| Literature DB >> 35615176 |
Bilal Ahmed1, Hongming Xie1,2, Malik Zia-Ud-Din3, Muhammad Zaheer4, Naveed Ahmad5, Manman Guo2.
Abstract
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan has been a mere victim of climate change in recent years. The country needs emergency measures at every level to mitigate environmental dilapidation. The role of enterprises in the country's environmental efforts is critical. In this regard, the hotel sector is known for its outsized carbon footprint. Knowing this, the current study aims to improve a hotel enterprise's environmental performance (ENP) as an outcome of corporate social responsibility (CSR). The study also considers the mediating role of pro-environmental behavior (PEB) of employees and the moderating role of altruistic values (ALT). A hypothesized model was developed, which was validated by employing the structural equation modeling technique. The empirical results confirmed that CSR, directly and indirectly (through PEB), positively induces the ENP of a hotel enterprise. Whereas the conditional indirect role of ALT was also found significant. The study offers different implications for theory and practice, among which one important takeaway for the hotel sector is to realize the importance of employees to spur ENP of a hotel enterprise through their eco-friendly behavior. At the same time, the current work also advances the theory by highlighting the moderating role of ALT between the indirect relationship of CSR and ENP.Entities:
Keywords: altruistic values; corporate social responsibility (CSR); environmental performance (EP); hotel enterprises; pro-environmental behavior (PEB)
Year: 2022 PMID: 35615176 PMCID: PMC9125239 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.857906
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1Research model of the current analysis: CSR (X) = the predictor variable, pro-environmental behavior—PEB (M2) = the mediating variable, Altruistic values—ALT (M1) = the moderating variable, Environmental performance—ENP (Y) = the criterion variable C = the effect of X on Y in the absence of M, c’ = effect of X on Y in the presence of M.
Demographic profile of the sample.
| Demographic | Frequency ( | % |
|
| ||
| Male | 279 | 60.39 |
| Female | 183 | 39.61 |
|
| ||
| 18–25 years | 49 | 10.61 |
| 26–30 years | 101 | 21.86 |
| 31–35 years | 153 | 33.12 |
| 36–40 years | 98 | 21.21 |
| Above 40 years | 61 | 13.20 |
|
| ||
| 1–3 years | 82 | 17.75 |
| 4–6 years | 179 | 38.74 |
| 7–9 year | 141 | 30.52 |
| 10 years and beyond | 60 | 12.99 |
|
| ||
| Manager/supervisor | 121 | 26.19 |
| Non-Manager | 341 | 73.81 |
Total variance explained by a single factor.
| Total variance explained | ||||||
| Factor | Initial eigenvalues | Extraction sums of squared loadings | ||||
| Total | % of Variance | Cumulative% | Total | % of Variance | Cumulative% | |
| 1 | 6.214 | 19.417 | 19.417 | 5.458 | 17.057 | 17.057 |
| 2 | 2.698 | 8.430 | 27.847 | |||
| 3 | 1.698 | 5.306 | 33.153 | |||
| 4 | 1.574 | 4.919 | 38.072 | |||
| 5 | 1.344 | 4.201 | 42.273 | |||
| 6 | 1.273 | 3.978 | 46.251 | |||
| 7 | 1.244 | 3.888 | 50.140 | |||
| 8 | 1.132 | 3.537 | 53.677 | |||
| 9 | 1.106 | 3.457 | 57.134 | |||
| 10 | 1.059 | 3.308 | 60.443 | |||
| 11 | 1.016 | 3.174 | 63.617 | |||
| 12 | 0.880 | 2.751 | 66.368 | |||
| 13 | 0.814 | 2.544 | 68.912 | |||
| 14 | 0.805 | 2.514 | 71.426 | |||
| 15 | 0.742 | 2.320 | 73.746 | |||
| 16 | 0.735 | 2.296 | 76.043 | |||
| 17 | 0.716 | 2.239 | 78.281 | |||
| 18 | 0.684 | 2.138 | 80.419 | |||
| 19 | 0.641 | 2.005 | 82.424 | |||
| 20 | 0.618 | 1.931 | 84.355 | |||
| 21 | 0.556 | 1.737 | 86.091 | |||
| 22 | 0.523 | 1.636 | 87.727 | |||
| 23 | 0.505 | 1.578 | 89.305 | |||
| 24 | 0.492 | 1.537 | 90.842 | |||
| 25 | 0.477 | 1.490 | 92.332 | |||
| 26 | 0.428 | 1.337 | 93.669 | |||
| 27 | 0.416 | 1.299 | 94.968 | |||
| 28 | 0.378 | 1.181 | 96.149 | |||
| 29 | 0.353 | 1.103 | 97.252 | |||
| 30 | 0.330 | 1.031 | 98.283 | |||
| 31 | 0.296 | 0.925 | 99.208 | |||
| 32 | 0.253 | 0.792 | 100.000 | |||
Extraction method = Principal Axis Factoring by fixing the number of factors to ‘1.’
Factor loadings, convergent validity, and composite reliability.
| Items | Λ | λ2 | Σλ2 | Items | AVE | CR | |
| My hotel participates in activities that aim to protect and improve the quality of the natural environment (CSR1) | 0.74 | 0.55 | 0.45 | ||||
| My hotel makes investments to create a better life for future generations (CSR2) | 0.79 | 0.62 | 0.38 | ||||
| My hotel implements special programs to minimize its negative impact on the natural environment (CSR3) | 0.88 | 0.77 | 0.23 | ||||
| My hotel targets sustainable growth, which considers to the future generations (CSR4) | 0.71 | 0.50 | 0.50 | ||||
| My hotel supports the non-governmental organizations that work in the problematic areas (CSR5) | 0.92 | 0.85 | 0.15 | ||||
| My hotel contributes to the campaigns and projects that promote the well-being of society (CSR6) | 0.86 | 0.74 | 0.26 | ||||
| My hotel encourages its employees to participate in voluntary activities (CSR7) | 0.96 | 0.92 | 0.08 | ||||
| My hotel’s policies encourage the employees to develop their skills and careers (CSR8) | 0.77 | 0.59 | 0.41 | ||||
| The management of my hotel is primarily concerned with the employees’ needs and wants (CSR9) | 0.74 | 0.55 | 0.45 | ||||
| My hotel implements flexible policies to provide a good work environment and life balance for its employees (CSR10) | 0.72 | 0.52 | 0.48 | ||||
| The managerial decisions related to the employees are usually fair (CSR11) | 0.75 | 0.56 | 0.44 | ||||
| My hotel supports employees who want to acquire additional education (CSR12) | 0.73 | 0.53 | 0.47 | 7.71 | 12 | 0.64 | 0.95 |
| I print double-sided whenever possible (PEB1) | 0.72 | 0.52 | 0.48 | ||||
| I put compostable items in the compost bin (PEB2) | 0.7 | 0.49 | 0.51 | ||||
| I bring reusable eating utensils to work (PEB3) | 0.78 | 0.61 | 0.39 | ||||
| I put recyclable material (e.g., cans, paper, bottles, batteries) in the recycling bins (PEB4) | 0.85 | 0.72 | 0.28 | ||||
| I turn lights off when not in use (PEB5) | 0.74 | 0.55 | 0.45 | ||||
| I take part in environmentally friendly programs (PEB6) | 0.93 | 0.86 | 0.14 | ||||
| I make suggestions about environmentally friendly practices to managers and/or environmental committees in an effort to increase my organization’s environmental performance (PEB7) | 0.74 | 0.55 | 0.45 | 4.30 | 7 | 0.61 | 0.92 |
| Unity with nature (ALT1) | 0.91 | 0.83 | 0.17 | ||||
| Preventing pollution (ALT2) | 0.76 | 0.58 | 0.42 | ||||
| Protecting the environment (ALVT3) | 0.82 | 0.67 | 0.33 | ||||
| Respecting the Earth (ALVT4) | 0.92 | 0.85 | 0.15 | ||||
| Social justice (ALVT5) | 0.87 | 0.76 | 0.24 | ||||
| A world at peace (ALT6) | 0.89 | 0.79 | 0.21 | ||||
| Helpful to others (ALT7) | 0.87 | 0.76 | 0.24 | ||||
| Equality (ALT8) | 0.79 | 0.62 | 0.38 | 5.85 | 8 | 0.73 | 0.96 |
| Waste reduction (ENP1) | 0.81 | 0.66 | 0.34 | ||||
| Energy conservation (ENP2) | 0.74 | 0.55 | 0.45 | ||||
| Less purchases of non-renewable materials (ENP3) | 0.76 | 0.58 | 0.42 | ||||
| Overall cos reduction (ENP4) | 0.89 | 0.79 | 0.21 | ||||
| Water conservation (ENP5) | 0.82 | 0.67 | 0.33 | 3.25 | 5 | 0.64 | 0.90 |
λ, item loadings; C.R, composite reliability; Σλ
Correlations and discriminant validity.
| Construct | CSR | PEB | ALT | ENP | Max-Min | Mean |
|
| CSR | 0.80 | 0.41** | 0.36** | 0.38** | 7.00–1.00 | 5.33 | 0.63 |
| PEB | 0.78 | 0.46** | 0.42** | 7.00–2.00 | 5.68 | 0.55 | |
| ALT | 0.86 | 0.33** | 7.00–1.00 | 5.19 | 0.62 | ||
| ENP | 0.80 | 7.00–2.00 | 6.07 | 0.49 |
Sample size = 511; SD, standard deviation; **p-values < 0.05, diagonal values = discriminant validity values.
Model fit comparison, alternate models vs. hypothesized model.
| Model-1 (Hypothesized) | Model-2 Two-Factor | Model-3 Three Factor | |
| χ2 ( | 1783.692 (711) | 2274.588 (526) | 2068.396 (665) |
| χ2/ | 2.51 | 4.32 | 3.11 |
| NFI | 0.94 | 0.78 | 0.89 |
| CFI | 0.96 | 0.79 | 0.92 |
| RMSEA | 0.049 | 0.072 | 0.050 |
The results for hypotheses (H1, H2, and H3).
| Path | Relation | Estimates | SE | CR | ULCI | LLCI | Decision | |
| CSR→ENP | + | (β1) 0.29** | 0.022 | 13.18 | *** | 0.462 | 0.377 | Accepted |
| CSR→PEB | + | (β | 0.026 | 14.23 | *** | 0.388 | 0.346 | Accepted |
| PEB→ENP | + | (β | 0.034 | 09.71 | *** | 0.411 | 0.372 | Accepted |
Mediation and moderation results for H4, and H5.
| Path | Estimates |
| Z-score | ULCI | LLCI | Decision | |
| CSR→PEB→ENP | (β | 0.019 | 6.31 | *** | 0.353 | 0.341 | Accepted |
| ↓ | |||||||
| CSR→PEB→ENP | (β | 0.016 | 11.87 | *** | 0.278 | 0.249 | Accepted |
ULCI, upper-limit confidence interval; LLCI, lower-limit confidence interval; SE, standard error. ** and ***, significant values.