1. Introduction
The rural tourism industry in China, as an engine for economic and social development [1,2], has flourished in the past two decades. On the one hand, the development of rural tourism contributes to rural prosperity [2,3]. On the other hand, it decreases a certain degree of environmental unsustainability [4,5]. Most of the previous research focused on the positive social and environmental influences of rural tourism, but the negative impact of rural tourism is ignored and underexplored [2,6]. Moreover, a report in 2017 revealed that a large number of rural tourism enterprises at Emei Mountain illegally discharged pollutants and litter, resulting in environmental pollution and ecological damage to the destination, which aroused the attention of both academics and institutions about the negative effects of tourism enterprises other than tourist behavior. However, many of the rural tourism enterprises aspired to development and economic interest at the cost of sacrificing natural resources and environment sustainability [7]. This phenomenon can be attributed to corporate behaviours that arise from a lack of environmental awareness or concern [8] or to the local tourism enterprises that have failed to educate customers and employees about environmental responsibility due to the inceptive mode of this new business model [9].
Facing sustainability challenges, China’s President Xi Jinping has emphasized that lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets [2]. Since then, government officials, rural community residents and corporations, as the main stakeholders of rural tourism destinations [10,11], started rethinking development strategies and green behaviours [12]. Local governments have taken steps toward pollution treatment and environmental restoration through policies and supervision [3], but unfortunately limited effects have been achieved. Similarly, several local communities have organized activities to deter pollution spontaneously, but these efforts have had little influence [13]. Such actions seemed not to gain much traction because they became attenuated as rural tourism has been growing [7], with the enterprises profiting but taking no social responsibility [14]. In this case, the most effective strategies seem to require the participation of enterprises [15]. Due to embeddability and interactivity [16], the rural tourism corporations, with a need for robust local and global links [17], have a significant influence on the success and development of a rural tourism destination. Specifically, in comparison to the other stakeholders of the rural tourism destination, rural tourism enterprises are considered to have more responsibility in the local linkages between businesses, employees and residents of a region in general [17,18].
Although corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices in the tourism sector are urgently needed, most of the studies on this topic have focused on international tourism corporations [9], mass tour operators [19], the casino industry [20], the airline industry [21], and restaurants [22] etc. Limited research by tourism and environment scholars has focused on rural tourism enterprises from this perspective. Nevertheless, the environmental issue, as one of the important CSR dimensions [21], restricts rural tourism development [4,5]. So it is essential to explore the practices of a rural tourism enterprise with the challenge of environmental sustainability, especially in China which has been troubled by corporate misbehaviour (e.g., water pollution, farmland grabbing, abuse and destruction of natural resources, air pollution, etc.) [5,23,24].
Nowadays, rural tourism enterprise’ corporate green behaviour receive increasing attention among scholars [12]. The previous research related to the tourism enterprises’ green behaviour has only been discussed in terms of antecedents and outcomes [9,12,25,26,27]. Yet previous analyses have failed to take into account corporate community involvement theory, especially corporate-community cooperation in the rural tourism destination, in order to explore the antecedents and contingency effects of corporate green behaviour from the perspective of tourism corporate social responsibility. Corporate community involvement is a corporate social responsibility action and a strategic tool to respond to social problems, promote community development, and improve social-economic, ecological and cultural capital [28,29]. In fact, corporate strategies influence corporate green behaviour and exert important impacts on destination sustainability [30,31]. Although the efficacy of the theory of corporate community involvement has been verified in studies of environmental risks and sustainable community relations [32], the way that the creation and evolution of corporate community involvement affects corporate green behaviour in the rural tourism sector has yet to be developed. Therefore, it is necessary to explore tourism enterprises’ green behaviour from the perspective of CSR with corporate community involvement.
Moreover, in reports published by international organizations and institutions a special emphasis is made on the positive influence that sustainability can have on the process of touristic economic growth of destinations [33]. The relationship between economic growth and environmental protection has been a common concern of scholars in recent years, usually ignoring the influence of the gross tourism receipts of a destination [34]. Hence, there are significant practical implications in investigating the tourism enterprises’ green behaviour from the perspective of CSR with corporate community involvement.
Based on the statement above, the current study investigates the environmental impact of tourism on Chinese rural destinations from the perspective of corporate social and environmental responsibility. Specifically, we use corporate community involvement as a theoretical lens to explore the determinants of rural tourism enterprises’ corporate green behaviour at tourism destination. Besides, we were also enlightened by the study of Wang et al. [2] whose research revealed that bed and breakfast (B&B) operators as destination hosts influence tourists’ green behaviour by different dimensions [2]. The current research has revealed that B&B operators’ place identity and place dependence on tourism destination exert an effect on corporate action [35], which further stimulates environmental performance [8]. Specifically, this paper explains the mechanisms by which rural tourism enterprises become engaged in social responsibility. We apply corporate community involvement theory to develop a model involving corporate community involvement and the psychological factors of managers in order to examine how these elements might affect corporate green behaviour in rural tourist destinations.
This paper is structured as follows. In the next section, we provide a brief literature review of our core variables (i.e., corporate community involvement and corporate green behaviour) and theorize our proposed model with related hypotheses. After developing our theoretical model, we then explain our study area in terms of the context our research is based on and why we chose to study these places. In the fourth section, we introduce our methodology, highlighting our research design and processes. The fifth section analyzes the data and provides results of a hypotheses test and robustness check. We then discuss the contributions and limitations in part six. Finally, we draw conclusions.
This study contributes to research on the impacts of tourism on destinations’ environmental well-being with CSR. In doing so, this research interprets the green behaviour of rural tourism enterprises from the perspective of CSR, providing a comprehensive mechanism where corporate community involvement is incorporated and the roles of place identity and gross tourism receipts are stressed. In addition, we provide empirical evidence about CSR in tourism research from China, presenting a typical pattern of the environmental issue and green behaviour in rural tourism. Third, the current research provides insights for practices by stressing the role of rural tourism companies as stakeholders rather than as a part of tourism activities. Traditionally it is the tourists’ behaviour but not the actions of tourism companies that are stressed in government policies. We enlarge the scope of tourism environmental governance, shifting it from those at ‘the bottom’ (the tourists) to those at ‘the top’ (the tourism enterprises) and, accordingly, provide feasible advice to policymakers.
2. Theory and Hypotheses
2.1. Corporate Green Behaviour
Corporate green behaviour is defined as a series of actions used to cope with environmental relationships and to reduce environmental harm [30,36]. Typically, examples of corporate green behaviour include facilitating waste disposal, controlling energy consumption, reducing sewage etc. [12]. A large body of research has shown interest in the influencing factors of corporate green behaviour. For example, He et al., (2018) took the papermaking enterprises of China as an example to reveal external and internal pressures on corporate environmental behaviour [15]. Erdogan and Baris (2007) argued that environmental protection practices’ performance is closely related to waste management, purchasing, energy use and conservation practices [37]. Moon (2008) argued that corporate green behaviour can be divided into two categories: voluntary positive green behaviour and responsive green behaviour [38]. Based on a survey of the Yangzi river, Liu (2009) further suggested that corporate green behaviour has three patterns: defensive, preventive and enthusiastic [39]. Corporations in the tourism industry have also paid great attention to the environmental impact of business activities [40,41]. Accordingly, Wang et al. (2012) explored how tourism enterprises’ corporate green behaviour at world heritage sites affected environmental quality, using six green behaviour indicators [30].
Tourism enterprises and their environmental impacts may be obscured by tourism’s image as a ‘soft’ industry [42]. China is one such country where rural tourism enterprises in destinations have paid scant attention to environmental protections and have a great negative impact [5,23], while enjoying a growing rural tourism market and a rapid increase in the flow of domestic tourists [2]. This not only undermines the sustainability of the tourism destination but also degrades relationships with the community. In some instances, local residents have mounted campaigns to evict companies from the tourist destination for detriment to their own long-term economic gain since farmers rely on the environment [43].
As such, it is necessary to facilitate corporate green behaviour for tourism destination sustainability to avoid subsequent harm to local communities. However, previous research in Chinese rural tourism has focused on the carbon emission in developing countries [44]. The green behaviour of rural tourism enterprises has not been widely investigated. In light of water pollution caused by rural tourism in China, this study focuses on corporate reduction of pollutant discharging behaviour as a measure of the green behaviour of rural tourism corporates. On the one hand, reducing pollutant discharging has become a major green environmental indicator in the field of tourism governance, especially considering that Chinese government focuses on regulating pollutant discharging illegally on the leisure and tourism sector. On the other hand, the pollutant discharging behaviour has been incorporated into CSR in government policies and enterprise practices, which makes it a critical indicator of corporate CSR.
2.2. Corporate Community Involvement
Corporate community involvement (CCI) refers to interactions between enterprises and community members through forms of corporate philanthropic, business and community partnerships, employee volunteering, community investment etc. CCT aims to foster companies’ participation in communities to develop solutions to social problems and promote community sustainability [45,46,47]. Brammer and Millington (2003) demonstrated that the effect of stakeholder preferences on corporate community involvement is extremely significant for community development [28]. More specifically, by embedding, interactivity and continuous participation [46], corporate community involvement is considered as a corporate social responsibility action in managing community relations [48], building corporate legitimacy in the community [49], and promoting local community development [47]. Liu et al., (2013) indicated that community stakeholders guide corporations to support the development of local community initiatives at every stage of the business cycle through corporate community involvement [44]. Although transnational oil companies have a detrimental effect on the global climate, they have resorted to a number of corporate community involvement approaches locally, especially to cope with criticism about corporate misconduct; this has helped large corporations establish positive relationships with local communities and achieve a social license to extract fossil fuels [46]. Similarly, mining companies and local communities have reached a consensus on corporate investment in community development; this can promote corporate advancement while offering basic social and economic services for local community [48].
In recent decades, scholars from various disciplines have explored the role of corporate community involvement in improving corporate–community relations. However, little research has focused on the field of tourism, not to mention the effects of corporate community involvement on sustainable development in rural tourism destinations. There are several explanations for this gap, but the most probable is that tourism research has mainly viewed local communities and governments as the subjects of tourism activity [50,51]. This, of course, ignores the role of tourism enterprises as key players connecting tourists, local residents and governments [17].
As destination stakeholders [10,11], tourism enterprises play a significant part in determining corporate behaviour and shaping strategies for promoting environmental sustainability in rural destinations. In recent decades, protecting the destination environment, improving the utilisation rate of natural resources for tourism, and achieving sustainable development have all attracted enormous attention [52]. Both international tourism companies and small enterprises based at tourist destinations play an increasingly significant role in promoting sustainable practices at tourism destinations [17,53].
Stakeholder theory maintains that a tourist destination comprises the often-complex relationships with, and amongst, stakeholders [11]. These groups and individuals affect and are affected by organizations, which are in turn dependent upon key stakeholders, such as local communities, tourism enterprises and so on [17,54]. Stakeholder collaborations help destinations to develop sustainability and orderliness [55]. During the process of tourism destination development, tourism enterprises that rely on natural resources actively engage in project planning and seek to build legitimacy. Enterprises produce socially beneficial results through community participation and social responsibility, guiding the cognition and evaluation of their stakeholders, and thus come to be seen as legitimate stakeholders themselves [56]. Corporate community involvement in the context of tourism enterprises can have numerous positive effects on the destination. For example, Bradly (2015) studied tourism at Mount Fiji and showed how local tourism operators win local community support through investment in local infrastructures and by employing local community members [57]. Poria et al., (2014) revealed that Israeli hotels helped community members in need of assistance by offering free food and rooms during a conflict in Gaza in 2012 [58]. Tolkach and King (2015) showed that community-based tourism enterprises in Timor-Leste take advantage of community networks to address the area’s socio-economic challenges and stimulate community benefits [13]. Zhang and Zhang (2018) explored small tourism initiatives to expand social networks and the provision of training and employment for community residents [17].
From the perspective of corporate social responsibility, CCI remains a popular approach employed by corporations towards sustainable community development, and more importantly, to demonstrate companies’ CSR credentials [59]. CSR acknowledges that companies have obligations beyond their quest for shareholder profitability and legal compliance [60]. In a rural destination, the community has represented village farmers’ interests, which can directly affect residents’ decisions regarding cooperation with tourism initiatives [61,62]. To aim at pursuing responsible business practices, corporates constantly adjust their community involvement strategy to address a range of social and environmental issues and to ensure that tourism and community development proceeds sustainably [63]. Such tweaking relies on interactions with community members, to solicit local advice and determine communal need [51,56,61]. More importantly, tourism firms not only take advantage of financial and human resources to invest in tourism destination communities [64], but also offer job opportunities for local community residents, thereby distributing the economic benefits of tourism [55]. CSR practitioners often adopt an instrumental CCI strategy that provide short-term business benefits as opposed to taking a more long-term value-creation development for both the company and the community [29]. Therefore, there is a need to continue interrogating the current CCI practice and question its sustainability credentials as well as the extent to which CCI builds the capacity of communities to act as partners in development [29].
This paper defines rural tourism enterprises’ corporate community involvement as involving community members in local investment decisions, establishing corporate–community partnerships and helping the community grow by promoting tourism destination sustainability.
2.3. Corporate Community Involvement and Corporate Green Behaviour
The concrete manifestation of corporate green behaviour has been explored adequately in the literature. However, there are few studies of the antecedents to corporate green behaviour. Under economic globalization, communities, and particularly those located in developing countries, have faced an ever-growing litany of social problems [29]. It is imperative, then, that communities gain access to the tools to overcome risk and solve these problems. Corporate community involvement is an important strategic tool for addressing social problems and managing social risk [63]. Delannon et al., (2016) noted the importance of corporate community involvement [32]. They explored how 17 firms survived environmental threats through corporate community involvement, suggesting an inherent relationship between company engagement and environmental practices [32]. Similarly, tourism enterprises need to utilize community resources for overcoming negative externalities; community cooperation is beneficial to tourism planning [65,66]. Thus, researchers have discussed the relationship between corporate community involvement and corporate green behaviour. Based on firms’ endogenous behaviours, we contend that the relationship can be divided into two major mechanisms, one seeking to gain advantages and the other to avoid harm.
First, we describe the advantage-seeking mechanism. As the most important stakeholder in a tourism destination [50], tourism enterprises expect that the firm can achieve profits and develop in the long term [14]. Thriving ecologies are beneficial for local tourism industries’ sustainability and provide a resource for enhancing local enterprises’ competitive advantages. On one hand, enterprises can engage in corporate community involvement, cooperating with local residents by inviting them to participate in the decision-making process, constructing a tourism destination blueprint, and protecting natural resources and ensuring sustainability [64]. One the other hand, tourism enterprises can provide community members with environmental education to increase their environmental knowledge and awareness [67]. This, in turn, can guide local stakeholders to actively help the tourism enterprise plan for destination sustainability. During operations, firms can thus achieve enormous support, optimizing its own resources and further securing external buy-in [29]. In this way, corporate community involvement not only improves local communities’ life circumstances; it is also helpful for offering job opportunities and adding to local residents’ incomes [29,50]. A new situation of common governance and shared responsibility in tourism destination is thus formed. Considering the likelihood of future developments, rural tourism enterprises that are committed to reducing environmental pollution can also secure fiscal advantages, resulting in a win-win situation. Second, we describe the harm-avoiding mechanism. On the one hand, with the rural tourism industry expanding constantly [68], the number of tourists can increase so rapidly that a tourism destination is faced with environmental challenges beyond its capacity [2]. Rural tourism enterprises and local residents become direct victims of environmental damage and ecological imbalance. By strengthening cooperation to avoid such harm, rural tourism enterprises can work to actively rectify the effects of human waste, rebuild sewage facilities and reduce overall pollution effects. On the other hand, rural tourism enterprises can engage in green environmental programs under the supervision and guidance of local community members or organizations. If rural tourism enterprises do little to curb environmentally detrimental behaviours, then they should be evicted. Rural tourism enterprises should thus establish mutual relations, as this can reduce operating costs and improve development [69].
Taken together, corporate community involvement can be instrumental to improving rural tourism enterprises’ green behaviour. Whether seeking an advantage or avoiding harm, rural tourism enterprises should find it rational to commit to improving environmental sustainability. This provides the rationale behind our first hypothesis.
Corporate community involvement is positively associated with corporate green behaviour.
2.4. Place Identity
The concept of place identity originated in the 1970s and recurred in tourism research in recent years [70]. Place identity refers to a conception of the self as constructed through a sense of belonging, thereby incorporating elements related to the place [71], consisting of conscious or unconscious ideas, beliefs, feelings, values, goals, behavioural tendencies and skills [72]. In a modern society with increased mobility, place identity is considered a dynamic process that subjects places to continuous reproduction [73]. The dynamic identity construction process results in a complex social and cultural phenomenon within the interactions between place and identity.
Tourism literature has discussed place identity from the tourists’ and the residents’ perspectives. For example, Wang and Chen (2015) employed place identity theory to show that local residents’ sense of place can affect their attitudes toward tourism, especially place-based self-esteem and self-efficacy [74]. From the tourists’ perspective, Dimache, Wondirad and Agyeiwaah (2017) argued that visitors to Hong Kong come to understand Chinese history and culture by visiting the Hong Kong heritage museum [70]. Qiu et al., (2017) also showed that tourists’ place identity of the destinations positively affects their green behaviour [75].
However, limited attention has been paid to tourism business operators’ place identity, not to mention evidence from the Chinese context. An exception is Hallak, Brown and Lindsay’s (2012) research which suggested that tourism entrepreneurs’ place identity has a significant positive effect on entrepreneurial self-efficacy and support for the community [76]. In order to further explore the impacts of place identity from the tourism business operators’ perspective and to provide evidences from Chinese contexts, we explore how rural tourism business operators’ place identity can affect the destinations. Specifically, we propose that rural tourism enterprise managers’ place identity moderate the relation between the enterprise’s CCI and corporate green behaviour.
In order to gain social recognition and legitimacy, rural tourism enterprises that are engaged in CCI adopt measures employing local residents, promoting staff volunteering, and participating in community construction [56]. The behaviour involved in CCI can encourage interaction between the corporate staff and local community members, which may evoke the staff’s sense of attachment to the communities [77], enhancing their feelings of being part of local communities. Also, the interaction between tourism corporate staff and community members may lead to closer private relationships between corporate staff and community members, which, by the harmony-oriented and relationship-focused (i.e., “guanxi”, see Chen, 2017) logic at Chinese rural destinations further strengthen the identification with local communities [78]. Namely, rural tourism enterprises engaged in CCI tend to perceive the company and the community as a unity [79], seeing the communities’ benefits and troubles as their own benefits and troubles. In this case, rural tourism corporates are motivated to engage in green behaviour in order to address the environmental issues that harm local communities.
Therefore, we argue that, enterprises with managers of salient place identity not only actively engage in CCI, but also strengthen the identification in CCI. Managers of salient place identity at destination perceive themselves as part of the destinations, resulting in the identification with local communities [80]. Given that the interactions between rural tourism corporates and local communities within CCI enhance in the staff a sense of attachment to the communities and the feelings of belonging, such feelings may be strengthened when the management echelon also strongly identifies with local communities because managers share their identity in the firms [71]. Additionally, managers who strongly identify with local communities due to salient place identity may also develop a close private relationship with local community members. In this case, staff of the rural tourism enterprises are likely to form closer private relationships with community members in order to maintain and upgrade their relationships with the managers (see “guanxi”, Chen, 2017) [78].
In summary, rural tourism enterprises with managers of a salient place identity in terms of the destination form a stronger relationship with local communities than the enterprises without due to an overall stronger identification with the communities. The strong perceived oneness results in the rural tourism enterprise’ concerns about local communities in terms of the environmental issues, facilitating the enterprises to employ green behaviour.
Thus, we propose a moderate impact of managers’ place identity on the relation between the enterprise’s CCI and corporate green behaviour.
Rural tourism enterprise managers’ place identity moderates the relationship between the enterprise’ corporate community involvement (CCI) and corporate green behaviour, in that the more salient the managers’ place identity, the more positive the relationship between the enterprise’s CCI and corporate green behaviour.
2.5. Gross Tourism Receipts of Destination
The gross tourism receipts of destination, as an important stimulating factor of tourism economic [81], is the true measurement of tourism development level and the key factor to realize the sustainable development of regional tourism. Thus we argue reasonably that tourism corporates at the destinations of different tourism-receipt levels may behave differently in green behaviour to react to corporate community involvement.
From the advantage-seeking perspective, we argue that tourism corporates at the high-tourism-income destinations tend to gain more profits than their counterparts by engaging in green behaviour in CCI. A well-protected environment can promote the incomes of tourism corporates and accordingly tourism enterprises have a direct stake in protecting the environment for the sake of future profits [82]. More specifically, the high tourism receipts of the destination generally mean that the destination can provide tourism corporations with helpful business environment and develop good potential [83]. For the sake of pursuing profits, rural tourism corporations should be motivated to engage in corporate green actions. In this case, for the same level of corporate community involvement, these rural tourism corporates are more likely to engage in green behaviour than those corporates in low-tourism income destinations. Additionally, tourism enterprises were welcomed by local residents for promoting destination development and increasing the competitiveness of the destination [83]. In this way, employees, as members of the community, may feel more compelled to spontaneously reduce sewage directly or become involved in efforts to protect the local environment.
From the harm-avoiding perspective, we argue that tourism corporates at the high-tourism-income destinations tend to engage in more green behaviour responding to their corporate community involvement because local communities at these destinations are more concerned about tourism activities than their counterparts. Local communities as the key player at tourism activities can take part in the decision-making process [50,51]. At the high-tourism-income destinations, local residents also benefit from tourism development, resulting in more concerns about and deeper involvement in tourism activities. Considering that pollutants resulting from tourism may negatively affect their living circumstances [13], these residents who involve in tourism activities may be especially concerned about the resulting environmental issues, leading to related requirements to tourism enterprises. In this case, rural tourism enterprises at these destinations engaged in corporate community involvement are likely to pay more attention to green behaviour in order to preserve their relationship with the communities.
Generally speaking, as pressure on the environment becomes greater, rural tourism enterprises will need to engage in increasingly more comprehensive and in-depth rehabilitative efforts. Consequently, the greater the gross tourism receipts of the destination that a tourist destination enjoys, the more a local community will demand corporate green engagement. In contrast, when the gross tourism receipts of destination are low, local communities will exert less pressure on enterprises, which are left to choose their own form of green engagement.
Based on these premises, we expect that the gross tourism receipts of destination will serve as a reliable indicator of ecological stress. When it is relatively high, the positive impact of corporate community involvement on corporate green behaviour should likewise be greater. Taken together, these arguments provide the basis for our third hypothesis.
The gross tourism receipts of destination positively regulate the positive relationship between corporate community involvement and corporate green behaviour.
3. Study Area
The provinces of Anhui and Guangdong were chosen as sample selection places of this study because they are at different stages of economic development of rural tourism in China. First, Guangdong province remains the most economically advanced province since opening up in 1978, with the top-ranked GDP in China and the most thriving service industries [84]. Guangdong is located in the southeast coastal region of China and is rich in rural tourism resources and attractions. The fast development in Guangdong Province in recent years has caused great challenges for local ecosystems. Thus we propose that Guangdong is representative for the rural tourism at relatively more-developed destinations in China in terms of sustainability issues. Second, Anhui province has consistently been ranked between 13 and 15 in national GDP (ranking 13 in 2017). Anhui is located in the central area of China and it is also a large agricultural province with extremely rich rural tourism resources, particularly in Huangshan, Hefei, Anqing, etc., world famous attractions [23]. Besides, the rural tourism in Anhui developed relatively early, resulting in a series of unsolved environmental problems. In this case, we propose that Anhui province typically represents the rural tourism at relatively moderate-and-less-developed destinations in China in terms of sustainability issues.
To conclude, Guangdong and Anhui reflect different stages of tourism and economic development in China, and yet face similar environmental challenges in rural tourism. Among previous research concerned with tourism, the situations of both Anhui and Guangdong provinces were discussed and mentioned [23,84]. Specifically, our research team members employed a group sampling procedure according to different economic levels when sampling cities and counties. Therefore, our samples can represent the rural tourism conditions in China and is suitable for our research purpose.
4. Methods
4.1. Research Procedures and Data Collection
From January through March 2018, research group members visited research sites a total of five times. In early visits, the team performed a preliminary study of the questionnaire items to be examined to ensure that experimental stimuli were capable of manipulating our main variables. A pilot test was conducted in 20 rural tourism enterprises in Guangzhou, aiming at ensuring the effectiveness of manipulation and no confounding factors. Corporate community involvement, corporate green behaviour and place identity were measured (Cronbach’s α > 0.7 KMO > 0.7), which demonstrated the manipulation was effective. The questionnaire was made available to the respondents in both Chinese and English; the Chinese version was subjected to a double-translation method led by the author and another bilingual. At the same time, consulting three professors in the field, the research group systematically revised items with questionable reliability and validity before developing a formal questionnaire. During the main study, questionnaire data were gathered through face-to-face interviews. Interview respondents were selected based on a rural tourism enterprise’s developmental stage, with team members using judge sampling to classify places and respondents. Following this classification, we used snowballing sampling to recruit new participants. We also interviewed three intermediaries who were knowledgeable about the local situation and had experience in survey administration. The three intermediaries remained involved throughout the research, from the pilot stage to the survey stage, to ensure data reliability. In the final stage, the research administered the survey: 340 questionnaires were distributed, 311 questionnaires were collected, and 283 questionnaires were deemed valid. All respondents were rural tourism entrepreneurs. Finally, extensive public sources of secondary data were also consulted. Primary data was complemented by secondary data aggregated from the three most recent years’ worth of government work reports and statistics for our research sites. The source of the secondary data were mainly supplied by the statistical yearbooks of local governments. After the data were ready combined, stepwise multiple regression analyses were used to examine further check our hypotheses. (Note: KMO = kaiser-meyer-olkim).
4.2. Measurements
Dependent variable. Research has assessed corporate green behaviour by classifying interventions as either voluntary or responsive [38]. Considering the severe degree of water pollution in China and the specific remedy of rural tourism enterprises directly discharging sewage, we examine corporate efforts to mitigate pollutant discharge as the corporate green behaviour of interest. The variable is constructed using the scale design principles suggested by Wang et al., (2012): (1) solid waste is thrown directly into the surroundings; (2) food and beverage and domestic sewage is directly discharged [2]. A five-point Likert scale questionnaire survey was used, ranging from 1 (strong disagreement) to 5 (strong agreement) (to highlight the seriousness of the problem the measure is reversed such that the higher the response, the more severe the environmental issue).
Independent and moderating variables. To measure the scale of corporate community involvement, questions were adapted from Bowen et al., (2010), who suggested that corporate community involvement can take the form of three distinct engagement strategies, transactional, transitional and transformational [45]. Delannon et al., (2016) further testified to the importance of these three engagement strategies and offered an integrated measurement of engagement [32]. In consultation with two experts interested in corporate community involvement and the design scale, our survey measures were carefully adapted from a number of relevant studies. Our measures were organized into five unique items, each capturing rural tourism enterprises’ relationship to the local communities: (1) active participation in community self-management; (2) active participation in community decision-making; (3) benefit-sharing; (4) community members viewing rural tourism enterprises as part of the community; and (5) a mutual definition of success (the success of rural tourism enterprises attributed to community developments). Each item was evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strong disagreement) to 5 (strong agreement).
Questions on place identity were selected from scales first developed by Gu and Ryan (2008) and were phrased as follows: (1) Working here is more satisfying to me than working anywhere else; (2) It is better to do what I like here; and (3) Relatively speaking, I prefer to live and work here. Each item was evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strong disagreement) to 5 (strong agreement).
Control variables. Research suggests corporate green behaviour is affected by both internal and external factors. Internal factors include entrepreneurs’ features, environmental cognition, enterprise size, enterprise age, enterprise location and so on. External factors focus on governmental policy and community stressors, and may include items related to politics, economy, culture and environment. To mitigate the threat of omitted variable bias, we therefore include several items related to entrepreneur features (e.g., gender, age, and education level), corporate internal factors (enterprise age, location, etc.) and corporate external factors (e.g., local environmental policy).
5. Results
5.1. Reliability and Validity Analysis
A number of tests were performed to ensure reliability and validity in our examination of the relationship between corporate community involvement and corporate green behaviour. Table 1 reports the reliability and validity of the variables measured by the survey items. Cronbach’s α scales are all larger than 0.7, indicating that the measured items were reliable, stable and internally consistent. Convergent validity was ensured in the current research, as all scale items had high standard factor loadings on their underlying constructs (values ranging from 0.71 to 0.883). Moreover, the average variance extracted (AVE) of all the constructs (ranging from 0.553 to 0.78) surpassed the recommended 0.5 threhold. Composite reliability of all the constructs (ranging from 0.787 to 0.876) was reliable. In addition, the overall model fit was evaluated using the χ2 test and four goodness-of-fit indices: (corporate green behaviour: χ2/df = 3.03, CFI = 0.946, GFI = 0.907, AGFI = 0.865, RMSEA = 0.055; corporate community involvement: χ2/df = 2.92, CFI = 0.927, GFI = 0.912, AGFI = 0.824, RMSEA = 0.051; place identity: χ2/df = 3.71, CFI = 0.904, GFI = 0.9, AGFI = 0.831, RMSEA = 0.047). The scales adopted in this study were found to be reliable and valid.(Note: CFI = comparative fit index, GFI = goodness-of-fit index, AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index, RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation).
5.2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis
Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics and correlation coefficient matrix of related variables. In the control variables, age is significantly and negatively correlated with corporate emission behaviour, and correlation coefficients were (r = −0.13, p < 0.05). Education level and corporate emission behaviour were significantly and positively correlated, with correlation coefficients (r = 0.24, p < 0.05) and (r = 0.25, p < 0.05), respectively. There was a significant negative correlation between corporate community involvement and corporate pollutant discharging behaviour (r = −0.22, p < 0.05). The regulating variables, gross tourism receipts of destination and place identity, were also significantly correlated with corporate green behaviour, with correlation coefficients (r = −0.17, p < 0.05) and (r = −0.18, p < 0.05), respectively. The direction and significance of correlations between independent variables and dependent variables are consistent with our hypotheses. In addition, based on the correlation coefficients between the independent, regulatory and control variables, the sample data can be used for further regression analysis.
5.3. Regression Analysis
Stepwise multiple regression analyses were used to examine our hypotheses. The explained variable is continuous, which is suitable for least squares regression modelling (OLS). Multicollinearity was diagnosed through the variance inflation factor (VIF). Results indicate that multicollinearity poses no threat to the reliability of the study, as VIFs ≤ 2.40.
Model 1 is a regression model of the control and dependent variables. Model 2 is a regression model of the control, independent and dependent variables. Model 3 is a test of place identity’s moderating effects on the relationship between the independent and dependent variables, that is, a regression model of the control, dependent, variables and moderating variables, and an interaction item (centralised processing). Model 4 is a test of gross tourism receipts of destination moderating effects on the relationship between dependent and independent variables, that is, a regression model of control, dependent, independent and moderating variables, and an interaction item (centralised processing). Model 5 is a test of the combined moderating effects of place identity and gross tourism receipts of a destination on the relationship between dependent and independent variables, that is, a regression model of control, dependent, independent and moderating variables, and an interaction item (centralised processing).
As a preliminary analysis for Hypothesis 1, this study performed the regression analysis and results show a statistically significant coefficient. The results of Model 2 show a negative correlation between corporate community involvement and corporate pollutant-discharging behaviour (β = −0.319, p < 0.01), that is, the higher the degree of corporate community involvement, the less the enterprise pollutes. Therefore, H1 is supported. Next, the mediating role of place identity between corporate community involvement and corporate pollutant-discharging behaviour was tested and found to be significant, supporting Hypothesis 2. The R2 of Model 3 is significantly greater than in Model 2, and the coefficient of the product of the dependent and independent variables is significant, indicating that place identity has a moderating effect on corporate community involvement and corporate pollutant discharging behaviour, therefore confirming H2 (β = −0.159, p < 0.1). The R2 of Model 4 is significantly greater than in Model 2, and the coefficient of the product of the moderating variable and the independent variable is significant, indicating that gross tourism receipts of destination have a significant moderating effect on the relationship between corporate community involvement and pollutant-discharging behaviour, indicating that H3 is supported (β = −0.142, p < 0.1). Model 5 also provides support for both H2 and H3 (β = −0.189, p < 0.1). Table 3 summarizes the main regression analysis results. All of the regression models passed the significance test, indicating that the model was designed adequately.
To further understand the effects of the regulating variables, place identity and gross tourism receipts of destination, we produced simple slope detection and two-dimensional interaction graphs. Note that the data were reversed for the sake of a more intuitive presentation of the results. The vertical axes represent corporate green behaviour.
Figure 1 shows that when the sense of place identity level among rural tourism entrepreneurs is strong, the company is more likely to be involved with the community; this in turn promotes high levels of corporate green behaviour, indicating that place identity has a positive adjustment effect. Figure 2 shows that when corporate community involvement is low, enterprises in regions with low-income levels are less likely to discharge pollution and, therefore, are less likely to engage in corporate green behaviour. With greater corporate community involvement, rural tourism enterprises engage in green behaviour more rapidly in areas with high income levels, while they respond more slowly in low-income areas, indicating that the gross tourism receipts of a destination have a positive regulating effect. In conclusion, our findings lend empirical support to H1, H2 and H3 supported by empirical tests.
5.4. Robustness Check
To ensure the robustness of our results, we re-calculate our measures of corporate community involvement, corporate pollutant emission behaviour and place identity index. The result revealed significant effects of corporate pollutant discharging behaviour (β = −0.481, p < 0.01). Both corporate community involvement and corporate pollutant discharging behaviour mediated the effect of place identity was supported (β = −0.214, p < 0.1). It was supported that both corporate community involvement and corporate pollutant discharging behaviour mediated the effect of the gross tourism receipts of destination (β = −0.167, p < 0.1). All regressions show that our models are set appropriately. Analysis of the regression results in Models 6–10 shows that the robustness test results and the previous results in Table 3 are identical. Accordingly, our results can be considered robust. Model 11 substitutes the ratio of tourism-related spending to regional GDP for gross tourism receipts of the destination, lending further support to H3 (β = −0.303, p < 0.01). The results of the robustness check are shown below in Table 4.
6. Discussion
In the context of China’s rural revitalization strategy, the balance between rural economic development and a sustainable environment has become an important issue for rural tourism destinations [2]. By integrating the concepts and relevant theories of corporate community involvement and corporate green behaviour, this research constructs a theoretical framework to explore corporate green behaviour in the tourism sector.
Our empirical findings indicate that corporate community involvement has a positive impact on the green behaviour of rural tourism enterprises, which fill the research gap where little research has paid attention to the effect of corporate community involvement on corporate green behaviour. The finding is also consistent with Littlewood’s (2014) results where corporates’ interaction with local communities can influence their external social responsibility [56]. Besides, we proved that place identity affects the impact of corporate community involvement, which echoes Hallak, Brown and Lindsay’s (2012) finding which suggested that tourism entrepreneurs’ place identity can influence their support for the community [76]. Our findings supported the idea that place identity increases the extent to which rural tourism enterprises are actively involved in a local community: the greater the sense of place identity of rural tourism entrepreneurs, the more likely they are to engage their enterprise in community affairs, which has a positive influence on green environmental engagement. The gross tourism receipts of a destination also play moderating role in the relationship of community involvement and green behaviour of enterprises. The effect of community involvement on corporate green behaviour is significant in rural destinations with the gross tourism receipts of a destination, while such an effect is comparatively strong where gross tourism receipts of destination are high, probably as a result of exogenous pressure for eco-protections. These results reveal the nuanced relationship between corporate community involvement and corporate green behaviour within rural tourism enterprises. Despite the study’s limitations (discussed below), the findings have both theoretical and practical implications.
6.1. Theoretical Contributions
This study contributes to the current research in three aspects. First, following the calls in the literature to explicitly incorporate contingency effect, we expand knowledge about the impact of tourism on destination environments by incorporating the role of corporate social responsibility. Through exploring rural tourism enterprises’ corporate green behaviour, this research enriches knowledge of how corporate community involvement impacts green behaviour by drawing on the corporate social responsibility perspective and stakeholders’ perspective, emphasizing the significance of tourism enterprises for governing sustainable environmental practices in tourism destinations [39,78], an important strategic objective worldwide.
Second, this research incorporates corporate community involvement into tourism destination studies from the perspective of corporate social responsibility. As a research lens, corporate community involvement emphasizes interactions and collaborations between tourism enterprises and communities at tourism destination in establishing sustainable environmental practices, rather than relegating such tasks to the host and community alone [2,45,68]. Based on rural tourism destination both Guangdong and Anhui provinces as research sites, our research illustrates how central community is to the development of tourism destinations. This realization enriches both tourism research and expands the scope of community involvement theory vis-à-vis corporate green behaviour.
Finally, our study extends research into the antecedents to corporate green behaviour by examining place identity theory [70] and the gross tourism receipts of destination as moderators to trace the boundaries of our proposed effect and improve our theoretical model. Because manager’ place identity affects corporate community involvement and corporate green behaviour, it follows that both employees’ behaviour and stakeholders’ actions play an indirect role on corporate green behaviour. Hence, the current study provides a better understanding of how corporate community involvement works in enhancing corporate green behaviour through place identity. These findings are somewhat different from Wang and Xu (2015) in that the current research framework views that place identity proved to be an effective tool in measuring resident attitudes [80]. We found that other than the four place identity principles previously identified in the literature, tourism enterprises also engage the community to understand local needs, acquire their own sense of community identity and bolster their legitimacy. Otherwise, due in part to the tremendous growth of tourism to China and the Chinese government’s goal to use rural tourism as a development strategy, the gross tourism receipts of a destination play an increasing of important role on community sustainability [85]. Therefore, we attempt to use second-hand data to explore the new context by identifying its drivers and their direct effects, which can be helpful for academics and practitioners in understanding the corporate community involvement mechanism of the renewal strategy.
6.2. Practice Implications
This study provides three practical implications for promoting environmental sustainability at tourism destinations. First, rural tourism enterprises with a greater sense of place identity are more likely to interact with community residents and, in turn, become active participants in protecting the environment. Consolidation of partnerships between rural tourism enterprises and local communities are thus supposed to be seen as bonding parties and boosting tourism development [55]. The strategic interests of tourism enterprises coincide with their social responsibility in the sense that both can be achieved through community engagement and partnerships. Local governments should, therefore, facilitate collaborations between tourism enterprises and community organizations, enhancing stakeholders’ sense of belonging, place identity and green environmental responsibility.
Second, previous research has proved that behaviour can be affected by one’s sense of place identity [86]. An entrepreneur, as the main stakeholder in rural tourism enterprises [2], determines corporate behaviour and strategy. Governments can engage in efforts to enhance the sense of place identity as an indirect way to engage rural tourism enterprises and improve environmental conditions. This can be achieved by increasing the publicity of environmental protections, such as advertising appropriate waste disposal practices and reducing waste emission.
Last but not least, environmental protections at tourism destinations involve multiple stakeholders, such as grassroots campaigns, local governments or authorities, NGOs, etc. [3,61]. Rural tourism enterprises and community members alone can hardly maintain sustainable tourism practices in the long run. Other stakeholders should thus play a more active and supervisory role to foster environmental cognizance, improve pollution-prevention mechanisms, and facilitate the adoption of information sharing, energy conservation and pollution-limiting technologies [31].
6.3. Limitations and Future Directions
There are a number of limitations in our research project in addition to promising avenues for future research. First, corporate green behaviour has different meanings in different contexts: various industries and enterprises may be engaged in different environmental behaviour. This study focuses only on rural tourism enterprises to investigate directly discharged pollution. This may not fully represent the full scope of tourism’s environmental impacts. In the future work, researchers could explore new contexts to enrich the theoretical framework and to adjust measurements of corporate green behaviour as needed.
Second, the framework proposed in this study is focused on the corporate behaviour without considering the complexity of internal and external factors. Future research could explore the antecedents and outcomes of corporate green behaviour in the tourism industry.
Finally, our sample consisted of 300 proprietary rural tourism enterprises in Guangdong province and Anhui province. While the majority of rural tourism enterprises are based in two districts, and proprietary rural tourism enterprises are more common than cooperative endeavours, this exclusion may limit our sample’s representativeness and generalizability. Future research should expand the sample size to increase external validity.
7. Conclusions
The current study investigates the environmental impacts of rural tourism enterprises in China from the perspective of corporate social and environmental responsibility. Specifically, we employ corporate community involvement as a lens to understand the determinants of the green behaviour of rural tourism corporates, incorporating the effects of place identity and gross tourism receipts. With first-hand data collected by questionnaires in Guangdong and Anhui provinces, and matching second-hand data from the statistical yearbooks and work reports from destination governments, this study constructs a comprehensive model and provides evidence about CSR in tourism research from China, showing a typical developing-country pattern of the environmental issue and green behaviour in rural tourism. We found that corporate community involvement has a positive impact on the green behaviour of rural tourism enterprises. This association is moderated by place identity and the gross tourism receipts of a destination, in that the deeper rural tourism entrepreneurs are engaged in place identity, the more likely they are to involve in community activities, resulting in a more positive influence on green environmental engagement. In addition, the effect of community involvement on corporate green behaviour is comparatively strong where gross tourism receipts of a destination are high, probably as a result of exogenous pressure for eco-protection. These results reveal the nuanced relationship between corporate community involvement and corporate green behaviour within rural tourism enterprises.
Author Contributions
All the co-authors have contributed substantially and uniquely to the work reported. Conceptualization, X.Y.; Data curation, H.L.; Formal analysis, W.M.C. and H.L.; Funding acquisition, X.Y. and H.F.; Investigation, X.Y. and H.L.; Methodology, X.Y. and H.L.; Software, H.L.; Supervision, X.Y., W.M.C. and H.F.; Writing—original draft, H.L.; Literature Review, X.Y., H.F., H.L. and W.M.C. Writing—review & editing, X.Y., W.M.C. and H.F.
Funding
This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No: 71673090; 71772192); the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, China (Grant No: 2017A030313408, 2015A030313145); and the Social Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, China (Grant No: GD16XGL46).
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Figures and Tables
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. The influence of corporate community involvement on corporate green behaviour: The regulating effect of place identity.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. The influence of corporate community involvement on corporate green behaviour: The regulating effect of the gross tourism receipts of a destination.
Measure scale properties for construct.
| Variables/Items | Factor Loading | Cronbach’s α | Composite Reliability | Average Variance Extracted (AVE) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corporate green behaviour | 0.725 | 0.876 | 0.78 | |
| Solid waste is thrown directly to the surroundings | 0.883 | |||
| Food and beverage and domestic sewage is directly discharged | 0.833 | |||
| Corporate community involvement | 0.771 | 0.867 | 0.565 | |
| Rural tourism enterprise actively participated in community self-management | 0.777 | |||
| Rural tourism enterprise actively participated in important community decisions | 0.723 | |||
| Rural tourism enterprise shared benefits with local communities | 0.748 | |||
| Regard rural tourism enterprise as a part of the community | 0.757 | |||
| Success of rural tourism enterprise is the success of the development of the community | 0.753 | |||
| Place identity | 0.738 | 0.787 | 0.553 | |
| Working here is more satisfying to me than working anywhere else | 0.71 | |||
| It’s better to do what I like here | 0.731 | |||
| Relatively speaking, I prefer to live and work here | 0.787 |
The descriptive statistical analysis and correlation matrix of variables.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Corporate green behaviour | 1 | ||||||||||
| 2. Gender | −0.09 | 1 | |||||||||
| 3. Aged | −0.13 * | 0.02 | 1 | ||||||||
| 4. Education | 0.24 ** | −0.18 ** | −0.19 ** | 1 | |||||||
| 5. Enterprise age | −0.09 | −0.09 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 1 | ||||||
| 6. Enterprise location | 0.04 | −0.17 ** | −0.04 | 0.16 ** | 0.12 * | 1 | |||||
| 7. Working experience | −0.03 | −0.09 | 0.12 | −0.07 | 0.03 | −0.15 | 1 | ||||
| 8. Local environment policy | −0.06 | 0.05 | 0.08 | −0.07 | −0.02 | −0.35 *** | −0.15 | 1 | |||
| 9. Corporate community involvement | −0.22 ** | 0.13 * | 0.27 *** | 0.32 *** | 0.25 *** | −0.23 *** | 0.12 | 0.18 *** | 1 | ||
| 10. Place identity | −0.18 ** | 0.02 | 0.19 ** | −0.07 | −0.22 *** | −0.21 *** | 0.09 | 0.13 * | −0.46 *** | 1 | |
| 11. Gross tourism receipts of destination | −0.17 ** | −0.14 ** | −0.1 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.18 *** | −0.99 ** | −0.19 *** | 1 |
| Min | 1 | 0 | 23 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 317 | 1 | 2 | 267.27 |
| Max | 5 | 1 | 66 | 5 | 13 | 80 | 30 | 1969 | 5 | 5 | 3217.05 |
| Mean | 2.258 | 0.44 | 44.89 | 1.9 | 3.75 | 22.36 | 2.69 | 1098.9 | 3.69 | 3.95 | 940.28 |
| Std. Dev. | 1.19 | 0.49 | 8.1 | 0.9 | 2.3 | 14.32 | 4 | 604.96 | 0.94 | 0.87 | 794.45 |
Note: *, ** and *** indicate significant correlations at the 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively (to highlight the severity of environmental issues, enterprises’ green behaviour is measured in reverse).
Table 3Regression analysis results.
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 0.175 | 0.167 | 0.149 | 0.137 | 0.103 |
| (0.165) | (0.156) | (0.152) | (0.154) | (0.152) | |
| Aged | −0.017 | −0.01 | −0.06 | −0.011 | −0.006 |
| (0.011) | (0.011) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | |
| Education level | 0.109 | 0.044 | 0.055 | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| (0.109) | (0.105) | (0.103) | (0.104) | (0.103) | |
| Enterprise age | −0.061 * | −0.084 ** | −0.074 ** | −0.088 ** | −0.09 ** |
| (0.033) | (0.032) | (0.031) | (0.006) | (0.032) | |
| Enterprise location | −0.004 | −0.011 * | −0.014 | −0.018 ** | −0.021 *** |
| (0.006) | (0.006) | (0.006) | (0.006) | (0.06) | |
| Working experience | −0.04 | 0.003 | 0.02 | −0.03 | −0.01 |
| (0.021) | (0.020) | (0.019) | (0.019) | (0.019) | |
| Local policy | −0.192 ** | −0.123 | −0.074 | 0.177 ** | −0.126 |
| (0.81) | (0.78) | (0.077) | (0.083) | (0.083) | |
| Corporate community involvement | −0.319 *** | −0.159 * | −0.142 * | −0.189 * | |
| (0.084) | (0.096) | (0.123) | (0.124) | ||
| Place identity | −0.174 * | −0.194 * | |||
| (0.089) | (0.094) | ||||
| Corporate community involvement |
0.1 * | 0.013 * | |||
| (0.056) | (0.071) | ||||
| Gross tourism receipts of destination | −0.171 * | −0.21 ** | |||
| (0.092) | (0.101) | ||||
| Corporate community involvement * the gross tourism receipts of the destination | −0.189 * | 0.069 * | |||
| (0.104) | (0.129) | ||||
| Adjusted R2 | 0.079 | 0.179 | 0.234 | 0.213 | 0.317 |
| △R2 | 0.101 *** | 0.064 *** | 0.146 *** | 0.224 *** | |
| F | 2.441 | 4.209 | 4.599 | 4.308 | 4.892 |
| Sig. | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Note: *, ** and *** indicate significant correlation at 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively.
Table 4Robustness test results.
| Variables | Model 6 | Model 7 | Model 8 | Model 9 | Model 10 | Model 11 | Model 12 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 0.174 | 0.179 | 0.151 | 0.141 | 0.107 | 0.15 | 0.124 |
| (0.165) | (0.157) | (0.152) | (0.155) | (0.152) | (0.174) | (0.169) | |
| Age | −0.017 | −0.011 | −0.006 | −0.011 | −0.06 | −0.01 | −0.07 |
| (0.011) | (0.011) | (0.001) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.012) | (0.011) | |
| Education level | 0.11 | 0.053 | 0.066 | 0.017 | 0.03 | 0.049 | 0.057 |
| (0.109) | (0.105) | (0.103) | (0.104) | (0.103) | (0.112) | (0.11) | |
| Enterprise age | −0.062 * | −0.082 ** | −0.072 ** | −0.086 ** | −0.088 ** | −0.085 ** | −0.076 ** |
| (0.033) | (0.032) | (0.031) | (0.032) | (0.032) | (0.034) | (0.033) | |
| Enterprise location | −0.004 | −0.01 | −0.014 | −0.018 | −0.021 ** | −0.012 | −0.018 ** |
| (0.006) | (0.006) | (0.006) | (0.006) | (0.07) | (0.008) | (0.08) | |
| Working experience | −0.005 | 0.03 | 0.002 | −0.004 | −0.001 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| (0.021) | (0.02) | (0.019) | (0.19) | (0.019) | (0.021) | (0.02) | |
| Local environment policy | −0.193 ** | −0.131 | −0.075 | 0.184 ** | −0.132 | −0.125 | −0.052 |
| (0.81) | (0.79) | (0.77) | (0.83) | (0.083) | (0.092) | (0.092) | |
| Corporate community involvement | −0.481 *** | −0.214 * | −0.167 * | −0.242 * | −0.303 *** | −0.141 * | |
| (0.136) | (0.153) | (0.196) | (0.197) | (0.09) | (0.1) | ||
| Place identity | −0.82 ** | −0.957 ** | −0.194 * | ||||
| (0.32) | (0.437) | (0.095) | |||||
| Corporate community involvement |
0.172 * |
0.206 * |
0.112 * |
||||
| Gross tourism receipts of destination | −0.193 ** | −0.212 ** | −0.43 * | −0.081 | |||
| (0.104) | (0.102) | (0.108) | (0.105) | ||||
| Corporate community involvement * gross tourism receipts of tourism | 0.059 * | 0.044 * | 0.067 * | 0.044 * | |||
| (0.091) | (0.128) | (0.102) | (0.082) | ||||
| Adjusted R2 | 0.079 | 0.166 | 0.231 | 0.209 | 0.286 | 0.167 | 0.229 |
| △R2 | 0.089 *** | 0.071 *** | 0.054 *** | 0.21 *** | 0.094 *** | 0.165 *** | |
| F | 2.451 | 3.934 | 4.536 | 4.123 | 4.568 | 4.011 | 4.021 |
| Sig. | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Note: *, ** and *** indicate significant correlation at the 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively.
© 2019 by the authors.
Details
; Li, Haoming 1 ; Wenhong (Miranda) Chen 2 ; Fu, Hui 2 1 College of Economics & Management, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
2 Business School, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China