| Literature DB >> 36012075 |
Abstract
The goal of this study is to investigate the influence relationship between AMO applied green HRM and employees' green OCB. This study also attempted to verify the relationship between employees' green OCB and green performance management. Specifically, we tried to define the effects of green awareness and green psychological climate on green HRM and green OCB. Moreover, we examined the mediating effect of green CSR perception on the relationship between green OCB and green performance management. To do so, we surveyed Rooms and F&B employees from nine global chain hotels in South Korea that actively contribute to a green package. An "actively contributing hotel" is one that has leadership in energy and environmental design certification. Further, employees of such hotels consider them proenvironmental hotels. For data analysis, we carried out SEM and factor analysis using SPSS 18.0 and Amos 20.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). All hypotheses were adopted as having significantly positive (+) effects. Hypotheses 4, 7, and 11 predicted partial mediating effects. The findings of the study have significant theoretical and practical ramifications for corporate environmental strategic performance management. Specifically, this study identified the relationship between the mediation variables on green OCB and green PM, as demonstrated in previous studies. Additionally, these results provide an effective employee management strategy for the green HRM of green hotels by providing concrete data. First, green hotels need to raise employees' green awareness and green psychological climate to increase their green OCB. Second, employees themselves ultimately have to enhance the green CSR perception to raise green PM.Entities:
Keywords: green CSR perception; green HRM practice; green awareness; green organizational citizenship behavior; green performance management; green psychological climate
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36012075 PMCID: PMC9408313 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191610440
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Structural 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.