| Literature DB >> 36186347 |
Long Yang1, Jacob Cherian2, Muhammad Safdar Sial3, Sarminah Samad4, Jongsik Yu5, Youngbae Kim6, Heesup Han7.
Abstract
Considering the vulnerable climatic conditions in most parts of the planet, a successful transition toward a carbon-free future is a critical challenge worldwide. In this respect, around 35% of the world's total greenhouse gas emission (GHG) is associated with the power sector (especially electrical energy). To this end, a vast of electrical energy has been used by the people in buildings. Specifically, a significant amount of energy in buildings is used for heating, cooling, and ventilation. While the available literature highlights the importance of neat, clean, and green electrical energy for the decarbonization of society, a critical gap exists in such literature. That is, most of the literature under this stream deals with the supply side (production) of electrical energy, while the demand side (consumption at an individual level) was neglected. To bridge this critical knowledge gap, this study investigates how the CSR engagement of a hotel organization can promote the energy-related pro-environmental behavior (ERPEB) among the employees with the intervening effect of employees' environmental commitment (EMEC) and Green intrinsic motivation (GRIM). Further, the conditional indirect role of altruistic values was also tested in this study. The data were collected from different hotel employees in Pakistan with the help of a self-administered questionnaire. We tested the hypothesized relationship through structural equation modeling (SEM). The results confirmed that CSR can be a potential motivator to impact the ERPEB of employees, while EMEC and GRIM mediated this relationship significantly. The findings of this study also confirmed the conditional indirect role of altruistic values. These findings offer various theoretical and practical contributions which are conversed in detail.Entities:
Keywords: CSR; environmental psychology; hotel; social identity; sustainable individual behavior
Year: 2022 PMID: 36186347 PMCID: PMC9524265 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.990922
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Figure 1The hypothesized structural model: CSR, Corporate Social Responsibility (X); EMEC, Employee Environmental Commitment (M1); GRIM, Green Intrinsic Motivation (M2); ERPEB, Energy Related Pro-Environmental Behavior (Y); ALTV, Altruistic Values (W); CSR_x_ALTV, Interaction term.
Data cleaning, outliers, and response rate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 600 | 437 | 113 | 26 | 08 | 411 | |
| Percentage | – | 72.83 | 27.17 | 05.95 | 01.83 | 68.50 |
Observations identified as outliers.
| Observation number | Mahalanobis d-squared | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 142 | 14.391 | 0.002 | 0.037 |
| 79 | 13.166 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| 44 | 12.410 | 0.022 | 0.142 |
| 303 | 09.683 | 0.016 | 0.138 |
| 156 | 09.255 | 0.030 | 0.079 |
| 90 | 08.927 | 0.033 | 0.092 |
| 28 | 08.713 | 0.039 | 0.098 |
| 194 | 08.156 | 0.045 | 0.062 |
Sample profile.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 305 | 74.21 |
| Female | 106 | 25.79 |
| Age | ||
| 18–25 | 48 | 11.68 |
| 26–30 | 92 | 22.38 |
| 31–35 | 87 | 21.17 |
| 36–40 | 67 | 16.31 |
| 41–45 | 59 | 14.35 |
| Above 45 | 58 | 14.11 |
| Experience | ||
| 1–4 | 67 | 16.31 |
| 5–7 | 172 | 41.85 |
| 8–10 | 98 | 23.84 |
| Above 10 | 74 | 18.00 |
| Total |
|
|
Bold value represents total number of respondent and total of percentage.
Validity and reliability.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| CSR | |||
| 0.809 | 0.654 | 0.346 | |
| AVE = 0.560 | 0.722 | 0.521 | 0.479 |
| CR = 0.938 | 0.744 | 0.554 | 0.446 |
| 0.708 | 0.501 | 0.499 | |
| 0.703 | 0.494 | 0.506 | |
| 0.806 | 0.650 | 0.350 | |
| 0.719 | 0.517 | 0.483 | |
| 0.836 | 0.699 | 0.301 | |
| 0.769 | 0.591 | 0.409 | |
| 0.733 | 0.537 | 0.463 | |
| 0.714 | 0.510 | 0.490 | |
| 0.700 | 0.490 | 0.510 | |
| ERPEB | |||
| AVE = 0.563 | 0.738 | 0.545 | 0.455 |
| CR = 0.911 | 0.712 | 0.507 | 0.493 |
| 0.734 | 0.539 | 0.461 | |
| 0.702 | 0.493 | 0.507 | |
| 0.718 | 0.516 | 0.484 | |
| 0.823 | 0.677 | 0.323 | |
| 0.818 | 0.669 | 0.331 | |
| 0.746 | 0.557 | 0.443 | |
| EMEC | |||
| 0.758 | 0.575 | 0.425 | |
| AVE = 0.542 | 0.749 | 0.561 | 0.439 |
| CR = 0.904 | 0.701 | 0.491 | 0.509 |
| 0.706 | 0.498 | 0.502 | |
| 0.752 | 0.566 | 0.434 | |
| 0.816 | 0.666 | 0.334 | |
| 0.702 | 0.493 | 0.507 | |
| 0.700 | 0.490 | 0.510 | |
| GRIM | |||
| 0.728 | 0.530 | 0.470 | |
| AVE = 0.519 | 0.731 | 0.534 | 0.466 |
| CR = 0.866 | 0.750 | 0.563 | 0.438 |
| 0.700 | 0.490 | 0.510 | |
| 0.702 | 0.493 | 0.507 | |
| 0.709 | 0.503 | 0.497 | |
| ALTV | |||
| 0.705 | 0.497 | 0.503 | |
| AVE = 0.539 | 0.709 | 0.503 | 0.497 |
| CR = 0.903 | 0.722 | 0.521 | 0.479 |
| 0.706 | 0.498 | 0.502 | |
| 0.742 | 0.551 | 0.449 | |
| 0.767 | 0.588 | 0.412 | |
| 0.783 | 0.613 | 0.387 | |
| 0.733 | 0.537 | 0.463 |
λ, item loadings; CR, composite reliability; ∑λ2, sum of square of item loadings; E-Variance, error variance.
Model fit comparison, alternate vs. hypothesized models.
| Model | Composition |
| Δ | NFI | CFI | RMSEA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (<3) | – | (>0.9) | (>0.9) | (<0.08) | ||
| 1 | (hypothesized) | 2.369 |
| 0.958 | 0.956 | 0.052 |
| 2 | (3-factor) | 6.128 | 3.759 | 0.711 | 0.700 | 0.089 |
| 3 | (2-factor) | 7.233 | 1.105 | 0.602 | 0.599 | 0.161 |
| 4 | (1-factor) | 7.920 | 0.687 | 0.528 | 0.521 | 0.212 |
Correlations and discriminant validity.
| Construct | CSR | ERPEB | EMEC | GRIM | ALTV | Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CSR |
| 0.419 | 0.386 | 0.400 | 0.526 | 3.061 | 0.610 |
| ERPEB |
| 0.289 | 0.428 | 0.511 | 2.896 | 0.577 | |
| EMEC |
| 0.382 | 0.462 | 2.882 | 0.580 | ||
| GRIM |
| 0.533 | 3.290 | 0.580 | |||
| ALTV |
| 2.972 | 0.556 |
Bold diagonal values represent discriminant validity of a variable.
Hypotheses testing.
| Hypotheses | Estimates (SE) | Value of | CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (CSR ➔ ERPEB) | 0.4128 (0.0396) | 10.4242 | 0.000 | 0.398, 0.563 |
| Mediating effects | ||||
| (CSR ➔ EMEC ➔ ERPEB) | 0.1986 (0.0258) | 07.6976 | 0.000 | 0.119, 0.328 |
| (CSR ➔ GRIM ➔ ERPEB) | 0.2365 (0.0283) | 08.3568 | 0.003 | 0.178, 0.374 |
| Conditional indirect effect | 0.2240 (0.0269) | 08.3271 | 0.000 | 0.169, 0.388 |
| Conditional indirect effect | 0.2726 (0.0258) | 10.5658 | 0.007 | 0.220, 0.384 |
CI = 95% confidence interval with lower and upper limits.