micro divide in institutional theory by clarifying how organizational pressures shape individual green behaviors. While institutional theory emphasizes coercive, normative, and mimetic pressures as drivers of isomorphism (Jaja et al., 2019), it rarely explores their employee-level impact. The DSP model fills this gap by mapping pressures to behavioral pathways: coercive mechanisms like green performance management (GPM) standardize task-oriented green behaviors (TGB), while normative pressures, such as environment-oriented CSR (ECSR), foster voluntary green behaviors (VGB) by embedding sustainability into corporate identity. Mimetic influences, exemplified by green transformational leadership (GTL), legitimize green experimentation through role modeling. Crucially, the study highlights negotiated institutionalization, where employees reinterpret organizational pressures through intrinsic green values (GV) and self-efficacy (GSE). TGB aligns with structured mandates, reinforcing compliance through coercive and normative pressures, whereas VGB emerges from agentic negotiation, as employees internalize normative CSR cues or mimetic leadership influences to integrate sustainability into their role identity (Steg and Vlek, 2009). This refines institutional theory by demonstrating that organizational pressures are not static constraints but dynamically shaped through employee agency.
Second, this study addresses methodological limitations in green behavior research by demonstrating the value of configurational thinking. Traditional symmetric methods, such as regression analysis, assume linear, additive relationships between variables, which can obscure the complexity of behavioral causation (Breiman, 2001). In contrast, our fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) reveals equifinality and substitution effects that challenge conventional wisdom. For instance, the identification of eight distinct pathways to high task-oriented green behavior (TGB) dismantles the myth of a universal “best practice” showing that compliance can emerge from moral alignment through green values and transformational leadership, institutional control through green performance management and environmental CSR, or capability scaffolding through green self-efficacy and performance management. Equally significant is the finding that cultural pressures, such as environmental CSR, can substitute for intrinsic green values in driving voluntary green behaviors (VGB). In contrast, task-oriented green behaviors (TGB) require a structured pressure-agency alignment, where leadership modeling plays a critical role in amplifying the effects of green values. When transformational leadership is present, green values function as a reinforcing rather than an indispensable factor, aligning with Bissing-Olson et al.’s (2013) argument that values alone are insufficient but gain influence through social validation. This explains why certain TGB pathways rely on leadership to enhance compliance-driven engagement, ensuring that green practices are embedded within employees’ professional norms. These insights validate Fiss (2011) advocacy for set-theoretic methods in behavioral research, shifting the paradigm from linear causality to context-dependent behavioral configurations.
Third, this research clarifies paradoxes in environmental psychology by distinguishing task-oriented and voluntary green behaviors. Prior studies often conflate these, leading to contradictory findings (Wiernik et al., 2016). For instance, green performance management reinforces task-oriented green behaviors (TGB) through clear expectations and accountability (Ruepert et al., 2016) but may hinder voluntary green behaviors (VGB) by dampening intrinsic motivation (Davis et al., 2020). This reflects the compliance-innovation paradox, where institutional pressures ensure consistency in structured tasks but constrain discretionary initiatives requiring autonomy. In contrast, VGB relies on facilitative mechanisms, with normative pressures like environmental CSR acting as cultural anchors rather than rigid mandates (Matten and Moon, 2008). This fosters personal agency through green values, self-efficacy, and job autonomy, aligning with self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan, 2012): coercive pressures enhance compliance but undermine autonomy essential for innovation-driven sustainability. Similarly, the values-action gap—where green values alone fail to predict environmental behaviors (Steg and Vlek, 2009)—is reframed as a configurational mismatch. Green values require activation through leadership modeling or cultural reinforcement via CSR to translate pro-environmental attitudes into action.
This behavioral typology enhances theoretical precision by outlining the specific pathways through which green behaviors emerge. It also offers practical clarity, explaining why standardized sustainability initiatives often fail to accommodate the diverse motivational structures that drive different types of green behaviors.
5.3 Managerial implications
For organizations navigating sustainability transitions, our findings advocate a tripartite strategic realignment that integrates behavioral science principles with HR architecture redesign. First and foremost, organizations must tailor interventions to the distinct motivations behind task-oriented (TGB) and voluntary green behaviors (VGB). For TGB, a pressure-capacity synergy should integrate green performance management (GPM) with quantifiable targets and green transformational leadership (GTL) training to reinforce compliance. In contrast, VGB requires autonomy-driven motivation. Environment-oriented CSR should go beyond compliance, embedding sustainability into daily experiences (Adu-Gyamfi et al., 2021)—e.g., linking hotel waste reduction to local ecosystem restoration. Participatory initiatives like gamified eco-challenges, employee-led green innovation labs, and “green experimentation zones” can further enhance intrinsic motivation and job autonomy, fostering engagement and creativity.
Secondly, leadership development programs must align with organizational work design (Hanson, 2013) by tailoring green influence strategies to different workplace contexts. In high-autonomy departments, where employees have greater behavioral discretion, managers should act as cultural facilitators (Teräväinen and Junnonen, 2019), fostering a green innovation culture through shared vision-building and participatory decision-making. In contrast, in standardized operational units with rigid procedural constraints, managers should function as process optimizers, embedding sustainability seamlessly into workflow efficiency through structured task alignment and behavioral nudges.
Finally, a systemic HR architecture must institutionalize a dual-reinforcement approach, ensuring that institutional pressures—coercive, normative, and mimetic—are operationalized through structured HR mechanisms. First, competency models should prioritize green self-efficacy (GSE) development through VR-enabled sustainability simulations, transforming abstract environmental principles into hands-on operational skills. Second, organizations must integrate green behaviors into formal appraisal systems (coercive pressure; Saeed et al., 2019) while fostering peer-driven sustainability incentives (mimetic pressure), such as interdepartmental eco-challenges and public recognition programs. This structured yet flexible approach ensures that green behaviors are not merely encouraged but become deeply ingrained in employees’ professional identity.
5.4 Limitations and future research directions
While this study provides an in-depth understanding of employee green behavior, it has certain limitations. First, the study is based on a cross-sectional dataset of hotel employees in mainland China. This specific cultural and industry context may shape how employees respond to institutional pressures. For example, employees in China may react differently to coercive pressures compared to those in Western contexts. Thus, the generalizability of our findings is limited. Future studies could conduct cross-cultural and cross-industry comparisons to validate and extend our conclusions.
Second, although the Drive-State-Pressure (DSP) model effectively captures the interaction between intra-organizational institutional and individual factors, it does not directly incorporate external pressures such as customer environmental expectations and government regulations. Future research should integrate these external influences to provide a more holistic understanding of the drivers of green behavior.
Third, the study employs fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA), which identifies multiple behavioral pathways but is sensitive to threshold calibration and sample composition. To mitigate these issues, future research could combine fsQCA with longitudinal case studies, enabling the dynamic evolution of green behaviors to be more fully captured.
Fourth, organizational and individual contextual factors—such as company-level green norms and employees’ career stages—were not fully addressed. For instance, early-career employees may be more influenced by mimetic pressures, whereas senior employees may rely more on intrinsic motivation and job autonomy. Exploring these dynamics could further enrich our understanding of green behavior across diverse contexts.
Fifth, the imbalance between female and male participants in the sample may affect the extent to which the results can be generalized to a broader workforce. Future studies should aim to include a more balanced gender distribution to validate and extend the findings.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
Ethical approval was not required for the studies involving humans in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
JZ: Visualization, Project administration, Formal analysis, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Software, Data curation, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. JC: Writing – original draft, Supervision, Methodology, Data curation, Investigation. XC: Validation, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. SL: Writing – review & editing, Resources, Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Validation, Supervision.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This work is supported by the Zhiyuan Science Foundation from Beijing Institute of Petrochemical Technology (Project No. BIPTCSF-2025108 and No. BIPTCSF-2023010).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Adu-Gyamfi, M. , He, Z. , Nyame, G. , Boahen, S. , and Frempong, M. F. (2021). Effects of internal CSR activities on social performance: the employee perspective. Sustainability 13:6235. doi: 10.3390/su13116235
Aiken, L. S. , West, S. G. , and Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Bansal, P. , and Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness. Acad. Manag. J. 43, 717–736. doi: 10.5465/1556363
Bissing-Olson, M. J. , Iyer, A. , Fielding, K. S. , and Zacher, H. (2013). Relationships between daily affect and pro-environmental behavior at work: the moderating role of pro-environmental attitude. J. Organ. Behav. 34, 156–175. doi: 10.1002/job.1788
Breiman, L. (2001). Statistical modeling: the two cultures (with comments and a rejoinder by the author). Stat. Sci. 16, 199–231. doi: 10.1214/ss/1009213726
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 39, 752–766. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
Chen, Y. S. , Chang, C. H. , Yeh, S. L. , and Cheng, H. I. (2015). Green shared vision and green creativity: the mediation roles of green mindfulness and green self-efficacy. Qual. Quant. 49, 1169–1184. doi: 10.1007/s11135-014-0041-8
Chung, K. H. (1969). Can we defend subjective performance appraisal? (A comment). Acad. Manag. J. 12, 507–510. doi: 10.5465/254742
Ciocirlan, C. E. (2023). Have me do, and I'll always be true: exploring the match between green employees and their jobs. J. Clean. Prod. 383:135471. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135471
Crilly, D. , Zollo, M. , and Hansen, M. (2012). Faking it or muddling through? Understanding decoupling in response to stakeholder pressures. Acad. Manag. J. 55, 1429–1448. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0697
Davis, M. C. , Unsworth, K. L. , Russell, S. V. , and Galvan, J. J. (2020). Can green behaviors really be increased for all employees? Trade-offs for “deep greens” in a goal-oriented green human resource management intervention. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 29, 335–346. doi: 10.1002/bse.2367
Deci, E. L. , and Ryan, R. M. (2012). “Self-determination theory,” in Handbook of theories of social psychology. eds. P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, and E. T. Higgins. 416–436. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd. doi: 10.4135/9781446249215.n21
Deloitte . (2023). Deloitte 2023 Global Impact Report Available online at: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/tw/Documents/about-deloitte/2023-deloitte-global-impact-report.pdf (Accessed March 6, 2025).
Dewiana, D. , Baskara, I. , and Hafidz, G. P. (2024). The impact of motivational factors and task-related behavior on employee performance. J. Ilm. Manaj. Kesatuan 12, 1635–1652. doi: 10.37641/jimkes.v12i5.2806
DiMaggio, P. J. , and Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 48, 147–160. doi: 10.1515/9780691229270-005
Ding, H. (2023). Qualitative comparative analysis: search target, reflection on the top-down approach, and introduction of the bottom-up approach. Int J Qual Methods 22. doi: 10.1177/16094069231182634
Dul, J. (2016). Necessary condition analysis (NCA) logic and methodology of “necessary but not sufficient” causality. Organ. Res. Methods 19, 10–52. doi: 10.1177/1094428115584005
Dul, J. , Van der Laan, E. , and Kuik, R. (2020). A statistical significance test for necessary condition analysis. Organ. Res. Methods 23, 385–395. doi: 10.1177/1094428118795272
Dumont, J. , Shen, J. , and Deng, X. (2017). Effects of green HRM practices on employee workplace green behavior: the role of psychological green climate and employee green values. Hum. Resour. Manag. 56, 613–627. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21792
Dutta, I. (2024). Adapting to change: exploring contemporary issues in the tourism and hospitality industry. Int. J. Adv. Acad. Stud. 6, 01–06. doi: 10.33545/27068919.2024.v6.i9a.1262
Erdogan, N. , and Baris, E. (2007). Environmental protection programs and conservation practices of hotels in Ankara, Turkey. Tour. Manag. 28, 604–614. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2006.07.003
Eva, N. , Prajogo, D. , and Cooper, B. (2017). The relationship between personal values, organizational formalization and employee work outcomes of compliance and innovation. Int. J. Manpow. 38, 274–287. doi: 10.1108/IJM-06-2015-0090
Farooq, O. , Rupp, D. E. , and Farooq, M. (2017). The multiple pathways through which internal and external corporate social responsibility influence organizational identification and multifoci outcomes: the moderating role of cultural and social orientations. Acad. Manag. J. 60, 954–985. doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0849
Farrukh, M. , Ansari, N. , Raza, A. , Wu, Y. , and Wang, H. (2022). Fostering employee's pro-environmental behavior through green transformational leadership, green human resource management and environmental knowledge. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 179:121643. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121643
Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: a fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Acad. Manag. J. 54, 393–420. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.60263120
Ghani, B. , Mubarik, M. S. , and Memon, K. R. (2024). The impact of green HR practices on employee proactive behaviour. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 35, 1403–1448. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2023.2294073
Glavas, A. , and Kelley, K. (2014). The effects of perceived corporate social responsibility on employee attitudes. Bus. Ethics Q. 24, 165–202. doi: 10.5840/beq20143206
Gresov, C. , and Drazin, R. (1997). Equifinality: functional equivalence in organization design. Acad. Manag. Rev. 22, 403–428. doi: 10.5465/amr.1997.9707154064
Hanson, B. (2013). The leadership development interface: aligning leaders and organizations toward more effective leadership learning. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 15, 106–120. doi: 10.1177/1523422312465853
Howard, M. C. , and Hoffman, M. E. (2018). Variable-centered, person-centered, and person-specific approaches: where theory meets the method. Organ. Res. Methods 21, 846–876. doi: 10.1177/1094428117744021
Hughey, K. F. , Cullen, R. , Kerr, G. N. , and Cook, A. J. (2004). Application of the pressure–state–response framework to perceptions reporting of the state of the New Zealand environment. J. Environ. Manag. 70, 85–93. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2003.09.020
Jaja, S. A. , Gabriel, J. M. , and Wobodo, C. C. (2019). Organizational isomorphism: the quest for survival. Noble Int. J. Business Manag. Res. 3, 86–94.
Juma, C. A. , and Moronge, M. (2015). Influence of progressive discipline of employee performance in Kenya: a case of Mukurwe-Ini Wakulima dairy ltd. Strategic J. Business Change Manag. 2, 1549–1594. doi: 10.61426/sjbcm.v2i2.182
Jun, Y. , Xue-ming, L. , Yong-hua, L. , and Cai-zhi, S. (2012). Assessment on spatial differences of human settlement environment in communities based on DPSIRM model: the case study of Dalian. Geogr. Res. 31, 135–143. doi: 10.11821/yj2012010013
Khalid, B. , Shahzad, K. , Shafi, M. Q. , and Paille, P. (2022). Predicting required and voluntary employee green behavior using the theory of planned behavior. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 29, 1300–1314. doi: 10.1002/csr.2270
Li, W. (2004). Environmental management indicators for ecotourism in China's nature reserves: a case study in Tianmushan nature reserve. Tour. Manag. 25, 559–564. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2003.06.001
Li, J. , Mao, P. , Liu, H. , Wei, J. , Li, H. , and Yuan, J. (2020). Key factors influencing low-carbon behaviors of staff in star-rated hotels—an empirical study of eastern China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17:8222. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17218222
Ma, C. A. , Xiao, R. , Chang, H. Y. , and Song, G. R. (2022). Founder management and innovation: an empirical analysis based on the theory of planned behavior and fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. Front. Psychol. 13:827448. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.827448
Matten, D. , and Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Acad. Manag. Rev. 33, 404–424. doi: 10.5465/amr.2008.31193458
Meirun, T. , Ahmed, Z. , Alzoubi, R. H. , Khosa, M. , and Nguyen, N. T. (2024). The road to eco-excellence: how does environmentally specific empowering leadership foster hospitality employees’ green creativity through green creative self-efficacy and green learning orientation. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 120:103790. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2024.103790
Norton, T. A. , Parker, S. L. , Zacher, H. , and Ashkanasy, N. M. (2015). Employee green behavior: a theoretical framework, multilevel review, and future research agenda. Organ. Environ. 28, 103–125. doi: 10.1177/1086026615575773
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). “An overview of psychological measurement” in Clinical diagnosis of mental disorders. ed. B. B. Wolman (Boston, MA: Springer).
Pappas, I. , Mikalef, P. , Giannakos, M. , and Pavlou, P. (2017). “Value co-creation and trust in social commerce: An fsQCA approach.” In the 25th European conference on information systems (ECIS). Association for Information Systems.
Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Ren, S. , Tang, G. , and Zhang, S. (2023). Small actions can make a big difference: voluntary employee green behaviour at work and affective commitment to the organization. Br. J. Manag. 34, 72–90. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12597
Robertson, J. L. (2018). The nature, measurement and nomological network of environmentally specific transformational leadership. J. Bus. Ethics 151, 961–975. doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3569-4
Robertson, J. L. , and Barling, J. (2013). Greening organizations through leaders' influence on employees' pro-environmental behaviors. J. Organ. Behav. 34, 176–194. doi: 10.1002/job.1820
Ruepert, A. , Keizer, K. , Steg, L. , Maricchiolo, F. , Carrus, G. , Dumitru, A., et al. (2016). Environmental considerations in the organizational context: a pathway to pro-environmental behaviour at work. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 17, 59–70. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2016.04.004
Ryan, R. M. , and Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55, 68–78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Sabbir, M. M. , and Taufique, K. M. R. (2022). Sustainable employee green behavior in the workplace: integrating cognitive and non-cognitive factors in corporate environmental policy. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 31, 110–128. doi: 10.1002/bse.2877
Saeed, B. B. , Afsar, B. , Hafeez, S. , Khan, I. , Tahir, M. , and Afridi, M. A. (2019). Promoting employee's proenvironmental behavior through green human resource management practices. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 26, 424–438. doi: 10.1002/csr.1694
Saleem, F. , Mateou, S. , and Malik, M. I. (2024). How green transformational leaders trigger environmental performance? Unleashing the missing links through green self-efficacy, green empowerment, and green training of employees. Sustainability 16:9982. doi: 10.3390/su16229982
Salemi, M. , Jozi, S. A. , Malmasi, S. , and Rezaian, S. (2019). Conceptual framework for evaluation of ecotourism carrying capacity for sustainable development of Karkheh protected area, Iran. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 26, 354–366. doi: 10.1080/13504509.2019.1570379
Sibian, A. R. , and Ispas, A. (2021). An approach to applying the ability-motivation-opportunity theory to identify the driving factors of green employee behavior in the hotel industry. Sustainability 13:4659. doi: 10.3390/su13094659
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation. Acad. Manag. J. 38, 1442–1465.
Steg, L. , Dreijerink, L. , and Abrahamse, W. (2005). Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: a test of VBN theory. J. Environ. Psychol. 25, 415–425. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.003
Steg, L. , and Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 29, 309–317. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
Tabernero, C. , and Hernández, B. (2011). Self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation guiding environmental behavior. Environ. Behav. 43, 658–675. doi: 10.1177/0013916510379759
Teräväinen, V. J. , and Junnonen, J. M. (2019). The promoters and the barriers for organizational culture change in a Finnish construction company. Constr. Innov. 19, 672–688. doi: 10.1108/CI-04-2019-0029
Velaoras, K. , Menegaki, A. N. , Polyzos, S. , and Gotzamani, K. (2025). The role of environmental certification in the hospitality industry: assessing sustainability, consumer preferences, and the economic impact. Sustainability 17:650. doi: 10.3390/su17020650
Wan, Z. , Zhang, L. , Wang, L. , and Zhang, F. (2024). Navigating autonomy: unraveling the dual influence of job autonomy on workplace well-being in the gig economy. Front. Psychol. 15:1369495. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1369495
Wang, X. , Zhou, K. , and Liu, W. (2018). Value congruence: a study of green transformational leadership and employee green behavior. Front. Psychol. 9:1946. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01946
Wei, X. , Ming-Sheng, A. N. , and Shi-Cai, Z. (2012). Effect analysis model of emergency to crude oil price—based on the conceptual frame of the PSR. Soft Sci. 26, 37–43.
Weiss, H. M. (1977). Subordinate imitation of supervisor behavior: the role of modeling in organizational socialization. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 19, 89–105. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(77)90056-3
Wiernik, B. M. , Dilchert, S. , and Ones, D. S. (2016). Age and employee green behaviors: a meta-analysis. Front. Psychol. 7:194. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00194
World Travel and Tourism Council . (2024). Travel & tourism economic impact research. Available online at: https://wttc.org/research/economic-impact (Accessed March 6, 2025).
Xing, L. , Deng, J. , Shu, B. , and Wang, Z. (2025). Social media sharing, psychological distress, and student well-being: a PLS-SEM and fsQCA analysis of Chinese college students. Front. Psychol. 16:1554882. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1554882
Yang, L. , Jiang, Y. , Zhang, W. , Zhang, Q. , and Gong, H. (2020). An empirical examination of individual green policy perception and green behaviors. Int. J. Manpow. 41, 1021–1040. doi: 10.1108/IJM-09-2019-0455
Yenidogan, A. , Gurcaylilar-Yenidogan, T. , and Tetik, N. (2021). Environmental management and hotel profitability: operating performance matters. Tour. Manag. Stud. 17, 7–19. doi: 10.18089/tms.2021.170301
Zacher, H. , Rudolph, C. W. , and Katz, I. M. (2023). Employee green behavior as the core of environmentally sustainable organizations. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psych. Organ. Behav. 10, 465–494. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-050421
Zafar, H. , Tian, F. , Ho, J. A. , and Zhang, G. (2022). Environmentally specific servant leadership and voluntary pro-environmental behavior in the context of green operations: A serial mediation path. Front. Psychol. 13:1059523. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1059523
Zhao, H. , and Zhou, Q. (2021). Socially responsible human resource management and hotel employee organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: a social cognitive perspective. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 95:102749. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102749
Zhao, C. R. , Zhou, B. , and Su, X. (2014). Evaluation of urban eco-security—a case study of Mianyang City, China. Sustainability 6, 2281–2299. doi: 10.3390/su6042281
Zhu, J. , Tang, W. , Wang, H. , and Chen, Y. (2021). The influence of green human resource management on employee green behavior—a study on the mediating effect of environmental belief and green organizational identity. Sustainability 13:4544. doi: 10.3390/su13084544
Appendix A: Measurement items
Keywords: employee green behavior, drive-state-pressure model, fsQCA, institutional pressures, sustainability governance
Citation: Zhang J, Cui J, Chai X and Li S (2025) Configuring green behaviors in hospitality: a drive-state-pressure model analysis of institutional and individual dynamics. Front. Psychol. 16:1609809. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1609809
Edited by:
Eugenio De Gregorio, Università Link Campus, ItalyReviewed by:
Xiaoyuan Chu, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications (BUPT), ChinaDimin Wang, Macau University of Science and Technology, Macao SAR, China
Copyright © 2025 Zhang, Cui, Chai and Li. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Siqi Li, bGlzaXFpQGJpcHQuZWR1LmNu