| Literature DB >> 34948692 |
Shilong Wei1, Muhammad Safdar Sial2, Wenxia Zhou1, Alina Badulescu3, Daniel Badulescu3.
Abstract
Environmental quality strongly depends on human behavior patterns. Many environmental challenges are rooted in human actions, and thus, it is believed that these problems can be reduced through the promotion of pro-environmental behaviors (PB). Owing to this reality, the current study aims to reduce the environmental footprint of a hospital by promoting its employees' environment-specific behavior via corporate social responsibility (CSR) and ethical leadership (EL). More importantly, the study also considered the role of female leaders in the proposed relationship. The current study collected the data from the respondents employed in different hospitals of a developing economy through a questionnaire (paper-pencil method). A total of 489 valid responses were collected, which were analyzed by employing the structural equation modeling (SEM) technique. As per the current study's findings, there is a positive relationship between CSR, while EL mediates between CSR and PB. Likewise, the moderating role of female leaders in the proposed relationship was more significant than that of male leaders. More specifically, the study's findings have considerable theoretical and practical implications, as it opens paths for researchers to further investigate the applicability of different dimensions of CSR and the role of gender in environmental sustainability. It provides insight to policymakers on how to restructure their CSR preferences, priorities on the environment, and gender differences.Entities:
Keywords: CSR; ethical leadership; gender; healthcare sector; pro-environmental behavior
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34948692 PMCID: PMC8701220 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182413082
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Hypothesized framework of the current study. CSR (X) = the independent variable, pro-environmental behavior―PB (Y) = the dependent variable, ethical leadership―EL (M) = the mediating variable, Gender = moderating variable, C′ = direct effect of X on Y in the presence of mediator, C = direct effect of X on Y without mediator. a and b represent the slope.
Demographic information of the respondents.
| Demographic | Frequency | % |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Men | 278 | 56.85 |
| Women | 211 | 43.15 |
| Age (Year) | ||
| 20–25 | 69 | 14.11 |
| 26–30 | 138 | 28.22 |
| 31–40 | 127 | 25.97 |
| 41–50 | 98 | 20.04 |
| Above 50 | 57 | 11.66 |
| Experience (Years) | ||
| 2–4 | 76 | 17.3 |
| 5–7 | 188 | 39.6 |
| 8–10 | 142 | 30.7 |
| Higher | 83 | 12.4 |
| Category | ||
| Healthcare professionals | 302 | 61.76 |
| General administration | 187 | 38.24 |
Note: total respondents = 489.
Results of single-factor analysis.
| Factor | Initial Eigenvalues | Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | |
| 1 | 9.799 | 33.788 | 33.788 | 9.221 | 31.796 | 31.796 |
| 2 | 3.061 | 10.554 | 44.342 | |||
| 3 | 2.518 | 8.682 | 53.025 | |||
| 4 | 1.511 | 5.211 | 58.236 | |||
| 5 | 1.262 | 4.351 | 62.587 | |||
| 6 | 1.122 | 3.868 | 66.455 | |||
| 7 | 0.967 | 3.335 | 69.790 | |||
| 8 | 0.790 | 2.725 | 72.515 | |||
| 9 | 0.738 | 2.546 | 75.061 | |||
| 10 | 0.694 | 2.394 | 77.455 | |||
| 11 | 0.588 | 2.027 | 79.482 | |||
| 12 | 0.575 | 1.982 | 81.464 | |||
| 13 | 0.551 | 1.900 | 83.365 | |||
| 14 | 0.508 | 1.753 | 85.118 | |||
| 15 | 0.473 | 1.630 | 86.747 | |||
| 16 | 0.414 | 1.428 | 88.176 | |||
| 17 | 0.402 | 1.386 | 89.561 | |||
| 18 | 0.367 | 1.266 | 90.827 | |||
| 19 | 0.359 | 1.239 | 92.066 | |||
| 20 | 0.320 | 1.103 | 93.170 | |||
| 21 | 0.313 | 1.081 | 94.250 | |||
| 22 | 0.283 | 0.975 | 95.226 | |||
| 23 | 0.253 | 0.873 | 96.099 | |||
| 24 | 0.242 | 0.835 | 96.933 | |||
| 25 | 0.230 | 0.793 | 97.726 | |||
| 26 | 0.208 | 0.716 | 98.442 | |||
| 27 | 0.163 | 0.562 | 99.004 | |||
| 28 | 0.157 | 0.540 | 99.544 | |||
| 29 | 0.132 | 0.456 | 100.000 | |||
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
Factor loadings, convergent validity, and composite reliability.
| Item |
|
| E-Variance | ∑ | Items | AVE | CR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CSR1 | 0.77 | 0.59 | 0.41 | ||||
| CSR2 | 0.79 | 0.62 | 0.38 | ||||
| CSR3 | 0.88 | 0.77 | 0.23 | ||||
| CSR4 | 0.76 | 0.58 | 0.42 | ||||
| CSR5 | 0.82 | 0.67 | 0.33 | ||||
| CSR6 | 0.91 | 0.83 | 0.17 | ||||
| CSR7 | 0.72 | 0.52 | 0.48 | ||||
| CSR8 | 0.86 | 0.74 | 0.26 | ||||
| CSR9 | 0.77 | 0.59 | 0.41 | ||||
| CSR10 | 0.79 | 0.62 | 0.38 | ||||
| CSR11 | 0.76 | 0.58 | 0.42 | ||||
| CSR12 | 0.88 | 0.77 | 0.23 | 7.897 | 12 | 0.658 | 0.958 |
| EL1 | 0.93 | 0.86 | 0.13 | ||||
| EL2 | 0.74 | 0.55 | 0.45 | ||||
| EL3 | 0.83 | 0.69 | 0.31 | ||||
| EL4 | 0.88 | 0.77 | 0.23 | ||||
| EL5 | 0.73 | 0.53 | 0.47 | ||||
| EL6 | 0.77 | 0.59 | 0.41 | ||||
| EL7 | 0.94 | 0.88 | 0.12 | ||||
| EL8 | 0.78 | 0.61 | 0.39 | ||||
| EL9 | 0.78 | 0.61 | 0.39 | ||||
| EL10 | 0.83 | 0.69 | 0.31 | 6.791 | 10 | 0.679 | 0.955 |
| PB1 | 0.72 | 0.52 | 0.48 | ||||
| PB2 | 0.71 | 0.50 | 0.50 | ||||
| PB3 | 0.92 | 0.85 | 0.15 | ||||
| PB4 | 0.73 | 0.53 | 0.47 | ||||
| PB5 | 0.88 | 0.77 | 0.23 | ||||
| PB6 | 0.82 | 0.67 | 0.33 | ||||
| PB7 | 0.70 | 0.49 | 0.51 | 4.339 | 7 | 0.620 | 0.919 |
Notes: λ = Item loadings, CR = composite reliability, ∑λ2 = sum of square of item loadings, E-Variance = error variance.
Correlation, discriminant validity, and model fit indices.
| Construct | CSR | EL | PB |
|---|---|---|---|
| CSR |
| 0.462 ** | 0.498 ** |
| EL |
| 0.392 ** | |
| PB |
| ||
| Mean | 4.17 | 3.96 | 4.09 |
| SD | 0.39 | 0.57 | 0.62 |
| MSV | 0.25 | 0.21 | 0.25 |
| ASV | 0.23 | 0.18 | 0.20 |
| Sqrt (A.V.E) | 0.811 | 0.824 | 0.787 |
Notes: SD = standard deviation, ** = significant values of correlation, bold diagonal = Cronbach alpha, maximum shared variance = MSV and average shared variance = ASV.
The results for hypotheses (H1, H2, and H3).
| Path | Relation | Estimates | SE | CR | ULCI | LLCI | Decision | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CSR → PB | + | (β1) 0.426 ** | 0.060 | 7.10 | *** | 0.492 | 0.381 | Accepted |
| CSR → EL | + | (β2) 0.388 ** | 0.053 | 7.33 | *** | 0.369 | 0.311 | Accepted |
| EL → PB | + | (β2) 0.329 ** | 0.068 | 4.84 | *** | 0.279 | 0.196 | Accepted |
Notes: ULCI = upper-limit confidence interval, LLCI = lower-limit confidence interval, **, *** = significant values.
Mediation results for H4.
| Path | Relation | Estimates | SE | Z-Score | ULCI | LLCI | Decision | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CSR → EL → PB |
| (β4) 0.128 ** | 0.026 | 4.92 | *** | 0.249 | 0.163 | Accepted |
| Total effect | 0.426 | |||||||
| Indirect effect | 0.128 | |||||||
| Direct effect | 0.298 | |||||||
| Proportion of mediation | 0.30 |
Notes: ULCI = upper-limit confidence interval, LLCI = lower-limit confidence interval, **, *** = significant values, SE = standard error.
Moderation effect of leadership (male vs. female) for H5.
| Path | Relation | Estimates | SE | Z-Score | ULCI | LLCI | Decision | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CSR → EL → PB | + | β5m 0.133 ** | 0.023 | 4.78 | *** | 0.198 | 0.111 | Accepted |
| β5w 0.141 ** | 0.023 | 6.13 | *** | 0.212 | 0.197 | Accepted |
Note: β5m = regression estimates for the case of men and β5w = regression estimates for the case of women. **, *** = significant values, SE = standard error.