1. Introduction
Environmental protection is a global issue [1]. Increasing discourses about environmental issues and consumers’ interest in protecting the environment has provoked companies to consider environmental discussions as essential. Moreover, contributing to the environment is now considered a crucial factor of corporate social responsibility (CSR) that could affect a company’s reputation and achievements [2,3]. Thus, corporations are meeting this social need through proenvironmental management and by making sustainable profits [4]. While the hotel industry is showing high energy consumption and waste production (e.g., disposables), hotels are attempting to become consumption-oriented businesses. This is evidenced by discussions about green hotels, which have emerged in the discursive field and have settled there [5]. The Sheraton Grand Incheon Hotel in South Korea acquired leadership in energy and environmental design (LEED) certification in the USA. It was designed to minimize the damage to nature caused by the structure’s design, construction, and operation. Likewise, the Grand Hyatt Incheon Hotel earned the gold grade from LEED by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) by adopting air conditioners, refrigerators, and refrigerants with low potential to destroy the ozone layer or cause global warming. However, previous studies about business performance have focused on consumers. Further, the hotel sector depends heavily on human resources [6]. As HR management is important in proenvironmental management [7], this study will take the proenvironmental angle and determine whether the person–organization outcome can affect business performance.
This study intends to provide a better comprehension of organizations’ environmental goals and green HRM policies while also identifying possible changes in employees’ environmental recognition and sense of responsibility [8]. This can induce a proenvironmental attitude in employees and prevent undesirable incidents [9]. This situation, in turn, can encourage environmentally responsible behavior [10]. Employees deliver a company’s proenvironmental value through products or services. We tried to determine the effect of proenvironmental management on HRM, and proenvironmental organizational performance [11,12,13,14,15,16] and business performance [17,18,19,20,21].
Several variables have been studied in this regard. First is the influence variables suggested as result variables [15,22,23,24]. Second is the effectiveness of using employees’ quality and workability as the core of business performance. Third, and last, is organizational citizenship behavior and its traits as strong predictors of business performance. However, there are also considerable counterexamples, indicting the negative influence of employees’ capabilities on business performance. In this context, corporate management performance related to the environment stem from the actions of employees through human resource management, which aims for environmental management or performance, and these employee behaviors were verified in a study by [12,15,25] as a variable of green organizational citizenship behavior. Green OCB can be defined as personal and discretionary social behavior that is not expressly acknowledged by the official remuneration system and contributes to the organization’s more effective environmental management [26]. Thus, we tried to define the mediating effect of corporate green CSR perceived by employees. Specifically, we attempted to confirm the mediating impact of green CSR perception in the connection between employees’ green organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and green performance management.
Moreover, we tried to confirm the effect of individual green OCB and green HRM at the organizational level. HRM is defined as education and training to develop employees’ talents and capabilities to enhance business performance [7]. Thus, we explored the influence relationship between employees’ green OCB and green HRM for employees’ education and training. Additionally, we applied the ability–motivation–opportunity (AMO) model to green HRM to improve our predictions of employees’ behavior. HRM can establish employees’ abilities by motivating them with high salaries and incentives and giving them opportunities to show their abilities by offering proposal systems or company contests. Such incentives affect employees’ and corporations’ performances [27].
We also tried to verify the roles of green awareness and green psychological climate in the development of employees’ green OCB. We expected to observe a meaningful influence relationship between variables and green performance. To sum up, based on existing studies [15,28,29,30] that have attempted to predict employees’ behavior based on green human resource management applied with the AMO model in the hotel industry, the mediating function of green psychological climate was additionally confirmed. In addition, the importance of CSR, mentioned above, is differentiated from existing studies by confirming the mediating function of CSR perceived by employees, not at the customer level, by verifying the influence relationship between variables from two dimensions. The first is the individual view of the OCB from global hotel employees in Korea; the second is the organizational view of green business performance. With these, we tried to confirm the influence relationship between HRM practice and green OCB. We also tried to verify the influence relationship between green awareness and psychological green climate/individual green OCB and organizational green performance management. Lastly, we assessed the mediating effect of green CSR perception.
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Green Human Resource Management Applying the Ability–Motivation–Opportunity Model in Pro-Environmental Hotels
The proenvironmental approach is no longer limited to selling related products to consumers. Now, it is also important to reflect a corporation’s proenvironmental value on its delivery, the employees. Such efforts are gaining attention from many related individuals and entities [11,12,13,14,15,16].
Thus, corporations need to reflect on how proenvironmental values are implemented in every process that they carry out, including recruiting, training, promoting, rewarding, managing, and directing. It is considered that with these, a corporation’s proenvironmental management can possess longevity. According to recent studies, corporations that engage in proenvironmental management are more appealing to fine human resources [31]. This structure can be improved by applying a system that rewards employees’ proenvironmental behavior [32]. It has also been shown that a manager’s initiative for proenvironmental values can also promote changes in employees [33].
A question arises from this context: Can a company enhance its competitiveness and performance by launching such a human resource management system? This question has been one of the most important research subjects in HR management studies. We attempted to answer this question by establishing an AMO model based on many studies and theoretical approaches. The AMO model conceptualizes the factors that can enhance an organization’s competitiveness and performance—namely, ability, motivation, and opportunity [34,35]. In other words, an HR management system can build human resources’ abilities, motivate them with high salaries and incentives, and give them opportunities by offering a proposal system or company contest to affect both individual/organizational performance [27].
The positive relationship between HR systems and various organizational performances has received much empirical support. However, it is not clear how an HR system can affect both individual and organizational performance [36]. Becker and Gerhart [37] stressed the importance of finding a new variable that acts as the bridge in an HR system’s value creation. Reverse causality issues arise when the mediated performance or employees’ individual awareness/organizational climate is not measured. Thus, the understanding of the influence relationship between business performance and HR systems can be halted. Various studies have been conducted in this context. Researchers have tried to find the bridge variable between HR management and organizational performance by realizing how HR management systems improve business performance, and the number of such studies continues to increase [38].
2.2. The Link between Green Human Resource Management, Green Awareness, Green Psychological Climate, and Green Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Snell et al. [39] defined strategic HR management as “types of planned human resource deployment and activities to achieve organizational goals.” Meanwhile, “strategic management” refers to all organizational activities related to organizational performance. In this context, the primary focus of strategic HR management is to define the mechanisms connecting a company’s HR system to its organizational performance.
HRM should motivate employees to join organizational environment management. Environmental awareness is a multifaceted concept known as an influencer that can affect individual attitudes, information, knowledge, tendencies, behaviors, intentions, efforts, and activities [40]. Additionally, it is connected to psychological elements that influence people’s attitudes and activities, as well as whether they engage in proenvironmental behavior [41]. High recognition of environmental issues helps personnel who should be made aware of the value of environmental conservation for their well-being [42]. It also helps employees recognize nature’s vulnerability and the importance of keeping it safe. Improvements to environmental awareness requires a thorough knowledge of environmental issues. This is a practical method for simultaneously enhancing environmental performance and proenvironmental behavior. Thus, environmental awareness is an important factor in proenvironmental management [11].
Forming a favorable organizational climate is also important. Changing employees’ working environment and improving their business participation and focus are related to their business awareness [43]. Researchers have verified that the business participation of employees improves if the organization has a positive climate [44,45,46,47]. Regarding the efficacy of HR teams, many researchers have focused on how HR teams can promote HR development. For instance, they can measure the education or behavioral correction done following the organization’s main objective [48]. HRM practice can raise employees’ job satisfaction and organizational involvement. As a result, employees can improve their morale and awareness of doing the right thing, which HRM practice aims to achieve [49]. Therefore, green HRM raises employees’ green awareness for environmental protection [50], which raises green OCB [51,52]. A meaningful influence relationship between environmental HRM and employees’ psychological climate has been verified as well [53,54,55].
Various studies have verified the influence relationship between the AMO-applied HRM and employees’ attitudes and behaviors. For instance, Pham et al. [23] showed the effect of applying the AMO model to HRM practice on employees’ environmental commitment, environmental OCB, and corporate environmental performance in three to five star hotels in Vietnam. Pham et al. [46] also confirmed the influence relationship between green rewards, green performance, and environmental OCB. López-Gamero et al. [47] found an influence relationship between HRM based on the AMO model and environmental management, while also showing positive effects of environmental management on cost-competitive advantage and differentiation–competitive advantage, as well as positive effects of RevPAR, average daily rate, and the inefficacy of occupancy on performance. Aboramadan and Karatepe [56] verified that environmental HRM has a meaningful impact on green organizational citizenship behavior, and we based our hypothesis on their research.
The image perception of GCSR has a significant effect on GC.
GPB has a significant effect on GC.
GA has a significant effect on GOCB.
GA has a significant mediating effect on the relationship between GHRM and GOCB.
Green HRM has a significant effect on PGC.
PGC has a significant effect on GOCB.
PGC has a significant mediating effect on the relationship between GHRM and GOCB.
2.3. The Link between Green Corporate Social Responsibility Perception, Green Organizational Citizenship Behavior, and Green Corporate Performance Management
CSR has gained much attention in the field of sustainability and the environment. According to [57], CSR can indicate a corporation’s devotion to individuals who can be affected by society or social activity. CSR is also related to organizational devotion to human society, to which the goals and intentions of an organization are imperative. Without those, the beneficial use of CSR to the interested parties and businesses (e.g., ethical or economic support for welfare or culture) cannot be done flawlessly [58]. Promoting CSR regulations for efficient environmental protection can advance the ethics related to social and corporate responsibility, which can directly resolve the social [59]. Abbas et al. [60] showed that corporations with social responsibility take on concerned persons and customers thereby have a positive image of these companies. The importance of CSR is also indicated by the relationship between the persons concerned and corporations.
In this context, Lee [61] concluded that CSR can be a successful strategy by which a corporation can gain higher recognition from the public and persons concerned. Ismail [62] claimed that a portion of the world’s biggest enterprises made tangible pledges of CSR by minimizing environmental impacts to grow their enterprise, improve social reliability, and secure their financial and environmental performance.
According to Roy et al. [63], establishing environmental management programs and forming organizational environmental policies depend on green OCB. Green OCB can interact with businesses’ performance and CSR to form even greater relationships. Employees have a role to improve the hotel’s green management performance [64], and green organizational citizenship behavior is a concrete form of proenvironmental behavior [65] which refers to the willingness of employees to cooperate with the organization and organizational members to enhance behavior beyond their job roles that benefit the natural environment without harming it.
In this context, Zhao and Zhou [66] showed the influence relationship between OCBE and green corporate performance management. This was possible because OCBE can induce proenvironmental goal settings and standards in corporate operations. Jiang et al. [67] and Valencia et al. [68] claimed that they contribute to improving corporate environmental goals and the daily life of normal people. Yeo [69] supported the idea that OCBE contributes to corporations’ proenvironmental performance management by improving business performance related to their socially responsible business behavior. Cho et al. [70] demonstrated a favorable impact of CSR activity on financial and environmental performance.
Studies have also verified that green CSR can only partly mediate the influence relationship between green transformational leadership and green performance [71]. Moreover, green CSR can partially mediate the influence relationship between green shared vision and green corporate performance [72]. The hypothesis of the present study was based on the theories stated above.
GOCB has a significant effect on GCSR.
GCSR has a significant effect on GPM.
GOCB has a significant effect on GPM.
Green CSR perception has the mediation effect on the relationship between GOCB and GPM.
3. Method
3.1. Measures and Questionnaire Development
Two components made up the online survey that was used in this investigation. The survey’s initial section asked for demographic data (e.g., gender, age, marital status, educational level, position). The second part of the conceptual model included questions related to the constructs of the green HRM practice (GHRM), green awareness (GA), green psychological climate (GPC), green organizational citizenship behavior (GOCB), green performance management (GPM), and green CSR perception (GCSR). We assessed the study constructs by employing measures used in the existing literature [73,74,75,76]. A five-point Likert scale with the questionnaire items was used to evaluate the constructs. In particular, three subfactors (ability, motivation, opportunity) were assessed. Thirteen items adopted from [73] were used to assess green HRM. Four items adopted from [24], based on [77], were used to assess green awareness. Three items adopted from [74], based on [78], were used to assess the green psychological climate. Ten items adopted from [75], based on [79], were used to assess organizational citizenship behavior. Four items adopted from [76], based on [80], were used to assess green CSR perception. Seven items adopted from [81], based on [82,83], were used to assess green performance management. There is Figure 1. shows the relationship between the above variables.
A pretest with four Ph.D. students specializing in hotel management and five hotel employees with ten years of experience in the industry helped to develop this questionnaire. Through the process of modification and complementing, the questionnaire was finalized after a review by a human resource manager and professor in hotel management. In the Appendix A, every item used in this study is listed.
Procedures were corrected before research was conducted to reduce common method bias (CMB). Moreover, in order to protect responder privacy and ease evaluation anxiety, the questionnaire was created, thus reducing CMB [84,85]. Starting on 4 April 2022, we conducted a survey among Rooms and F&B employees from global chain hotels in South Korea for 25 days. Hotels were chosen based on their sincerity in following a green package. The HR managers of the hotels assisted in the distribution of the questionnaires. We administered 450 online and offline surveys and collected 379 responses after filtering out insincere answers.
3.2. Data Collection Process
To realize the empirical analysis, we used convenience sampling and judgment sampling (nonprobability) for our survey to verify the relationships between green HRM practice, green awareness, psychological green climate, green organizational citizenship behavior, green performance management, and green CSR perception. The subjects were green hotel employees in South Korea.
Before beginning the survey, we selected nine global chain hotels with LEED certification that had shown their employees’ dedication to a green package and CSR image recognition. The package includes ‘Earth Save Green’, ‘Sustainable Journeys’, ‘Green Stay’, ‘Spring Greenity’, which entails recycling waste linen, ‘Zero Waste Stay,’ which entails reduced waste, and ‘Amenity’ recycles waste linen. Adopted hotels with active green packages are likely to have proenvironmental policies, high customer satisfaction, and sufficient employee training on environmental performance.
By providing respondents with brief instructions about green HRM practices, we excluded participants who gave a response below 4 on the Likert scale for items regarding comprehension and recognition. To ensure that answers were sincere, we deployed drink vouchers to respondents.
3.3. Data Analysis and the Sample
We employed SPSS 20 and AMOS 20 to examine the data. As recommended by [86], before evaluating the proposed structural model, the measurement model with a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was initially tested. The reliability and validity of the measuring items for each construct were assessed. The next step used a structural equation modeling (SEM).
Regarding the demographic characteristics of the 379 participants, 52.4% (n = 198) were female employees and 47.7% (n = 181) were male employees. Moreover, while 56.9% were unmarried (n = 216), 43.1% were married (n = 163). In addition, 33.7% (n = 128) of respondents were 30–40 years old, 30.6% (n = 116) of respondents were 40–49 years old, 16.6% (n = 63) of respondents were 20–29 years old, 14.5% (n = 55) of respondents were 50–59 years old, and 4.5% (n = 17) of respondents were 60 years old and above. Their levels of education were high school graduate and below (9.8%, n = 37), 2-year college (31.66%, n = 120), 4-year college (39%, n = 148), and postgraduate or higher (19.5%, n = 74). The positions were 40.7% (n = 167) agent, 23.9% (n = 98) supervisor, 17.3% (n = 71) assistant manager, 10.73% (n = 44) manager, and 7.3% (n = 30) director or above in order.
4. Results
4.1. Common Method Bias
The purpose of this study was to reduce Common Method Variance (CMV) by designing the proper survey and questionnaire. Two procedural remedies and analysis methods were used for embodiment. First, we used different cover stories for each respondent. Criterion variables and predictors were psychologically separated by doing so, while the applied scale was the same for all. An example of the cover story is instructed below; “The following statements are irrelevant to the above questions. Please carefully read each statement and then mark from extremely disagree to agree with your recent feeling”. Second, we focused on item ambiguity. As suggested by [87], for the purpose of improving respondents’ comprehension, we offered clear descriptions of ambiguous terminology. Moreover, unmeasured latent methods factor in CMV at 1.1 percent, according to the findings of Harman’s one-factor analysis, a post hoc test to identify potential CMV. It was determined that the data suited another one-factor measurement model well (goodness-of-fit statistics for the measurement model: χ2 = 655.238, df = 541, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 0.825, RMSEA = 0.027, CFI = 0.941, IFI = 0.943, TLI = 0.923). This study used procedural corrections during the survey design phase to reduce CMV. Therefore, CMV did not influence the parameter estimations.
4.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
To confirm the reliability and validity, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used. The measurement model as a result, goodness-of-fit statistics for the measurement model χ2 = 794.213, df = 691, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 0.870, RMSEA = 0.022, CFI = 0.986, IFI = 0.986, TLI = 0.983, were judged to be overall excellent [88]. To examine the convergent validity of the measurement model’s latent variables, factor loadings, the significant probability of the t-value, the average variance extracted (AVE), and the construct reliability (CR) were examined. The confidence coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) of the factor loading ranged from 0.599 to 0.917, which was significantly higher than the 0.6 indicated by [89]. Moreover, AVE values and CR values were respectively constructed ranging from 0.623 to 0.966 and from 0.868 to 0.988. These values were all higher than the ranges of 0.5 and 0.7 that were suggested by [86].
Additionally, correlation analysis was carried out, as shown in Table 1, to confirm the discriminant validity. As a result of Pearson’s correlation analysis, all variables of green HRM practice (GHRM), green awareness (GA), green psychological climate (GPC), green organizational citizenship behavior (GOCB), green performance management (GPM), and green CSR perception (GCSR) were p < 0.05, indicating a significant correlation association [90]. As a result, discriminant validity was verified.
4.3. Structural Model and Hypothesis Testing
In this study, by applying AMO, the first verification of the green HRM practice and the green OCB of hotel employees is conducted, and the second verification of green performance management is conducted accordingly. The maximum likelihood estimation method, which was used as an estimation method for both the model and procedure’s evaluation, was used to create the structural equation model (SEM) analysis [88]. The goodness-of-fit of structural model (χ2 = 802.227, df = 694, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 0.865, RMSEA = 0.022, CFI = 0.985, IFI = 0.985, TLI = 0.982) was satisfactorily higher than the standard value.
Moreover, the SEM had shown a high prediction power for R2(GA) = 0.593, R2(PGC) = 0.381, R2(GOCB) = 0.626, R2(GPM) = 0.508, R2(GCSR) = 0.374, and t-values and standardized path coefficient were shown as the result in Table 2. The path estimates show that GHRM had a significantly positive effect on GOCB (β = 0.564, t = 2.691 **), GHRM had a significantly positive effect on GA (β = 0.826, t = 7.941 ***), and GA had a significantly positive effect on GOCB (β = 0.341, t = 3.780 ***). Thus, H1, H2, and H3 were supported. Additionally, GA had a partially significant mediation effect of the relationship between GHRM and GOCB. Thus, H4 was supported. The results of the analysis of the mediation effect are shown via several significant indirect effects in Table 2.
GHRM had a significantly positive effect on PGC (β = 0.592, t = 7.428 ***) and PGC had a significantly positive effect on GOCB (β = 0.154, t = 2.201 **). Thus, H5 and H6 were supported. Additionally, PGC had partially a significant mediation effect of the relationship between GHRM and GOCB. Thus, H7 was supported. The results of the analysis of the mediation effect are shown via several significant indirect effects in Table 2.
GOCB had a significantly positive effect on GCSR (β = 0.431, t = 4.142 ***), GCSR had a significantly positive effect on GPM (β = 0.250, t = 2.235 **), and GOCB had a significantly positive effect on GPM (β = 0.870, t = 8.606 ***). Thus, H8, H9, and H10 were supported. Additionally, GCSR had partially a significant mediation effect on the relationship between GOCB and GPM. Thus, H11 was supported. The results of the analysis of the mediation effect are shown via several significant indirect effects in Table 2.
5. Conclusions
5.1. Discussion and Implication
There is a global need for ESG management in the hotel sector to overcome external influences such as COVID-19. This study suggested a way for hotel enterprises to overcome incidents, improve HR management via green HRM practices, and check the influence of their efforts. Specifically, we applied the AMO model to the green HRM practice as a causal variable to verify employees’ green awareness, green psychological climate, and green OCB. We also demonstrated the influence correlations between green OCB, green CSR perception, and green performance management in organizational aspects. The verification object is a Korea-based global chain hotel with active green package practice. The research outcomes and implications are described below.
The first hypothesis outcomes for the individual level are as follows.
H1: GHRM has a significant effect on GOCB (supported). H2: GHRM has a significant effect on GA (supported). H3: GA has a significant effect on GOCB (supported). H4: GA has a partially significant mediating effect on the relationship between GHRM and GOCB (supported). H5: GHRM has a significant effect on PGC (supported). H6: PGC has a significant effect on GOCB (supported). H7: PGC has a partially significant mediating effect on the relationship between GHRM and GOCB (supported).
The second hypothesis outcomes for the organizational level are as follows.
H8: GOCB has a significant effect on GCSR (supported). H9: GCSR has a significant effect on GPM (supported). H10: GOCB has a significant effect on GPM (supported). H11: GCSR has a partially significant mediating effect on the relationship between GOCB and GPM (supported).
5.2. Theoretical Implications
In the hotel sector, HRM is a crucial factor, as employees need to interact with customers directly. As the need for ESG management increases, we applied the AMO model to green HRM practice and attempted to explain the relationships between several variables. This study extended previous studies on HRM based on the AMO model [15,46,91,92] by using additional variables, which are green awareness, green psychological climate, and green CSR perception. Furthermore, while the structural studies of green performance’s causal variables [15,22,23,24] assessed the organizational level only, we also simultaneously checked the individual level of green OCB. In addition, in a study related to green hotel, basic evidence data and academic areas in future research were developed to investigate the relationship between employee behavior and green management performance through verifying the mediating effect of green CSR perception as perceived by employees and not CSR from a customer perspective.
5.3. Managerial Implications
We found a meaningfully positive influence relation between green HRM and green OCB. We also verified the positive influence relation between green OCB and green performance management. From the above description, we suggest that hotel companies prepare long-term plans for their employees’ ability, motivation, and opportunities to improve environmental performance management.
In addition, we verified some effects (including mediation) of green awareness, green psychological climate, and green CSR perception in the structural relationship between green HRM, green OCB, and green performance management. Hotels should improve their green psychological climate and employees’ awareness by performing strategic management so that interactive communication with employees can be efficiently carried out. This is because it is capable of grasping the direction and vision of the difference more clearly between employees’ green awareness and green psychological climate. For instance, companies can run small green communities to raise employees’ green awareness and green psychological climate by sharing green conservation resources. Doing so will highlight the necessity of hotel employees and raise their morale.
Hotels should also utilize various marketing strategies (e.g., running a hotel website or SNS to promote employees’ participation). For instance, managers can implement a quiz about implementing green conservation and reward winners with a green product. This will motivate employees and form a proenvironmental atmosphere within the organization.
Moreover, through green HRM, it is necessary to create a surrounding environment, such as a performance-oriented management method, in which employees can perceive and immerse themselves in green awareness. For example, work satisfaction, education and training hours, and the proportion of employees who participated in training are selected and evaluated as employee-related indicators. By this, the level of awareness and commitment of employees in jobs related to green management performance can be increased.
In addition, to improve the hotel’s the green image by providing opportunities such as an idea contest for employees in the organization in the process of establishing strategies for green marketing, green awareness, and green psychological climate related to green management performance and green OCB can be positively promoted.
5.4. Study Limitations and Future Research
Few participants in their 20s and their 60s or above took part in this study when compared to those in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. Most of those in their 20s were agents or supervisors, the primary position of customer reception. In this context, this study is limited in its observations of millennials’ intentions and behaviors. Further research should be conducted with a more balanced age model.
The questionnaire used in this study was administered quantitatively to verify the structural relationships between variables. However, it can be hard to make a Likert scale for factors such as green awareness, psychological green climate, and green CSR perception, as they are psychological constructs. We suggest using a hybrid research method to achieve qualitative research and raise the sample’s representability.
We interviewed employees from Korean branches of a global chain hotel with active green package participation. However, hotels with inactive green packages can also have active HRM practices in an ESG management context and could already be improving their environmental performances. Therefore, future research should consider a better criterion for green hotels. A comparative study between local hotels and global chain hotels could be meaningful.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Data sharing is not applicable.
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Structural equation model estimation and test for structural metric invariance. Note 1. Green HRM practice (GHRM), green awareness (GA), green psychological climate (GPC), green organizational citizenship behavior (GOCB), green performance management (GPM), green CSR perception (GCSR). Note 2. Goodness-of-fit statistics for the measurement model: χ2 = 802.227, df = 694, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 0.865, RMSEA = 0.022, CFI = 0.985, IFI = 0.985, TLI = 0.982, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Note 3. Goodness-of-fit statistics for the measurement model: χ2 = 794.213, df = 691, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 0.870, RMSEA = 0.022, CFI = 0.986, IFI = 0.986, TLI = 0.983, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; Note 4. All factors’ loadings are significant at p < 0.001.
The measurement model and correlation.
| Construct and Scale Item | Standardized Loading | Mean (SD) | AVE (CR) | GHRM | GA | PGC | GOCB | GPM | GCSR | √AVE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GHRM | GHRM1 | 0.917 | 3.62 |
0.966 (0.988) | 1 | 0.983 | |||||
| GHRM2 | 0.878 | ||||||||||
| GHRM3 | 0.607 | ||||||||||
| GA | GA1 | 0.679 | 3.68 |
0.623 (0.868) | 0.542 *** | 1 | 0.789 | ||||
| GA2 | 0.652 | ||||||||||
| GA3 | 0.666 | ||||||||||
| GA4 | 0.725 | ||||||||||
| GA5 | |||||||||||
| PGC | PGC1 | 0.703 | 3.67 |
0.722 (0.886) | 0.065 ** | 0.028 ** | 1 | 0.85 | |||
| PGC2 | 0.837 | ||||||||||
| PGC3 | 0.723 | ||||||||||
| GOCB | GOCB1 | 0.587 | 3.98 |
0.674 (0.947) | 0.958 *** | 0.554 *** | 0.075 * | 1 | 0.821 | ||
| GOCB2 | 0.668 | ||||||||||
| GOCB3 | 0.753 | ||||||||||
| GOCB4 | 0.706 | ||||||||||
| GOCB5 | 0.630 | ||||||||||
| GOCB6 | 0.599 | ||||||||||
| GOCB7 | 0.646 | ||||||||||
| GOCB8 | 0.631 | ||||||||||
| GOCB9 | 0.639 | ||||||||||
| GOCB10 | 0.680 | ||||||||||
| GPM | GPM1 | 0.712 | 4.17 |
0.707 (0.944) | 0.313 *** | 0.280 *** | 0.046 * | 0.341 *** | 1 | 0.841 | |
| GPM2 | 0.674 | ||||||||||
| GPM3 | 0.688 | ||||||||||
| GPM4 | 0.704 | ||||||||||
| GPM5 | 0.694 | ||||||||||
| GPM6 | 0.562 | ||||||||||
| GPM7 | 0.673 | ||||||||||
| GCSR | GCSR1 | 0.777 | 3.65 |
0.922 (0.979) | 0.192 *** | 0.244 *** | 0.043 * | 0.191 *** | 0.242 *** | 1 | 0.96 |
| GCSR2 | 0.791 | ||||||||||
| GCSR3 | 0.888 | ||||||||||
| GCSR4 | 0.782 | ||||||||||
Note 1. SD = standardized deviation, AVE = average variance extracted, CR = composite reliability; green HRM practice (GHRM), green awareness (GA), green psychological climate (GPC), green organizational citizenship behavior (GOCB), green performance management (GPM), green CSR perception (GCSR). Note 2. Goodness-of-fit statistics for the measurement model: χ2 = 794.213, df = 691, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 0.870, RMSEA = 0.022, CFI = 0.986, IFI = 0.986, TLI = 0.983, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Note 3. All factors’ loadings are significant at p < 0.001.
Hypothesis testing.
| Hypothesized Paths | Coefficients | t-Values |
|---|---|---|
| H1: GHRM → GOCB | 0.564 | 2.691 ** |
| H2: GHRM → GA | 0.826 | 7.941 *** |
| H3: GA → GOCB | 0.341 | 3.780 *** |
| H5: GHRM → PGC | 0.592 | 7.428 *** |
| H6: PGC → GOCB | 0.154 | 2.201 ** |
| H8: GOCB → GCSR | 0.431 | 4.142 *** |
| H9: GCSR → GPM | 0.250 | 2.235 ** |
| H10: GOCB → GPM | 0.870 | 8.606 *** |
| H1: GHRM → GOCB | 0.564 | 2.691 ** |
| H2: GHRM → GA | 0.826 | 7.941 *** |
| H3: GA → GOCB | 0.341 | 3.780 *** |
| Indirect effect | Total effect | |
| H4: GHRM → GA → GOCB | 0.265 *** | 0.957 *** |
| H7: GHRM → PGC → GOCB | 0.138 * | 0.821 *** |
| H11: GOCB → GCSR → GPM | 0.030 ** | 0.299 *** |
| Explained variable: | R2(GA) = 0.593, R2(PGC) = 0.381, R2(GOCB) = 0.626, R2(GPM) = 0.508, R2(GCSR) = 0.374 |
Note 1. green HRM practice (GHRM), green awareness (GA), green psychological climate (GPC), green organizational citizenship behavior (GOCB), green performance management (GPM), green CSR perception (GCSR). Note 2. Goodness-of-fit statistics for the measurement model: χ2 = 802.227, df = 694, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 1.156, RMSEA = 0.022, CFI = 0.985, IFI = 0.985, TLI = 0.982, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Note 3. All factors’ loadings are significant at p < 0.001.
Appendix A
| Green HRM |
| Act |
| We develop training programs in environment management to increase environmental awareness, skills and expertise of employees |
| Motivation |
| We use green performance indicators in our performance management system and appraisals |
| Opportunity |
| Our hotel has a clear developmental vision to guide the employees’ actions in environment management |
| Green Awareness |
| The effects of pollution on public health are worse than we realize |
| Psychological Green Climate |
| Our organization is interested in supporting the efforts made to handle environmental problems |
| Green Organizational Citizenship Behavior |
| In my work, I weigh the consequences of my actions before doing |
| Environmental CSR |
| Our hotel implements special programs to minimize its negative impact on the natural environment |
| Environmental Performance |
| Environmental management within our hotel has reduced waste |
References
1. Catton, W.R., Jr.; Dunlap, R.E. Environmental sociology: A new paradigm. Am. Sociol.; 1978; 13, pp. 41-49.
2. Babiak, K.; Trendafilova, S. CSR and environmental responsibility: Motives and pressures to adopt green management practices. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.; 2011; 18, pp. 11-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.229]
3. De Roeck, K.; Delobbe, N. Do Environmental CSR Initiatives Serve Organizations’ Legitimacy in the Oil Industry? Exploring Employees’ Reactions Through Organizational Identification Theory. J. Bus. Ethics; 2012; 110, pp. 397-412. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1489-x]
4. Tsai, Y.-H.; Wu, C.-T.; Wang, T.-M. Attitude Towards Green Hotel by Hoteliers and Travel Agency Managers in Taiwan. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res.; 2014; 19, pp. 1091-1109. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2013.838180]
5. Saunders, T.; McGovern, L. The Bottom Line of Green is Black: Strategies for Creating Profitable and Environmentally Sound Businesses; Harper San Francisco: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1993.
6. Schuler, R.S.; Jackson, S.E. Linking Competitive Strategies with Human Resource Management Practices. Acad. Manag. Perspect.; 1987; 1, pp. 207-219. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5465/ame.1987.4275740]
7. Renwick, D.W.S.; Redman, T.; Maguire, S. Green Human Resource Management: A Review and Research Agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev.; 2013; 15, pp. 1-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00328.x]
8. Jabbour, C.J.C.; Santos, F.C.A. The central role of human resource management in the search for sustainable organizations. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag.; 2008; 19, pp. 2133-2154. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585190802479389]
9. Jabbour, C.J.C.; Santos, F.C.A.; Nagano, M.S. Contributions of HRM throughout the stages of environmental management: Methodological triangulation applied to companies in Brazil. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag.; 2010; 21, pp. 1049-1089. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585191003783512]
10. Pinzone, M.; Guerci, M.; Lettieri, E.; Redman, T. Progressing in the change journey towards sustainability in healthcare: The role of ‘Green’HRM. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 122, pp. 201-211. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.031]
11. Benevene, P.; Buonomo, I. Green Human Resource Management: An Evidence-Based Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 5974. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12155974]
12. Hooi, L.W.; Liu, M.-S.; Lin, J.J. Green human resource management and green organizational citizenship behavior: Do green culture and green values matter?. Int. J. Manpow.; 2021; 43, pp. 763-785. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJM-05-2020-0247]
13. Ababneh, O.M.A. How do green HRM practices affect employees’ green behaviors? The role of employee engagement and personality attributes. J. Environ. Plan. Manag.; 2021; 64, pp. 1204-1226. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2020.1814708]
14. Mwita, K. Conceptual review of green human resource management practices. East Afr. J. Soc. Appl. Sci.; 2019; 1, pp. 13-20.
15. Pham, N.T.; Tučková, Z.; Jabbour, C.J.C. Greening the hospitality industry: How do green human resource management practices influence organizational citizenship behavior in hotels? A mixed-methods study. Tour. Manag.; 2019; 72, pp. 386-399. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.12.008]
16. Ercantan, O.; Eyupoglu, S. How Do Green Human Resource Management Practices Encourage Employees to Engage in Green Behavior? Perceptions of University Students as Prospective Employees. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 1718. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14031718]
17. Iwanowski, K.; Rushmore, C. Introducing the Eco-Friendly Hotel: There are lots of reasons to pay attention to eco-tourism and, let’s face it, the main ones have to do with money. Cornell Hotel. Restaur. Adm. Q.; 1994; 35, pp. 34-38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001088049403500104]
18. Bohdanowicz, P. Environmental awareness and initiatives in the Swedish and Polish hotel industries—survey results. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.; 2006; 25, pp. 662-682. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2005.06.006]
19. Enz, C.A.; Siguaw, J.A. Best hotel environmental practices. Cornell Hotel. Restaur. Adm. Q.; 1999; 40, pp. 72-77. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001088049904000511]
20. Singh, S.K.; Del Giudice, M.; Chierici, R.; Graziano, D. Green innovation and environmental performance: The role of green transformational leadership and green human resource management. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.; 2019; 150, 119762. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119762]
21. Malik, S.Y.; Hayat Mughal, Y.; Azam, T.; Cao, Y.; Wan, Z.; Zhu, H.; Thurasamy, R. Corporate social responsibility, green human resources management, and sustainable performance: Is organizational citizenship behavior towards environment the missing link?. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 1044. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13031044]
22. Harb, T.; Ahmed, S. Perceived financial sustainability of tourism enterprises: Do green human resource management practices really matter?. J. Tour. Hosp. Manag.; 2019; 7, pp. 173-185. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15640/jthm.v7n2a15]
23. Pham, N.T.; Thanh, T.V.; Tučková, Z.; Thuy, V.T.N. The role of green human resource management in driving hotel’s environmental performance: Interaction and mediation analysis. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.; 2020; 88, 102392. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102392]
24. Darvishmotevali, M.; Altinay, L. Green HRM, environmental awareness and green behaviors: The moderating role of servant leadership. Tour. Manag.; 2022; 88, 104401. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104401]
25. Luu, T.T. Green human resource practices and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: The roles of collective green crafting and environmentally specific servant leadership. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2019; 27, pp. 1167-1196. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1601731]
26. Boiral, O. Greening the Corporation Through Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. J. Bus. Ethics; 2009; 87, pp. 221-236. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9881-2]
27. Reinholt, M.; Pedersen, T.; Foss, N.J. Why a Central Network Position Isn’t Enough: The Role of Motivation and Ability for Knowledge Sharing in Employee Networks. Acad. Manag. J.; 2011; 54, pp. 1277-1297. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0007]
28. Irani, F.; Kilic, H. An assessment of implementing green HRM practices on environmental performance: The moderating role of green process innovation. J. Glob. Hosp. Tour.; 2022; 1, pp. 16-30. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5038/2771-5957.1.1.1001]
29. Ahmed, U.; Umrani, W.A.; Yousaf, A.; Siddiqui, M.A.; Pahi, M.H. Developing faithful stewardship for environment through green HRM. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag.; 2021; 33, pp. 3115-3133. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-09-2020-1066]
30. Ababneh, O.M.A.; Awwad, A.S.; Abu-Haija, A. The association between green human resources practices and employee engagement with environmental initiatives in hotels: The moderation effect of perceived transformational leadership. J. Hum. Resour. Hosp. Tour.; 2021; 20, pp. 390-416. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332845.2021.1923918]
31. Albinger, H.S.; Freeman, S.J. Corporate Social Performance and Attractiveness as an Employer to Different Job Seeking Populations. J. Bus. Ethics; 2000; 28, pp. 243-253. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1006289817941]
32. Berrone, P.; Gomez-Mejia, L.R. Environmental Performance and Executive Compensation: An Integrated Agency-Institutional Perspective. Acad. Manag. J.; 2009; 52, pp. 103-126. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.36461950]
33. Siebenhüner, B.; Arnold, M. Organizational learning to manage sustainable development. Bus. Strat. Environ.; 2007; 16, pp. 339-353. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.579]
34. Appelbaum, E.; Bailey, T.; Berg, P.; Kalleberg, A.L.; Bailey, T.A. Manufacturing Advantage: Why High-Performance Work Systems Pay Off; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2000.
35. Jiang, K.; Lepak, D.P.; Hu, J.; Baer, J.C. How Does Human Resource Management Influence Organizational Outcomes? A Meta-analytic Investigation of Mediating Mechanisms. Acad. Manag. J.; 2012; 55, pp. 1264-1294. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0088]
36. Jiang, K.; Takeuchi, R.; Lepak, D.P. Where do We Go from Here? New Perspectives on the Black Box in Strategic Human Resource Management Research. J. Manag. Stud.; 2013; 50, pp. 1448-1480. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joms.12057]
37. Becker, B.; Gerhart, B. The Impact of Human Resource Management on Organizational Performance: Progress and Prospects. Acad. Manag. J.; 1996; 39, pp. 779-801. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5465/256712]
38. Lengnick-Hall, M.L.; Lengnick-Hall, C.A.; Andrade, L.S.; Drake, B. Strategic human resource management: The evolution of the field. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev.; 2009; 19, pp. 64-85. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.01.002]
39. Snell, S.A.; Youndt, M.A.; Wright, P.M. Establishing a framework for research in strategic human resource management: Merging resource theory and organizational learning. Res. Pers. Hum. Resour. Manag.; 1996; 14, pp. 61-90.
40. Wan, Y.K.P.; Chan, S.H.J.; Huang, H.L.W. Environmental awareness, initiatives and performance in the hotel industry of Macau. Tour. Rev.; 2017; 72, pp. 87-103. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TR-06-2016-0016]
41. Al-Hawari, M.A.; Quratulain, S.; Melhem, S.B. How and when frontline employees’ environmental values influence their green creativity? Examining the role of perceived work meaningfulness and green HRM practices. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 310, 127598. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127598]
42. Wells, V.K.; Manika, D.; Gregory-Smith, D.; Taheri, B.; McCowlen, C. Heritage tourism, CSR and the role of employee environmental behaviour. Tour. Manag.; 2015; 48, pp. 399-413. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.12.015]
43. Shuck, B.; Herd, A.M. Employee engagement and leadership: Exploring the convergence of two frameworks and implications for leadership development in HRD. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev.; 2012; 11, pp. 156-181. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1534484312438211]
44. Kataria, A.; Rastogi, R.; Garg, P. Organizational effectiveness as a function of employee engagement. South Asian J. Manag.; 2013; 20, 56.
45. Lee, J.; Ok, C. Examination of factors affecting hotel employees’ service orientation: An emotional labor perspective. J. Hosp. Tour. Res.; 2015; 39, pp. 437-468. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1096348013491593]
46. Pham, N.T.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Vo-Thanh, T.; Huynh, T.L.D.; Santos, C. Greening hotels: Does motivating hotel employees promote in-role green performance? The role of culture. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2020; pp. 1-20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1863972]
47. López-Gamero, M.D.; Pereira-Moliner, J.; Molina-Azorín, J.F.; Tarí, J.J.; Pertusa-Ortega, E.M. Human resource management as an internal antecedent of environmental management: A joint analysis with competitive consequences in the hotel industry. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2020; pp. 1-22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1841216]
48. Wognum, I.; Lam, J.F. Stakeholder involvement in strategic HRD aligning: The impact on HRD effectiveness. Int. J. Train. Dev.; 2000; 4, pp. 98-110. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2419.00099]
49. Lee, J.Y.; Park, S.; Baker, R. The moderating role of top management support on employees’ attitudes in response to human resource development efforts. J. Manag. Organ.; 2018; 24, pp. 369-387. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2017.37]
50. Bashirun, S.N.; Samudin, N.M.R.; Zolkapli, N.M.; Badrolhisam, N.I. Fostering organizational citizenship behavior for the environment in promoting employee green behavior at the workplace. Int. J. Bus. Manag.; 2019; 3, pp. 18-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.26666/rmp.ijbm.2019.1.4]
51. Djaelani, A.K.; Sanusi, A.; Trianmanto, B. Spiritual leadership, job Satisfaction, and its effect on organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Manag. Sci. Lett.; 2021; 11, pp. 3907-3914. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.7.020]
52. Anser, M.K.; Shafique, S.; Usman, M.; Akhtar, N.; Ali, M. Spiritual leadership and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: An intervening and interactional analysis. J. Environ. Plan. Manag.; 2021; 61, pp. 1496-1514. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2020.1832446]
53. Naz, S.; Jamshed, S.; Nisar, Q.A.; Nasir, N. Green HRM, psychological green climate and pro-environmental behaviors: An efficacious drive towards environmental performance in China. Curr. Psychol.; 2021; pp. 1-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01412-4]
54. Chen, S.; Jiang, W.; Li, X.; Gao, H. Effect of Employees’ Perceived Green HRM on Their Workplace Green Behaviors in Oil and Mining Industries: Based on Cognitive-Affective System Theory. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2021; 18, 4056. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084056] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33921418]
55. Dumont, J.; Shen, J.; Deng, X. Effects of Green HRM Practices on Employee Workplace Green Behavior: The Role of Psychological Green Climate and Employee Green Values. Hum. Resour. Manag.; 2016; 56, pp. 613-627. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21792]
56. Aboramadan, M.; Karatepe, O.M. Green human resource management, perceived green organizational support and their effects on hotel employees’ behavioral outcomes. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag.; 2021; 33, pp. 3199-3222. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-12-2020-1440]
57. Matten, D.; Moon, J. Corporate social responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics; 2004; 54, pp. 323-337. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-004-1822-0]
58. Mohr, L.A.; Webb, D.J.; Harris, K.E. Do Consumers Expect Companies to be Socially Responsible? The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Buying Behavior. J. Consum. Aff.; 2001; 35, pp. 45-72. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2001.tb00102.x]
59. Iyer, G.R.; Jarvis, L. CSR adoption in the multinational hospitality context: A review of representative research and avenues for future research. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag.; 2019; 31, pp. 2376-2393. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-06-2018-0451]
60. Abbas, J.; Mahmood, S.; Ali, H.; Raza, M.A.; Ali, G.; Aman, J.; Bano, S.; Nurunnabi, M. The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility Practices and Environmental Factors through a Moderating Role of Social Media Marketing on Sustainable Performance of Business Firms. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 3434. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11123434]
61. Lee, C.-Y. Does Corporate Social Responsibility Influence Customer Loyalty in the Taiwan Insurance Sector? The role of Corporate Image and Customer Satisfaction. J. Promot. Manag.; 2019; 25, pp. 43-64. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2018.1427651]
62. Ismail, M. Corporate social responsibility and its role in community development: An international perspective. J. Int. Soc. Res.; 2009; 2, pp. 199-209.
63. Roy, M.-J.; Boiral, O.; Lagacé, D. Environmental commitment and manufacturing excellence: A comparative study within Canadian industry. Bus. Strat. Environ.; 2001; 10, pp. 257-268. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.304]
64. Boiral, O.; Paillé, P. Organizational Citizenship Behaviour for the Environment: Measurement and Validation. J. Bus. Ethics; 2012; 109, pp. 431-445. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1138-9]
65. Zientara, P.; Zamojska, A. Green organizational climates and employee pro-environmental behaviour in the hotel industry. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2018; 26, pp. 1142-1159. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2016.1206554]
66. Zhao, H.; Zhou, Q. Exploring the Impact of Responsible Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behavior for the Environment: A Leadership Identity Perspective. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 944. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11040944]
67. Jiang, W.; Zhao, X.; Ni, J. The Impact of Transformational Leadership on Employee Sustainable Performance: The Mediating Role of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Sustainability; 2017; 9, 1567. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su9091567]
68. Valencia, G.A.D.; Norato, O.M.G.; Paéz, A.A.V.; Romero, R. Formas de financiación informal de los comerciantes informales en Colombia Casos: Cúcuta, Ibagué y Villavicencio. Rev. Econ. Finanz.; 2020; 43, pp. 243-381. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.32826/cude.v43i123.126]
69. Yeo, Y.; Choi, S.; Kwon, O. CSR activities as a competitive strategy based on industry competition and firm performance: Focusing on the market type. Korean Account. Rev.; 2015; 40, pp. 1-37.
70. Cho, C.K.; Cho, T.S.; Lee, J. Managerial attributes, consumer proximity, and corporate environmental performance. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.; 2019; 26, pp. 159-169. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.1668]
71. Tosun, J.; Howlett, M. Analyzing national policy styles empirically using the Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI): Insights into long-term patterns of policy-making. Eur. Policy Anal.; 2022; 8, pp. 160-177. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1142]
72. Chang, T.-W.; Yeh, Y.-L.; Li, H.-X. How to Shape an Organization’s Sustainable Green Management Performance: The Mediation Effect of Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 9198. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12219198]
73. Tang, M.; Walsh, G.; Lerner, D.; Fitza, M.A.; Li, Q. Green innovation, managerial concern and firm performance: An empirical study. Bus. Strateg. Environ.; 2018; 27, pp. 39-51. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.1981]
74. Bhutto, T.A.; Farooq, R.; Talwar, S.; Awan, U.; Dhir, A. Green inclusive leadership and green creativity in the tourism and hospitality sector: Serial mediation of green psychological climate and work engagement. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2021; 29, pp. 1716-1737. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1867864]
75. Kim, W.G.; McGinley, S.; Choi, H.-M.; Agmapisarn, C. Hotels’ environmental leadership and employees’ organizational citizenship behavior. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.; 2020; 87, 102375. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102375]
76. Yin, C.; Ma, H.; Gong, Y.; Chen, Q.; Zhang, Y. Environmental CSR and environmental citizenship behavior: The role of employees’ environmental passion and empathy. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 320, 128751. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128751]
77. Han, H.; Yoon, H.J. Hotel customers’ environmentally responsible behavioral intention: Impact of key constructs on decision in green consumerism. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.; 2015; 45, pp. 22-33. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.11.004]
78. Norton, T.A.; Zacher, H.; Parker, S.L.; Ashkanasy, N.M. Bridging the gap between green behavioral intentions and employee green behavior: The role of green psychological climate. J. Organ. Behav.; 2017; 38, pp. 996-1015. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.2178]
79. Boiral, O.; Talbot, D.; Paillé, P. Leading by Example: A Model of Organizational Citizenship Behavior for the Environment. Bus. Strat. Environ.; 2015; 24, pp. 532-550. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.1835]
80. Turker, D. How Corporate Social Responsibility Influences Organizational Commitment. J. Bus. Ethics; 2009; 89, pp. 189-204. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9993-8]
81. Kim, Y.J.; Kim, W.G.; Choi, H.-M.; Phetvaroon, K. The effect of green human resource management on hotel employees’ eco-friendly behavior and environmental performance. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.; 2019; 76, pp. 83-93. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.04.007]
82. Melnyk, S.A.; Sroufe, R.P.; Calantone, R. Assessing the impact of environmental management systems on corporate and environmental performance. J. Oper. Manag.; 2003; 21, pp. 329-351. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(02)00109-2]
83. Ilinitch, A.Y.; Soderstrom, N.S.; Thomas, T.E. Measuring corporate environmental performance. J. Account. Public Policy; 1998; 17, pp. 383-408. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0278-4254(98)10012-1]
84. Campbell, D.T.; Fiske, D.W. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol. Bull.; 1959; 56, pp. 81-105. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0046016]
85. Han, H. Travelers’ pro-environmental behavior in a green lodging context: Converging value-belief-norm theory and the theory of planned behavior. Tour. Manag.; 2015; 47, pp. 164-177. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.09.014]
86. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull.; 1988; 103, pp. 411-423. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411]
87. MacKenzie, S.B.; Podsakoff, P.M. Common Method Bias in Marketing: Causes, Mechanisms, and Procedural Remedies. J. Retail.; 2012; 88, pp. 542-555. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2012.08.001]
88. Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2013.
89. Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y.; Nassen, K.D. Representation of measurement error in marketing variables: Review of approaches and extension to three-facet designs. J. Econ.; 1998; 89, pp. 393-421. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00068-2]
90. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res.; 1981; 18, pp. 382-388. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313]
91. Díaz-Fernández, M.C.; Rodríguez, M.R.G.; Simonetti, B. Top management team diversity and high performance: An integrative approach based on upper echelons and complexity theory. Eur. Manag. J.; 2020; 38, pp. 157-168. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.06.006]
92. Sobaih, A.E.E.; Hasanein, A.; Elshaer, I. Influences of Green Human Resources Management on Environmental Performance in Small Lodging Enterprises: The Role of Green Innovation. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 10371. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su122410371]
© 2022 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
