Keywords

Sustainability, Psychological Well-Being, Affective Commitment, Sustainable Practices, Organizational Environment.

Introduction

Sustainability is crucial to identify the factors that encourage us to adopt sustainable practices (Fairfield et al., 2011). Hernández (LinkedIn, n.d.), highlights the use of sustainable development goals (SDGs) established by United Nations in alignment with business strategies for efficiency in social and environmental responsibilities. About 193 countries signed the global agreement, the UN sustainable development goals, with an agenda to improve the environment’s condition and people’s lives by 2030 (A Business’ Role in Achieving UN Sustainable Development Goals - T-Hub, n.d.). Companies like google and Salesforce have set meditation rooms and stress relief programs in their workplace (Admin, 2023). Organizations reckon the need to have work life balance (‘(PDF) Impact of Flexible Working Hours on Work- Life Balance’, 2024) and time off to avoid burnout for employees, promoting overall employee health (Gabriel & Aguinis, 2022). Companies which focus on sustainability brings greater opportunities and benefits both economic and reputational ((16) the Importance of Sustainability Today: Building a Prosperous Future Linkedin, n.d.)3426 Companies globally are working towards decarbonization (Progress Reporting in 2022 - Science Based Targets, n.d.). Study done on 850 companies across the globe saw 80% of them planning to increase their investment in sustainability (60+ Business Sustainability Statistics (Relevant in 2024) TravelPerk, n.d.; Deloitte Audit, Consulting, Financial, Risk Management, Tax Services, n.d.), also in another study it was found that 67% of organization are now using sustainable or recyclable materials. More than half of the companies are reducing their air travel and coming up with new more eco - friendly products and ways for Carbon offsetting (Airlines Want to Make Flight More Sustainable. How Will They Do It? n.d.). Many companies have begun implementing energy efficient machines, technologies and equipment (Denkena et al., 2020). Also, business have noticed that setting Environmental, Social and Governance standards, strategies and practices lower the cost of capital enhance operational standards and boost company’s stock value (Chen et al., 2023). Hence increasing the no. of conscious organization.

In a workplace where employee spends most of their time, requires a sustainable business model (Cinar & Bilodeau, 2022). Organizations now consider to provide employees with positive working environment to enhance their performance (Herwanto & Ummi, 2017), focusing on sustainable practices at workplace, (Sustainability in the Workplace: What It Is and How to Improve Your Strategy Michael Page, n.d.). Creating a positive workplace for employees to work ensures more productivity, further leading to less error and absenteeism (7 Strategies for Creating a Positive Work Environment, n.d.).

An organization with no work-life balance severely affects not only employees health but also organizational itself (The Impact of Work-Life Balance on Employee Well-Being and Productivity Corporate Wellness Employee Well-Being, n.d.) . Employees can suffer from chronic stress, frequent burnouts, inefficiency, decreased productivity and mental health issues which further leads to increased absenteeism and turnover rates, resulting in damage of organization’s reputation, financial losses. The case of 26 years old Anna Sebastian, deceased employee of Ernst & Young (EY) India, exemplifies terrible effects of zero work-life balance and excessive workload pressure at organization. She died of a heart due to excessive pressure, overwhelming workload and long working hours. This sparks discussion about workplace culture and risk associated with it (26-Year-Old EY Employee Dies from Work Pressure: What You Need to Know about Chronic Burnout - Hindustan Times, n.d.) In multiple literature, we found support for workplace sustainability being highly essential for improving the productivity for workers, psychological well - being employees and quality of life, reducing economic losses (Carmichael et al., 2016); Schilirò, (2019).

Objective of the Study

The objective of this study is to determine how psychological well – being of employees acts as a mediator to sustainable workplace practices affecting the commitment of employees towards the organization.

Based on the literature, the study draws numerous benefits of implementing sustainable workplace practices and seeks to identify how these policies directly improve employees' affective engagement towards the company.

Review of Literature

At individual, institutional and organizational level, in all the three levels, rapid increase in number of conscious consumers to conscious organizations has been noticed, to become a pro environmentalist.(Peretz, 2024)

For environmental goals at organizational level, it is important to converge these environmental goals with employee goals (Companies Could Benefit When They Focus on Employee Wellbeing and the Environment: A Systematic Review of Sustainable Human Resource Management, n.d.), enhancing the performance and motivating them to achieve organization goals (‘Sustainable Wellness at Work’, 2024); Akbar & Zona, (2025).

Sustainable Practices and Psychological Well-Being

Psychological well-being is a subjective notion based on individual contentment, wish fulfillment, happiness and accomplishment.(Kundi et al., 2021)

The happy productive worker thesis (‘(PDF) The Happy/Productive Worker Thesis Revisited’, 2024), establishes the role of documenting and full-filling everyday employee goals towards their efficient productivity and well-being at both physical and psychological level (Siddiqui & Ijaz, 2022).Thus, Employee well-being is now seen as, “Pillar of sustainability” (Liu et al.,2023); Madero-Gómez et al., (2023).

Any place where we spend most of our time requires a sustainable model and which is environmentally conscious and prioritizes employee (Peretz, 2024). Literature also highlights the importance of employee centered strategies like Green Human Resource Management and ethical leadership, ultimately enhancing overall sustainability (Liu et al., 2023)

According to the Mental Health Foundation (2021), type of environment and working condition at workplace have direct impact on mental health (Belloni et al., 2022); Bhatia & Mohsin, (2020); Boerner, (2021) of the employees. Studies have noticed, disruptive workplace changes like mergers, downsizing etc., have been related in increasing stress and mental health problems among employees and this leads to higher rate of turnover and reduce workplace morale further hampering organizational performance and heavy losses (Impact of Organizational Change on Mental Health: A Systematic Review Occupational & Environmental Medicine, n.d.). Poor working condition can deteriorate the psychological well-being and health of the employees, can lead to losses to the organization (Robertson & Cooper, 2010; ‘Sustainable Wellness at Work’, 2024) in consequence, nullifying the business in the long run. Concerns around implementing and adopting practices that encourage sustainability has risen (Siddiqui & Ijaz, 2022).

Hence it becomes the organization’s moral and professional obligation to provide the employees with better working conditions and location for a positive impact not only in their efficiency to work but also to organization (Herwanto & Ummi, 2017). As demonstrated by studies, positively and empirically, proves the impact of sustainable practices on the employee well-being and in long term sustainability of the organization (Murat et al., 2011)

An extensive literature is present out there on how organizations should engage in sustainable strategies that improvises the economic efficiency (‘(PDF) Sustainability, Innovation, and Efficiency’, 2024) while reducing environmental impact (Majid et al., 2023); Mendes et al., (2022). The aim is to doctrine the culture of sustainability amidst employees by giving them working conditions to maintain their work life balance. Organizations are educating their employees about workplace sustainability, aligning them with organizations environmental goals (Peretz, 2024). G-HRM practices such as eco-friendly onboarding, sustainable education, and employee engagement programs have greatly influenced employees’ adoption of eco- friendly practices (AlKetbi & Rice, 2024; Bamberger et al., 2012).

Sustainable practices and affective commitment

Any organization that seeks to reduce its environmental consequences through recycling the waste, adopting waste management and energy consumption practices, along with other things practices is likely to be said, adopting sustainable practices at workplace (Pervaiz, 2012)

Literature strongly supports the notion that sustainability at workplace is significant to improve the performance of employee, quality of life ultimately reducing economic losses by sickness, absenteeism and disability (Carmichael et al., 2016; ‘(PDF) Employee Well- Being and Sustainable Development’, 2024).

Numerous evidence in the literature demonstrates the advantages an organization has received by implementing sustainable practices in work culture, benefits like organizational reputation, increase of employee retention, cost effectiveness, organizational citizenship. Increase in employee productivity and performance has also motivated organizations to adopt sustainable practices at workplace (Fairfield et al., 2011; ‘(PDF) Sustainable Practices Impacting Employee Engagement and Well-Being’, 2024).

Organizations that do not adopt sustainable practices at workplace or align them with their strategies, often experience frequent decline in employees and stakeholder commitment and the involvement of this lack happens because, SDGs encourages in creating value across environmental, social and economic dimensions (Mestdagh et al., 2024). Without alignment of SDGs, organization might perceive as less socially responsible towards environment, reducing the trust of employee, consumers and stakeholders (Lee & Fu, 2024).

Psychological well-being and affective commitment

Affective organizational commitment is defined as an employee’s willingness to accept the organization’s goals and work towards achieving those goals while maintaining organizational belonging. (Mowday et al., 2013; (PDF) Comprehensive Literature Review on Workplace Happiness Linked to Employee Outcomes, n.d.)

Employees psychological well-being has positive impact on the employee’s affective commitment (aligning with the organizational goals) (Mowday et al., 2013; (PDF) Comprehensive Literature Review on Workplace Happiness Linked to Employee Outcomes, n.d.) which then leads to improved job performance. (Kundi et al., 2021)

Allen and Meyer, have established, affective commitment as a mediator between psychological well-being and job performance. (Allen & Meyer, 1996)

Bases the evidences cited above; and advantages that organizations derive due to sustainable practices at workplace, the research has attempted to empirically test the direct relationship between sustainable practices at workplace to the organizational affective commitment amongst employees and test for psychological well-being act as a mediating effect between sustainable practices and affective commitment towards organization Figure 1.

Thus, we propose the following model

• Independent Variable – Sustainable Practices (SP)

• Dependent Variable – Affective Commitment (AC)

• Mediating Variable – Psychological Well-being (PWB)

Where,

H₁: Sustainable practices (SP) directly affects the psychological well-being (PWB) of their employees.

H₀₁: Sustainable practices (SP) does not directly affects the psychological well-being (PWB) of their employees.

H₂: Sustainable practices (SP) affects the affective commitment (AC) of their employees via psychological well-being (PWB) towards the organization

H₀₂: Sustainable practices (SP) does not directly affects the affective commitment (AC) of their employees via psychological well-being (PWB) towards the organization

H₃: Sustainable practices (SP) directly affects the affective commitment (AC) of their employees towards the organization.

H₀₃: Sustainable practices (SP) does not positively impact the affective commitment (AC) of the employees towards their organization.

Methodology

Based on the above literature, the research considers the three variables sustainable practices at workplace, psychological well-being and affective commitment towards organization. The formulation of the hypothesis is based on the literature review. Since the study is adaptable enough to create working hypothesis from operational perspective, the study is exploratory and descriptive in nature. To test the relationship model in the study, smart PLS 4 is used, while the reliability and validity tests are conducted on SPSS 27.

The Pilot survey was conducted through online questionnaire, addressed to Indian employees at different level, technical and non-technical department from Indian private enterprise and International private enterprise. The language preferred for the survey was English and participant were assured that their responses will remain confidential.

Survey measures

Five-point Likert-type scales were used for all survey questions; a score of 1 indicates "strongly disagree" or "never," while a score of 5 indicates "strongly agree" or "always," depending on the subject.

A review of the same corpus of literature served as the basis for the survey's development. The items for the construct were derived from previously established scales and tested in the literature. However, reliability testing, conceptual and initial construct validity are evaluated for the scales using Cronbach alpha, R square, factor analysis, and inter-item correlation using SPSS 27. Convenience snowball sampling was used for the sampling.

Participants

Participants Of the total respondents, 57.1% were males and 42.8% were females with an average age of 30 years. 54.2% of the respondents worked at large cap private firms and 12.3% at government organizations, 23.8% at small and medium organization and 9.5% at NPO’s. We received reasonable percentage of responses in all experience brackets ranging from less than one year (20.9%) to more than 5 years (31.4%) with maximum respondents having 2-5 years of experience within that organization (47.6%).

Analysis

Reliability of Scales

Using SPSS 27 software package, preliminary data analysis was carried out to conduct factor analysis and to and check the scale validity.

Sustainable Practices

A 15-item questionnaire empirically proven by research in literature is used to evaluate sustainable practices (Fairfield et al., 2011). In this study, the sustainable practices scale has been validated by factor analysis through SPSS 27 software Table 1.

Table 1 Sustainable Practices Scale Items Along with their Means, Standard Deviations, and Factor Loadings
Item name	Item	Mean	Std. Deviation	N	Factor loadings
SP1	Uses sustainability-related criteria in recruitment and selection.	4.06	1.117	105	.496
SP2	Uses sustainability-related criteria in promotion and career advancement.	3.81	1.177	105	.630
SP3	Links sustainability-related criteria to compensation.	3.90	1.315	105	.764
SP4	Establishes indicators to determine if the organization is meeting sustainability goals.	4.02	1.118	105	.780
SP5	Is committed to sustainability in their brand.	4.13	1.048	105	.860
SP6	Works with suppliers to strengthen sustainability practices	3.81	.952	105	.617
SP7	Get groups across your organization that are working on sustainability-related initiatives to work more closely together.	4.10	1.028	105	.670
SP8	Provides employee training related to sustainability practices.	3.82	1.350	105	.849
SP9	Tries to reduce waste materials.	4.11	1.138	105	.798
SP10	Tries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.	3.93	1.211	105	.775
SP11	Tries to improve energy efficiency.	4.12	1.124	105	.800
SP12	Tries to involve employees in decisions that affect them.	3.93	1.031	105	.823
SP13	Supports employees in balancing work and life activities.	4.02	1.109	105	.796
SP14	Ensures the health and safety of employees.	4.34	.897	105	.791
SP15	Ensures accountability for ethics at all levels of the organization.	4.39	.814	105	.779

The convergent validity of the items was determined by estimating the factor loadings, and composite reliabilities as standardized factor loadings ranging from 0.49 to 0.84, over the recommended standard level of 0.35, indicating that all of them are at a significant level (The PLS-SEM Book, n.d.) Table 2.

Table 2 Cronbach's Alpha of Sustainable Practices Scale Items
Reliability Statistics N = 15
Cronbach's Alpha	.931
Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items	.933

As per Lee Cronbach, the Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.7 or higher is considered acceptable, 0.8 or higher is better while 0.9 is the best (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011); Thakur & Pathak, (2023); Wright & Cropanzano, (2007). Since the Cronbach’s value in table 2 is 0.93, falls under the acceptable range, we can say our scale is robust enough to justify the variable Table 3.

Table 3 KMO and Bartlett's Test of Sustainable Practices Scale Items
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.	.895
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square	1139.110
df	105
Sig.	.000

A KMO test number that is closer to 1.0 is preferable, whereas one that is less than 0.5 is unsatisfactory, as developed and stated by Henry Kaiser in 1974. (3.1 Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Exploratory Factor Analysis in R, n.d.)

Given the information in the table above, our KMO result is 0.895, which shows that there is a significant degree of overlap between the variables and that factor analysis is therefore feasible. Our null hypothesis is rejected since the significance value in Bartlett's Test of Sphericity is less than 0.05. The Bartlett's Test of Sphericity was created by Maurice Stevenson Bartlett in 1951 (3.1 Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Exploratory Factor Analysis in R, n.d.). Considering the factor loadings and the theoretical backing of the construct, this scale was used as is.

Stevenson Bartlett in 1951 (3.1 Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Exploratory Factor Analysis in R, n.d.). Considering the factor loadings and the theoretical backing of the construct, this scale was used as is.

Psychological wellbeing at work

Psychological wellbeing at work were assessed via by a 25-item questionnaire developed and empirically proven by a study (Dagenais-Desmarais & Savoie, 2012) Table 4 & 5.

Table 4 Psychological Wellbeing at Work Scale Items Along with their Means, Standard Deviations, and Factor Loadings
Item name	Item	Mean	Std. Deviation	N	Factor loadings
PWB1	I value the people I work with.	4.63	.609	105	.625
PWB2	I find my job exciting.	4.19	.867	105	.699
PWB3	I know I am capable of doing my job.	4.78	.438	105	.522
PWB4	I feel that my work is recognized.	4.22	.866	105	.845
PWB5	I want to take initiative in my work.	4.55	.650	105	.729
PWB6	I enjoy working with the people at my job.	4.36	.798	105	.699
PWB7	I like my job.	4.40	.816	105	.668
PWB8	I feel confident at work.	4.58	.690	105	.739
PWB9	I feel that my work efforts are appreciated	4.14	.965	105	.800
PWB10	I care about the good functioning of my organization	4.62	.656	105	.613
PWB11	I get along well with the people at my job	4.56	.603	105	.587
PWB12	I am proud of the job I have.	4.53	.666	105	.546
PWB13	I feel effective and competent in my work.	4.61	.612	105	.756
PWB14	I know that people believe in the projects I work on.	4.45	.588	105	.441
PWB15	I like to take on challenges in my work.	4.60	.582	105	.699
PWB16	I have a relationship of trust with the people at my job.	4.50	.695	105	.615
PWB17	I find meaning in my work.	4.45	.734	105	.730
PWB18	I feel that I know what to doing my job.	4.54	.605	105	.703
PWB19	I feel that the people I work with recognize my abilities.	4.38	.699	105	.707
PWB20	I want to contribute to achieving the goals of my organization.	4.56	.603	105	.573
PWB21	I feel that I am accepted as am by the people I work with.	4.45	.747	105	.782
PWB22	I have a great sense of fulfilment at work	4.28	.872	105	.856
PWB23	I know my value as a worker.	4.51	.622	105	.636
PWB24	I feel that I am a family member of my organization.	4.06	1.055	105	.807
PWB25	I want to be involved in my organization beyond my work duties.	3.95	1.212	105	.773

Table 5 Cronbach's Alpha and R2 of Psychological Well- Being Scale Items
Reliability Statistics (N=25)
Cronbach's Alpha	.947
Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items	.949
R-square (R2)	0.507
R-square adjusted	0.502

To investigate the validity and reliability of the construct Cronbach’s alpha and squared multiple correlation (R2) of the item was estimated. The value of the R2 for the psychological well-being is 0.507 which is between 0.25 to 0.67, indicating virtuous reliability (Structural Equation Modeling, 2006) and all the construct are of good fit. As per Lee Cronbach acceptable range of Cronbach's alpha, our scale is reliable to support its use, as the value is 0.94 Which is considered as the highest range, demonstrating a strong internal consistency and dependability indicator.

A KMO test value of less than 0.5 is unsatisfactory, whereas a value around 1.0 is acceptable and considered ideal.

Factor analysis is conceivable because, according to the data in the Table 6 above, our KMO result is 0.895, which shows that there is a significant degree of overlap between the variables, as Henry Kaiser formulated and articulated in 1974. The significance value in Bartlett's Test of Sphericity is less than 0.05, thus rejecting our null hypothesis. Maurice Stevenson Bartlett developed the Bartlett's Test of Sphericity in 1951. (3.1 Kaiser-Meyer- Olkin (KMO) | Exploratory Factor Analysis in R, n.d.)

Table 6 KMO and Bartlett's Test of Psychological Well- Being Scale Items
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.	.879
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi Square	1861.485
df	300
Sig.	.000

Affective Commitment

Affective commitment was assessed via by an 8-item questionnaire developed and empirically proven by a study. (Allen & Meyer, 1996)

In the context of this research, the Affective commitment scale has been validated by factor analysis done using SPSS. Table 7 below shows the individual items along with their means, standard deviations, and factor loadings Table 8.

Table 7 Affective Commitment Scale Items Along with their Means, Standard Deviations, and Factor Loadings
Item name	Item	Mean	Std. Deviation	N	Factor loadings
AC1	I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization.	3.48	1.264	105	.650
AC2	I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it.	3.93	1.085	105	.569
AC3	I really feel as if this organization's problems are  my own.	3.55	1.232	105	.758
AC4	I am very attached to this organization and would not like to leave it soon.	3.59	1.158	105	.814
AC5	I feel like part of the family at my organization.	3.75	1.158	105	.747
AC6	I feel emotionally attached to this organization	3.52	1.287	105	.780
AC7	This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me.	3.67	1.190	105	.752
AC8	I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization.	3.86	1.180	105	.809

Table 8 Cronbach's Alpha of Affective Commitment Scale Items
Reliability Statistics N = 8
Cronbach's Alpha	.948
Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items	.948
R-square (R2)	0.518
R-square adjusted	0.508

To examine the construct's validity and reliability, Cronbach's alpha and the item's squared multiple correlation (R2) were calculated. The psychological well-being R2 score is 0.507, falling between 0.25 and 0.67, demonstrating virtuous reliability (Structural Equation Modeling, 2006) and a good match between all the constructs. Since the value of our scale is 0.94, which is regarded as the greatest range, it is deemed to be dependable to support its use in accordance with Lee Cronbach's acceptable range of Cronbach's alpha, exhibiting great internal consistency and dependability indicators.

Value of KMO test closer to 1.0 is considered to be ideal whereas value less that 0.5 is unacceptable.

As per the data presented above in the Table 9, our result of KMO is 0.929 indicating the degree of our information among the variables overlap greatly, hence it is plausible to conduct factor analysis. In 1974 Henry Kaiser developed and articulated KMO test. (3.1 Kaiser- Meyer-Olkin (KMO) | Exploratory Factor Analysis in R, n.d.) The significance value in Bartlett's Test of Sphericity is less than 0.05, thus rejecting our null hypothesis. Maurice Stevenson Bartlett developed the Bartlett's Test of Sphericity in 1951.(3.1 Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) | Exploratory Factor Analysis in R, n.d.) Figure 2.

Table 9 KMO and Bartlett's Test of Affective Commitment Scale Items
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.	.929
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi Square	744.201
df	28
Sig.	.000

P1 * P2 = 0.712 * 0.641 = 0.456 = Significant P3 = 0.105 = Insignificant

A full mediation is indicated when the direct effect of P3 is insignificant but the indirect effect of P1 x P2 is significant, implying that solely the indirect effect through the mediator exists. (Mediation, n.d.)

The above model (Figure 2) with Path coefficients higher than 0.5 showcase a significant linear relationship between the observed variables. The results in Table 10 with Path coefficient 0.712 show that H01 is rejected. It proves a strong positive impact of sustainable practices at the workplace on the psychological well-being of the employees.

Table 10 Path Co – Efficient
(P1) SP -> PWB	0.712
(P2) PWB -> AC	0.641
(P3) SP -> AC	0.105
(P1*P2) Specific Indirect Effects	SP -> PWB -> AC                 0.456

With respect to H02, the path coefficients are P1 * P2 = 0.712 * 0.641 = 0.456 i.e. Specific Indirect Effects Table 10, the null hypothesis H02 is rejected. In other words, full mediations imply that the effect of independent variable, i.e., sustainable practices on dependent variable, i.e., affective commitment is transmitted with help of the mediating variable which is psychological wellbeing.

However, the null hypothesis H03 is rejected with path coefficient as low as 0.105, it clearly indicates positive but insignificant direct relationship between sustainable practices and affective commitment of the employees in an organization.

The above findings are further strengthened by the results drawn from F Square and inter – correlation of every variable used in this study.

f² represents the effect of an exogenous construct on an endogenous construct. The values of f² are classified as little (0.02), medium (0.15), or large (0.35). The above Table 11 represents f2 values for three variables: AC, PWB and SP are added as predictors indicating their size and effect.

Table 11 F-Square
	AC	PWB	SP
AC
PWB	0.421
SP	0.011	1.026

PWB on AC: f2 = 0.421,

This indicates that PWB plays a significant role in explaining the variation in AC as there is large effect size.

SP on AC = f2 = 0.011,

This reflects that there is small size effect suggesting SP has minimal level of influence on AC.

SP on PWB = f2 = 1.026,

This shows a high level of influence of SP on PWB, in other words SP is dominant predictor of PWB, accounting for a sizable amount of its variance.

The above Table 12 displays the descriptive statistics and inter – correlation of every variable used in this study. From the table we can conclude that there is a strong positive correlation between AC & PWB (r = 0.716) indicating PWB significantly influences AC. Similarly, PWB & SP ( r = 0.712) are strongly related, indicating that potential influence on SP directly influences PWB. Whereas correlation between SP & AC has slightly positive change, suggesting SP has influence on AC but not as strong as the effect of PWB, indicating that PWB plays crucial role in tying the variable together Table 13.

Table 12 Latent Variable – Correlation
	AC	PWB	SP
AC	1.000	0.716	0.561
PWB	0.716	1.000	0.712
SP	0.561	0.712	1.000

Table 13 Bootstrapping Results
	Sample Mean M	T statistic	P value	5%	95%
SP -> PWB	0.708	12.492	0.00	0.605	0.791
PWB -> AC	0.639	7.171	0.00	0.489	0.780
SP -> AC	0.103	0.981	0.163	-0.071	0.278

SP to PWB: Since p-value is 0.00 which is less than 0.05 and the t-statistic is 12.492 which exceeds 1.96 and the confidence interval does not include zero, indicates that the path from the SP to PWB is statistically significant or the relationship between the two constructs is statistically significant.

PWB to AC: Since p-value is 0.00 which is less than 0.05 and the t-statistic is 7.171 which exceeds 1.96 and the confidence interval does not include zero, indicates that the path from the PWB to AC is statistically significant or the relationship between the two constructs is statistically significant.

SP to AC: Since p-value is 0.16. which is more than 0.05 and the t-statistic is 0.981 which is less than 1.96, indicates that the path from the SP to AC is statistically non-significant means that the relationship is not supported by the data and can be disregarded.

Index of Fit Of Model

While SmartPLS is a component-based SEM method and does not rely heavily on traditional fit indices like CB-SEM. We have used R Square, F square and cross validation (Bootstrapping) to validate the robustness of the model (Model fit)

Findings

When the path model was run in PlS-SEM, it was found that Sustainable Practices affect Psychological Wellbeing with path coefficient of 71.2 % and psychological wellbeing affects the affective commitment with path coefficient being 64.1%. However sustainable practices have a very low impact on the affective commitment with path coefficient being at 10.5%. However, when the model was run on the process mode to check the mediation of psychological well-being, it was found that sustainable practices effect the affective commitment with the mediation of psychological well-being.

As calculated by the rule of mediation (P1*P2) i.e. 0.4983. With significance level at 0.00, we reject our null hypothesis H1 and H2 and with H3 although rejectable but has an insignificant impact directly on the affective commitment until psychological well-being comes as a mediating variable.

Mangerial Implication

The study found psychological well-being as a mediating variable to Sustainable Practices and Affective Commitment. Also, Sustainable Practices doesn’t affect Affective Commitment directly significantly. This implies that for the organizations to retain more loyal employees, it’s important to understand sustainable practices as an important antecedent to the psychological well-being of the employees which shall further increase their organizational commitment. This is a breakthrough as a theoretical implication to understand the role of psychological well-being as vital.

Limitation and Future Scope of Study

The study can be further explored by using a larger sample size to confirm the mediation effect. The research by proposing a new hierarchical model of sustainability practices to psychological well-being to affective commitment can be taken as a basis for theory development. It opens avenues to explore role and effects of some additional measures on either or all given variables. Research can also extend these findings in suggesting some meaningful and pragmatic practices that can be adopted by businesses to promote employee’s well-being or affective commitment towards organizations. Although participants of this study belonged to diverse set of organizations, but the nationality of these participants was only Indian. The researchers may carry out longitudinal study over an extended period on larger samples covering larger geographical participation for more comprehensive results and to ascertain validity of the model globally. The study was indispensable in the times of depleting state of natural resources and implications are important in the field of sustainability

References

Akbar, F. M., & Zona, M. A. (2025). THE INFLUENCE OF WORK-LIFE BALANCE ON EMPLOYEE WELL-BEING MEDIATED BY JOB STRESS: Pengaruh Work-Life Balance terhadap Employee Well-Being melalui Stres Kerja pada PT. Bank Nagari. Santhet (Jurnal Sejarah Pendidikan Dan Humaniora), 9(1), 84-93.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

AlKetbi, A., & Rice, J. (2024). The impact of green human resource management practices on employees, clients, and organizational performance: A literature review. Administrative Sciences, 14(4), 78.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Bamberger, S. G., Vinding, A. L., Larsen, A., Nielsen, P., Fonager, K., Nielsen, R. N., ... & Omland, Ø. (2012). Impact of organisational change on mental health: a systematic review. Occupational and environmental medicine, 69(8), 592-598.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Belloni, M., Carrino, L., & Meschi, E. (2022). The impact of working conditions on mental health: Novel evidence from the UK. Labour Economics, 76, 102176.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Bhatia, A., & Mohsin, F. (2020). Comprehensive literature review on workplace happiness linked to employee outcomes. Test Engineering and Management, 83, 29266-29279.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Boerner, L. K. (2021). Airlines want to make flight more sustainable. How will they do it. Chem Eng News, 99(32), 2005.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Carmichael, F., Fenton, S. J. H., Pinilla-Roncancio, M. V., Sing, M., & Sadhra, S. (2016). Workplace health and wellbeing in construction and retail: Sector specific issues and barriers to resolving them. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 9(2), 251-268.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Chen, S., Song, Y., & Gao, P. (2023). Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance and financial outcomes: Analyzing the impact of ESG on financial performance. Journal of environmental management, 345, 118829.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Cinar, A. B., & Bilodeau, S. (2022). Sustainable workplace mental well being for sustainable SMEs: how?. Sustainability, 14(9), 5290.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Dagenais-Desmarais, V., & Savoie, A. (2012). What is psychological well-being, really? A grassroots approach from the organizational sciences. Journal of happiness studies, 13(4), 659-684.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Denkena, B., Abele, E., Brecher, C., Dittrich, M. A., Kara, S., & Mori, M. (2020). Energy efficient machine tools. CIRP Annals, 69(2), 646-667.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Fairfield, K. D., Harmon, J., & Behson, S. J. (2011). Influences on the organizational implementation of sustainability: an integrative model. Organization Management Journal, 8(1), 4-20.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Gabriel, K. P., & Aguinis, H. (2022). How to prevent and combat employee burnout and create healthier workplaces during crises and beyond. Business horizons, 65(2), 183-192.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

HERWANTO, H., & UMMI, F. T. (2017). Pengaruh Workplace Well-Being Terhadap Kinerja Guru Sd. Jurnal Penelitian Dan Pengukuran Psikologi: JPPP, 6(1), 55-60.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Kundi, Y. M., Aboramadan, M., Elhamalawi, E. M., & Shahid, S. (2021). Employee psychological well-being and job performance: exploring mediating and moderating mechanisms. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 29(3), 736-754.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Lee, C. W., & Fu, M. W. (2024). Conceptualizing sustainable business models aligning with corporate responsibility. Sustainability, 16(12), 5015.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Liu, R., Yue, Z., Ijaz, A., Lutfi, A., & Mao, J. (2023). Sustainable business performance: Examining the role of green HRM practices, green innovation and responsible leadership through the lens of pro-environmental behavior. Sustainability, 15(9), 7317.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Madero-Gómez, S. M., Rubio Leal, Y. L., Olivas-Luján, M., & Yusliza, M. Y. (2023). Companies could benefit when they focus on employee wellbeing and the environment: a systematic review of Sustainable Human Resource Management. Sustainability, 15(6), 5435.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Majid, S., Zhang, X., Khaskheli, M. B., Hong, F., King, P. J. H., & Shamsi, I. H. (2023). Eco-efficiency, environmental and sustainable innovation in recycling energy and their effect on business performance: evidence from European SMEs. Sustainability, 15(12), 9465.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Mendes, T., Pereira, L., Gonçalves, R., Dias, Á., & Costa, R. L. D. (2022). Sustainable practices impacting employee engagement and well-being. Progress in Industrial Ecology, an International Journal, 15(2-4), 239-267.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Mestdagh, B., Van Liedekerke, L., & Sempiga, O. (2024). A drivers framework of organizational SDG engagement. Sustainability, 16(1), 460.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (2013). Employee—organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. Academic press.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Murat, D., Aytac, S., & Bondy, J. (2011). Workplace wellbeing among justice department staff. The Australasian Journal of Organisational Psychology, 4, 20-25.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Peretz, H. (2024). Sustainable human resource management and employees’ performance: The impact of national culture. Sustainability, 16(17), 7281.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Pervaiz, W. (2012). The sustainable workplaces: NOKIA & Lindström as a case study.

Indexed at, Google Scholar,

Robertson, I. T., & Cooper, C. L. (2010). Full engagement: the integration of employee engagement and psychological well‐being. Leadership & organization development journal, 31(4), 324-336.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Schilirò, D. (2019). Sustainability, innovation, and efficiency: A key relationship. In Financing sustainable development: key challenges and prospects (pp. 83-102). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Siddiqui, S. H., & Ijaz, A. (2022). Conceptualizing the Sustainable Workplace Well-being: A Measurement Framework. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS), 42(2).

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International journal of medical education, 2, 53.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Thakur, V., & Pathak, G. S. (2023). Employee Well-being and Sustainable Development: Can Occupational Stress Play Spoilsport. Problemy Ekorozwoju, 18(1), 188-198.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2007). The happy/productive worker thesis revisited. In Research in personnel and human resources management (pp. 269-307). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Received: 20-Jan-2026, Manuscript No. AMSJ-26-16844; Editor assigned: 21-Jan-2026, PreQC No. AMSJ-26-16844(PQ); Reviewed: 28- Jan-2026, QC No. AMSJ-26-16844; Revised: 04-Feb-2026, Manuscript No. AMSJ-26-16844(R); Published: 11-Feb-2026