Content uploaded by M. Mithat Uner
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by M. Mithat Uner on Oct 21, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Management commitment to the
ecological environment, green
work engagement and their
effects on hotel employees’green
work outcomes
Tuna Karatepe and Ali Ozturen
Faculty of Tourism, Eastern Mediterranean University,
Famagusta, Turkey
Osman M. Karatepe
Faculty of Tourism, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta Turkey and
Faculty of Finance and Management in Wroclaw, WSB University in Wrocław,
Wrocław, Poland
M. Mithat Uner
School of Business, Atilim University, Ankara, Turkey, and
Taegoo Terry Kim
Department of Global Eminence, Kyung Hee University,
Seoul, Republic of Korea
Abstract
Purpose –Using social exchange, signaling, job demands-resources and reformulation of attitude theories,
the purpose of this paper is to propose and test a research model in which green work engagement (GWEN)
mediates the impact of management commitment to the ecological environment (MCEE) on green creativity,
task-related pro-environmental behavior (PEB) and proactive PEB.
Design/methodology/approach –Data for the paper were obtained from hotel customer-contact
employees in Turkey and South Korea. The hypothesized associations were assessed via structural equation
modeling.
Findings –The findings in Studies 1 and 2 supported the viability of the model. Specifically, GWEN
partially mediated the effect of MCEE on task-related and proactive PEB, while it fully mediated the influence
of MCEE on green creativity.
Practical implications –Management should invest and/or go on investing in environmental
sustainability to send strong signals to employees that the organization really cares about the environment
and is highly committed to the preservation and protection of the environment. With green training,
empowerment and rewards, management can boost employees’GWEN, which motivates them to engage in
environmentally responsible behaviors.
Originality/value –The paper advances current knowledge by testing the relationship of MCEE, as
appraised by employees, to their GWEN and green work outcomes. More importantly, the paper has explored
the impact of GWEN in the intermediate relationship between MCEE and critical green work outcomes, such
This work was prepared using the data set of the first author’s doctoral dissertation, and its data
came from part of a larger project.
Hotel
employees’
green work
outcomes
Received 11 October2021
Revised 6 December2021
11 January 2022
Accepted 11 January2022
International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality
Management
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0959-6119
DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-10-2021-1242
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0959-6119.htm
as green creativity, task-related PEB and proactive PEB. Further, the paper adds to the extant research by
assessing the antecedentsand outcomes of GWEN.
Keywords Green creativity, Green work engagement,
Management commitment to the ecological environment, Pro-environmental behavior, Hotel employees
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Hospitality companies are now more cognizant of the critical role of environmental
sustainability (ES) that enables them to control water and energy consumption, reduce the
procurement of nonrenewal materials and diminish waste (Chan and Hsu, 2016;Karatepe
et al., 2021a;Nisar et al., 2021). Having such awareness is important because hospitality and
tourism companies are among the major energy and water users (Wang et al., 2018).
Undoubtedly, employees are at the heart of the ES and greening efforts (Aboramadan and
Karatepe, 2021;Cabral and Jabbour, 2020;Paillé, 2020). With this realization, promoting
environmentally responsible behavior is imperative (Luu, 2019;Paillé, 2020).
Top management leadership and its vision is a must for investing in ES and greening the
workplace (Haldorai et al.,2022;Erdogan et al., 2015). Unless management is committed to this
process, any efforts spent by employees at the bottom line would be useless (Haldorai et al., 2022).
This underscores the need for top management commitment to the ecological environment
(MCEE) (Erdogan et al., 2015).MCEEisdefined as employees’appraisal of a company’s
commitment to environmentally friendly initiatives and green activities in motivating its employees
to exhibit pro-environmental behaviors and help the company to accomplish the ES goals.
Employees with favorable perceptions of MCEE are expected to be green work-engaged.
Green work engagement (GWEN) is adapted from the work engagement variable
(Aboramadan, 2022) and, in our paper, is conceptualized as employees’willingness to exert
efforts in and full concentration on environmental and green tasks as well as their experience
of a sense of enthusiasm, pride and inspiration about these tasks. Employees who display
higher GWEN contribute to the company by their environmentally responsible behaviors
(Aboramadan, 2022). Green creativity, task-related pro-environmental behavior (PEB) and
proactive PEB are critical environmental responsible behaviors among hotel employees
(Aboramadan et al.,2021;Karatepe et al., 2021b;Zhang and Huang, 2019).
Green creativity, which refers to “the development of new ideas about green products, green
services, green processes, or green practices that are judged to be original, novel, and useful”
(Chen and Chang, 2013, p. 109), appears to be a significant source to accomplish green business
goals (Kalyar et al., 2021). For example, employees may offer an idea regarding the provision of
free bicycles to customers who are highly concerned with the protection of the environment.
This can enable the company to market its green services. Task-related PEB denotes
employees’fulfillment of tasks in an environmentally friendly way, while proactive PEB
highlights employees’initiatives concerning their environmentally responsible behaviors that
go above and beyond their routine tasks (Bissing-Olson et al., 2013). These green behaviors are
critical for the achievement of the company’sESgoals(Karatepe et al., 2021b;Paillé, 2020).
Purpose
Against the above backdrop, we empirically investigate GWEN as a mediator of the impact
of MCEE on green creativity, task-related PEB and proactive PEB. Specifically, our paper
assesses: the impact of MCEE on GWEN, green creativity, task-related PEB and proactive
PEB; the effect of GWEN on green creativity, task-related PEB and proactive PEB; and
GWEN as a mediator in these linkages. Gauging these associations will enable us to
IJCHM
determine whether hotel employees display a number of positive green work outcomes as a
result of their favorable perceptions of MCEE.
Relevance and significance of the investigation
Our paper advances current knowledge in the following ways. First, MCEE is a prerequisite for
a company’s ES and green initiatives (Erdogan et al., 2015;Park et al., 2014). A recent study
revealed that top management green commitment led to investment in green human resource
practices, which, in turn, fostered hotel environmental performance (Haldorai et al., 2022).
However, according to the researchers’knowledge, there are no empirical studies about the effect
of MCEE on employees’green work outcomes, such as green creativity, PEB, green recovery
performance and/or green adaptive performance. This void can be observed in two studies that
have explored MCEE or top management green commitment (Erdogan et al.,2015;Haldorai
et al., 2022). This is surprising because ES has become a strategic tool for many hospitality
companies to combat environmental issues and gain a competitive advantage (Chan and Hsu,
2016;Nisar et al.,2021;Sharma et al., 2020). More importantly, companies cannot accomplish
their ES goals without employee engagement in PEB (Karatepe et al., 2021a;Paillé, 2020).
Though limited, the hospitality and tourism literature presents evidence about employees’
green creativity or green innovative behavior, task-related PEB and proactive PEB. For
example, Farooq et al. (2021) showed that green self-efficacy mediated the effect of green
human resource management on green creativity. Karatepe et al.’s (2021a) research indicated
that psychological contract breach influenced task-related PEB and proactive PEB directly and
indirectly through employee engagement. Zhang et al. (2021) found that national park goal
identification, environmental corporate social responsibility or attitude toward environmental
corporate social responsibility enhanced PEB. However, in a recent analysis of PEB-related
studies, Loureiro et al. (2022) state that “[...] employee engagement with respect to [...]pro-
environmental behavior [...]”(p. 271) should be explored. They further state that it would be
useful if future research could focus on actual PEB in lieu of intention behavior. Recognizing
the abovementioned voids, we gauge employees’appraisal of MCEE and the impact of MCEE
on their green creativity, task-related PEB and proactive PEB. We assess green creativity to
ascertain whether employees generate green creative ideas and offer new green ideas to make
improvement in the company’s environmental performance. We also test task-related PEB and
proactive PEB to ferret out whether employees carry out their daily responsibilities in an
environmentally friendly way and take initiatives to act in an eco-friendly way. This is
important because employees with PEBs would be role models among new hires and positively
impact the attitudes of others toward the environment in public.
Second, plenty of empirical pieces have examined the antecedents and consequences of
work engagement (De Souza Meira and Hancer, 2021;Wang and Chen, 2020). However,
there is a scarcity of evidence about the factors influencing GWEN and the potential
outcomes of GWEN (Aboramadan, 2022;Bhutto et al., 2021). This is a significant void
because management of hotels needs a pool of employees who possess the energy to put in
their ES and green tasks. Employees who are green work-engaged would contribute to the
company through their PEBs. In light of this, using social exchange (Cropanzano and
Mitchell, 2005), signaling (Connelly et al., 2011) and job demands-resources (JD-R) (Bakker
and Demerouti, 2017) theories, MCEE is treated as an antecedent to GWEN, while green
creativity, task-related PEB and proactive PEB are the green work outcomes of GWEN.
Third, the current literature does not present any evidence concerning the impact of GWEN
in the intermediate association between MCEE and a number of green work outcomes. In this
paper, under the umbrella of reformulation of attitude theory (Bagozzi, 1992),weuseGWENas
a mediator of the influence of MCEE on the previously mentioned green work outcomes.
Hotel
employees’
green work
outcomes
Finally, unlike many studies in the current hospitality and tourism knowledge base, our
paper conducts two studies. We test the aforementioned linkages via data collected in hotels
in Turkey and South Korea. There are at least three reasons for selecting these countries.
Specifically, there are cultural similarities in terms of power distance, uncertainty avoidance
and individualism (Onder and Nyadera, 2019). Employees in these cultures are collectivist
and expect to be instructed on what to do in light of rules. Though this may be a
barrier against creative behavior, employees contribute to the company by their green
creativity as a result of management’s expectation about their active involvement in the ES
program. There are also cultural differences associated with long-term orientation.
Employees in South Korea work in a long-term-oriented society, while the ones in Turkey
work in a society that adopts mid-term planning (Onder and Nyadera, 2019).
In addition, hospitality customers are now more aware of the critical role of pro-
environmental consumption in both Korean and Turkish markets (Gurlek and Tuna, 2018;
Han et al., 2020). Consequently, it will be possible to delineate support for the viability of the
model proposed in our paper andincrease the generalizability of the findings.
Literature review and hypotheses
Green creativity and pro-environmental behavior
Exploring the factors that affect employees’PEBs has been a hot topic recently (Nisar et al.,
2021;Peng et al., 2020). As underlined by Chan and Hsu (2016), the ES programs of hospitality
companies are very likely to fail without staff involvement since employees play a critical role
in the accomplishment of environmental and green goals through their PEBs. An examination
of the relevant writings in the hospitality and tourism literature demonstrates studies
investigating employees’PEBs and/or green creativity. For example, Zhang and Huang’s
(2019) study documented that environmental concerns mediated the effects of autonomous and
controlled motivation on employees’PEBs at international chain hotels in China. Using the
same setting in China, Karatepe et al. (2021b) reported that emotional exhaustion acted as a
mediator of the impact of calling orientation on task-related PEBs and nongreen behavior.
Evidence associated with the Polish hotel industry revealed that the positive effects of
environmental values and affective commitment to the company on organizational citizenship
behavior for the environment were strengthened by green organizational climate (Zientara and
Zamojska, 2018).
A study carried out among hotel employees in Northern Cyprus denoted that the positive
effect of workplace spirituality on organizational citizenship behavior for the environment
was mediated by connectedness to nature (Rezapouraghdam et al., 2018).Shah et al. (2020)
found evidence in Malaysia that hotel employees’perceptions of corporate social
responsibility enhanced their organizational identification and coworkers’pro-
environmental advocacy, which, in turn, resulted in higher PEBs. The findings of Tuan’s
(2020) study in Vietnam illustrated that tourism employees’green-related resource and
challenge seeking behaviors mediated the linkage between environmentally specific servant
leadership and green creativity. A study carried out in the restaurant industry showed that
both customer pressure and ethical standards enhanced employees’green creativity, while
green creativity fostered employees’green passion (Cho and Yoo, 2021).
In addition, a study among hotel employees in Vietnam illustrated that customer green
involvement and internal green marketing orientation activated green service innovative
behavior (Tuan, 2021). Another research conducted with tour operators in the same country
denoted that green self-efficacy and harmonious environmental passion mediated the
impact of green entrepreneurial orientation on green creative behavior (Luu, 2021). The
findings of a study by Ogretmenoglu et al. (2021) illustrated that green organizational
IJCHM
citizenship behavior mediated the association between green transformational leadership
and green creativity among hotel employees in Turkey. A study conducted in China
demonstrated that hotel employees’perceived task performance identified themselves with
the company and therefore displayed high levels of PEBs (Peng et al., 2020).
Summary
The findings of the aforesaid empirical pieces show a number of factors (e.g. workplace
spirituality, green self-efficacy, sense of calling, environmental concerns) that have influenced
employees’PEBs or green creativity. These findings implicitly suggest the importance of
employee involvement in the process for the accomplishment of environmental goals. However,
to enable such employees to engage in such green behaviors, management should be
committed to green environment and ES (Haldorai et al.,2022;Erdogan et al., 2015).
Surprisingly, the current hospitality and tourism knowledge base lack evidence about MCEE
and its effect on employees’green attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Accordingly, our paper
fills in this lacuna by gauging GWEN as a mediator of the impact of MCEE on green creativity,
task-related PEBs and proactive PEBs.
Social exchange, signaling, job demands-resources and reformulation of attitude theories
are used to develop these linkages. Specifically, as propounded by social exchange theory
(Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005), employees feel obliged to repay the hotel when they
perceive that management really invests in the preservation and protection of the
environment. Employees’favorable perceptions of MCEE enhance the level of their GWEN.
As signaling theory proposes (Connelly et al., 2011), the hotel’s initiatives associated with
the environment and green practices are the signals transmitted to employees. Employees’
positive evaluations of these corporate environmental initiatives and green practices would
enhance their green behaviors. This highlights the relationship of MCEE to employees’
green creativity, task-related PEBs and proactive PEBs.
Hotel employees who are green work-engaged at high levels display elevated levels of
green creativity, task-related PEB and proactive PEB. As proposed by JD-R theory (Bakker
and Demerouti, 2017), motivation is a predictor of employees’job performance. Energetic
and enthusiastic employees with concentration on green practices would be engaged in their
work and exhibit positive green behaviors.
Reformulation of attitude theory posits that employees make a cognitive evaluation of the
hotel’s environmental initiatives and green practices. Their favorable perceptions result in
affective outcome such as GWEN, which governs their green behaviors (e.g. green creativity)
(Bagozzi, 1992). This implicitly demonstrates the MCEE !GWEN !green creativity, task-
related PEB and proactive PEB linkages. The hypothesized linkages are given below.
Hypotheses
Work engagement is designated by “vigor,”“dedication”and “absorption”(Schaufeli et al.,
2006). Work-engaged employees try their hardest to be better performers at work, are proud
of their job and devote significant attention to their job (Rich et al., 2010). There is
substantial research accumulated on work engagement. For example, the current literature
presents plenty of empirical studies, which have explored the antecedents (e.g. customer
incivility, gossip, polychronicity, psychological contract breach and workplace friendship)
and consequences (e.g. task performance, turnover intent) of work engagement (Asghar
et al.,2021;Karatepe et al., 2021a;Ugwu et al., 2021).
On the other hand, there are few studies about GWEN in the extant literature. In this paper,
we propose that the hotel’s commitment to the ecological environment fosters employees’
GWEN. Social exchange theory is used to develop the hypothesis concerning the relationship
Hotel
employees’
green work
outcomes
between these two variables (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). The theory contends that there
are trusting relationships and mutual commitments between the organization and employees if
they show compliance with the rules of exchange, which highlight reciprocity or repayment
rules (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). As stated by Saks (2006, p. 603), “[...] the actions of one
party lead to a response or actions by the other party.”Accordingly, employees will choose to
display GWEN as a response to the resources they obtain from the company. Specifically,
employees would contribute to the ES and preservation and protection of the ecological
environment by exhibiting higher GWEN as a response to the company’s investment in the
development of their green knowledge and skills (green training). These employees would feel
obliged to reciprocate by elevated levels of GWEN. In short, employees’favorable perceptions
of MCEE enhance their GWEN, which makes them give a significant focus on green tasks and
feel energetic at their job while dealing with green tasks. This proposition is consistent with
Saks’s (2006) argument that when there are various green human resource practices in the
workplace, such as green rewards, green selective staffing and green career opportunities (Ari
et al., 2020), employees feel obliged to repay the company through higher work engagement.
These green human resource practices are the signs of MCEE that gives rise to high GWEN.
Therefore, we expect the following:
H1. MCEE relates positively to GWEN.
We also contend that MCEE enhances employees’green work outcomes. Specifically, the
presence of corporate environmental initiatives and the adoption of green practices signal
that management of hotels is committed to the preservation and protection of the ecological
environment. In such an organization, employees can contribute to the ES or go green
programs of the company through green-related consequences such as green creativity,
task-related PEB and proactive PEB.
Spence’s (1973) signaling theory can be used to develop the hypotheses concerning the
impact of MCEE on the aforesaid green work outcomes. According to signaling theory
(Connelly et al., 2011),“[...] one party, the sender, must choose whether and how to
communicate (or signal) that information, andthe other party, the receiver, must choose how
to interpret the signal”(p. 39). In this study, we propose that corporate environmental
initiatives and adoption of green practices serve as signals from the company, while top
management is the transmitter of these signals. These initiatives and practices send out
signals to employees that the organization invests in the development of employees’green
knowledge and skills and ES. Employees can receive these signals from the organization’s
green human resource managerial practices (Aboramadan and Karatepe, 2021). For
example, any information about ES and green management in the company’s Web page and
employee handbooks would be relayed as signals to employees. The company’s green
recruitment criteria are the signals sent out to employees (Ari et al., 2020). Training
programs organized for creating and/or increasing employees’environmental awareness
and knowledge can be interpreted as the signals of green human resource managerial
practices (Chaudhary, 2019). These signals enable employees to make better sense of their
workplace. Such signals represent management’s commitment to the protection of the
ecological environment. Employees’positive evaluations of the company’s ES and green
management initiatives would foster their green creativity, task-related PEB and proactive
PEB. That is, employees’positive evaluations of MCEE would enhance their green
creativity, task-related PEB and proactive PEB.
A review of the literature demonstrates no empirical pieces about the influence of
MCEE on the abovementioned green work outcomes. However, several empirical
studies have explored the effects of green human resource management or green
IJCHM
leadership on green work outcomes. For example, Aboramadan et al. (2021) found that
climate for green creativity partly mediated the impact of environmentally specific
servant leadership on hotel employees’organizational citizenship behavior for the
environment. Hameed et al.’s (2021) work indicated that perceived green organizational
support fully mediated the effect of green human resource management on green
creativity. Nisar et al. (2021) also showed that green intellectual capital completely
mediated the effect of green human resource management on hotel employees’PEB.
These studies have added to the understanding about the factors affecting employees’
green work outcomes. However, no empirical piece has explored the linkage between
MCEE and employees’green outcomes so far.
In light of signaling theory (Connelly et al., 2011), we contend that management’s
commitment to the preservation of the natural resources and green practices within the
company sends signals to employees. Employees with a positive interpretation of these
signals perform their daily tasks in environmentally friendly ways, are actively involved in
the conservation of the environment and offer new ideas for improvement in ES. In view of
this, we expect the following:
H2. MCEE relates positively to green creativity.
H3. MCEE relates positively to task-related PEB.
H4. MCEE relates positively to proactive PEB.
One of the propositions in JD-R theory is that motivation positively influences job
performance (Bakker and Demerouti, 2017). Work-engaged employees are goal-oriented and
possess all the energy and enthusiasm to fulfill their tasks successfully (De Souza Meira and
Hancer, 2021;Orlowski et al., 2021). Using this line of reasoning, we posit that employees
who are green work-engaged display elevated levels of green work outcomes, such as green
creativity, task-related PEB and proactive PEB. Surprisingly, only three empirical pieces
have assessed the impact of GWEN on employees’green work outcomes or PEBs. For
example, Aboramadan (2022) reported that GWEN activated in- and extra-role green
behaviors and green innovative work behavior among employees in higher education.
Bhutto et al. (2021) demonstrated that GWEN boosted hotel employees’green creativity.
Ababneh’s (2021) research also indicated that higher levels of GWEN enhanced hotel
employees’in- and extra-role green behaviors.
Our paper uses green creativity, task-related PEB and proactive PEB as the three critical
environmental responsible behavioral consequences of GWEN among hotel employees
simultaneously. In concurrence with JD-R theory and limited evidence, we contend that
employees having energy, enthusiasm and concentration are highly green work-engaged
and therefore contribute to the company by carrying out daily tasks in environmentally
friendly ways, taking initiatives to perform their environmental and green tasks and
generating and evaluating alternatives for novel environmental problems. Hence, we posit
the following:
H5. GWEN relates positively to green creativity.
H6. GWEN relates positively to task-related PEB.
H7. GWEN relates positively to proactive PEB.
The relationships presented so far implicitly suggest that GWEN mediates the influence of
MCEE on hotel employees’green creativity, task-related PEB and proactive PEB.
Hotel
employees’
green work
outcomes
Reformulation of attitude theory is used for developing these hypothesized associations
(Bagozzi, 1992). This theory has been widely used to explain the cognitive
evaluation!emotional response!behavioral outcomes linkages in a number of empirical
pieces (Babakus et al.,2004;Kaya and Karatepe, 2020). Specifically, the theory contends that
individuals appraise different past, present and future consequences, which generate
particular emotions. These emotions, in turn, give rise to behavioral outcomes (Babakus
et al., 2004). That is, the theory denotes the cognitive appraisal (MCEE) !emotional
response (GWEN) !behavioral sequence (green creativity, task-related PEB and proactive
PEB) linkages. The presence of environmentally conscious management on the pathway to
sustainability would show that the hotel partakes in “go green initiatives”(Aboramadan
et al., 2021). These practices or initiatives explicitly highlight MCEE (Erdogan et al., 2015).
Hotel employees who perceive that the company invests in ES (cognitive appraisal) are
green work-engaged at high levels (emotional response). Such employees, in turn, contribute
to the hotel’s ES efforts by their green novel ideas (e.g. pre-cycling that enables individuals
and the company to minimize the purchase of packaged items) and feedback for
improvement (green creativity), fulfillment of daily tasks in environmentally friendly ways
(task-related PEB) and take initiatives to engage in eco-friendly behaviors beyond the formal
role requirements regarding the company’s ES (proactive PEB).
The hotel’s commitment to the ecological environment is a strong signal of its
investment in the development of employees’green knowledge and skills and
environment sustainability. In such a workplace, employees devote much energy to
their job, are excited about their job and pay much attention to their green-related tasks
(Bhutto et al., 2021). Empirical studies demonstrate that environmentally specific
leadership (servant, transformational or inclusive) practices foster employees’green
creativity and/or proactive PEB (Aboramadan et al., 2021;Bhutto et al.,2021;Mittal and
Dhar, 2016), while GWEN fosters in- and extra-role green behaviors as well as green
innovative work behaviors (Aboramadan, 2022). However, evidence regarding the
influence of MCEE on GWEN, green creativity, task-related PEB and proactive PEB
and the mediating role of GWEN in these linkages in the relevant literature is meager.
In concurrence with reformulation of attitude theory and the abovementioned evidence,
it is proposed that GWEN is a mediator of the impact of MCEE on green creativity, task-
related PEB and proactive PEB. In summary, we posit the following:
H8. GWEN mediates the impact of MCEE on green creativity.
H9. GWEN mediates the impact of MCEE on task-related PEB.
H10. GWEN mediates the impact of MCEE on proactive PEB.
Research model
Figure 1 presents the model and hypotheses.
Study 1: method
Sample and procedure
We used the judgmental sampling technique, which denotes:
[...] picking cases that are judged to be typical of the population in which we are interested,
assuming that errors of judgment in the selection will tend to counterbalance one another (Judd
et al., 1991, p. 136).
IJCHM
Accordingly, in Study 1, data came from a judgmental sample of full-time customer-contact
employees in Ankara, the capital city of Turkey to assess GWEN as a mediator of the impact
of MCEE on green creativity, task-related PEB and proactive PEB. The researchers were able
to reach 13 four- and five-star hotels through their professional network during the COVID-19
pandemic. That is, two four- and 11 five-star hotels agreed to partake in this research. There
were at least two reasons to select these employees (e.g. reception clerks, food service
workers). First, employees who interact (face-to-face or voice-to-voice) with customers deal
with a number of customer requests and are among the most important representatives of the
company in the provision of quality services (Agyeiwaah et al.,2021;Karatepe et al., 2021a).
Such employees are also expected to support the organization’sESeffortsthroughtheir
environmentally responsible behaviors (Luu, 2019). Second, management of hotels in our
sample is committed to the green-related issues and ES (Hsiao et al., 2018).
Several procedural remedies were used to curtail the risk of common method variance
(CMV) (Podsakoff et al., 2003). First, the cover page of the questionnaire contained such
information as: “Management of your hotel fully endorses participation,”“Participation is
voluntary but encouraged,”“There are no right or wrong answers in this questionnaire”and
“Any sort of information collected during our research will be kept confidential.”Second, the
cover page also included the following instruction: “Agreeing to fill out this questionnaire
shows your consent.”Third, we used different scale anchors. Using different anchors is also
observed in other pieces (Haldorai et al., 2020). Finally, each participant-returned the
questionnaire in a sealed envelope.
Data collection was completed within approximately 15 days in February 2021. In light of the
hotels’instructions, 300 questionnaires were distributed to employees by the representatives in
each hotel. In total, 200 questionnaires were obtained. However, 21 questionnaires had missing
Figure 1.
Research model on
GWEN as a mediator
in the relationship
between MCEE and
green work outcomes
Management
commitment to
the ecological
environment
Green
work engagement
H8-H10
Task-related pro-
environmental
behavior
Green
creativity
Proactive pro-
environmental
behavior
Control variables
Gender and
organizational tenure
H1 (+)
H5 (+)
H6 (+)
H7 (+)
H2 (+)
H3 (+)
H4 (+)
Hotel
employees’
green work
outcomes
information in a number of items. Consequently, 179 questionnaires were returned. The response
rate was 59.7% (179/300). Table 1 presents respondents’profile.
Instrumentation
In this paper, we used well-established scale items. The questionnaire was originally
prepared in English and then translated into Turkish based on the back-translation
technique. The questionnaire was subjected to a pilot sample of 10 customer-contact
employees concerning the readability and understandability of the items. No amendments in
wording were made as a result of the pilot study.
Management commitment to the ecological environment
Six items were used to assess MCEE, which was developed and validated by Erdogan et al.
(2015).Sampleitemsare“My hotel is committed to preserving and protecting the environment”
and “My hotel demonstrates concern for ecological matters.”Responses to the MCEE measure
ranged from “1(strongly disagree)”to “7(strongly agree).”We performed exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) using principal components with varimax rotation (Aboramadan and Karatepe,
2021). The results highlighted one-factor solution with an eigenvalue >1.0. This factor
explained 82.52% of the variance. The factor loadings were in the range of 0.880 to 0.930.
Green work engagement
Six items came from Aboramadan (2022) to measure GWEN. These items were adapted
from Schaufeli et al. (2006). Example items are “I am proud of the environmental work I do”
and “I feel happy when I am working intensely on environmental tasks.”The seven-item
Table 1.
Respondents’profile
for Study 1 (n= 179)
Characteristics Frequency (%)
Gender
Male
Female
121
58
67.6
32.4
Age
18–27
28–37
38–47
48–57
58–67
37
66
55
16
5
20.7
36.9
30.7
8.9
2.8
Education
Primary school
Secondary and high school
Two-year college degree
Four-year college degree
Graduate degree
8
45
37
79
10
4.5
25.1
20.7
44.1
5.6
Organizational tenure
Less than 1 year
1–5
6–10
11–15
16–20
Longer than 20 years
30
88
36
13
6
6
16.8
49.2
20.1
7.3
3.3
3.3
IJCHM
scale had a response range of “0(never)”to “6(always).”EFA using principal components
with varimax rotation was performed (Aboramadan and Karatepe, 2021). The findings
revealed one-factor solution with an eigenvalue >1.0. It explained 80.25% of the variance.
The factor loadings were in the range of 0.860 to 0.920.
Green creativity
A six-item scale from Chen and Chang (2013) was tapped to assess green creativity. Sample
items are “I suggest new ways to achieve environmental goals”and “I propose new green
ideas to improve environmental performance.”Responses to the green creativity items were
rated on a scale ranging from “1(strongly disagree)”to “5(strongly agree).”
Task-related pro-environmental behavior
A three-item scale was tapped to gauge task-related PEB (Bissing-Olson et al., 2013).An
example item is “I adequately complete assigned duties in environmentally friendly ways.”
Responses to these items were on “1=never”and “5=always.”
Proactive pro-environmental behavior
We used three items from Bissing-Olson et al. (2013) to assess proactive PEB. An example
item is “I take a chance to get actively involved in environmental protection at work.”The
items in proactive PEB were anchored with “1(never)”and “5(always).”
Controls and marker variable
We included gender and organizational tenure as controls to avoid statistical confounds
(Aboramadan et al.,2021;Karatepe et al., 2021a,2021b;Luu, 2019). To control the risk of
CMV, the place of birth was used as a marker variable (Kim et al., 2017), which is not
theoretically linked to any of the constructs in this study. This is congruent with the
suggestion made by Podsakoff et al. (2003) and recent research (Do and Luu, 2020). It was
coded as 0 = the capital city and1 = other areas.
Data analysis
Covariance matrix was used in AMOS 18.0. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to
gauge the validity and reliability of the measures (Bollen, 1989;Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
The partial correlation analysis was used to ascertain whether the marker variable caused
any changes concerning the correlations among the study variables (Lindell and Whitney,
2001). The hypothesized associations were tested with structural equation modeling (SEM).
To verify the significance of the mediating impacts, the bias-corrected (BC) bootstrap
technique was used (Karatepe and Kim, 2020;Preacher and Selig, 2012).
In the present paper, we tapped the following fitstatisticssuchas“Normed
x
2
, standardized
root mean square residual (SRMR), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA [90%
confidence interval (CI)]), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) and comparative fit index (CFI).”
We calculated a prior sample size for SEM. The minimum sample size for Studies 1 and 2
for detection of effect was 150 [“anticipated effect size”=0.3;“desired statistical power
level”=0.8;“number of latent variables”= 5 (MCEE, GWEN, green creativity, task-related
PEB and proactive PEB); “number of observed variables”= 26 (MCEE 6 items, GWEN 6
items, green creativity 6 items, task-related PEB 3 items, proactive PEB 3 items, gender and
organizational tenure); and “probability level”= 0.05]. The sample size (n= 179) in Study 1
was deemed adequate (Soper, 2021).
Hotel
employees’
green work
outcomes
Study 1: results
Measurement model: validity and reliability
The absolute values of skewness and kurtosis were <3.00 (Kline, 2011). In addition, the
Mardia’s coefficient of multivariate kurtosis (327.010) was <p(pþ2) (p= the number of
observed variables = 24) = 624 (Bollen, 1989;Mardia, 1985). These findings confirmed the
univariate and multivariate normal distributionof the data.
The fit indices based on the findings from CFA suggested that the five-factor
measurement model was a good fit to the data (
x
2[df]
= 483.714
[234]
, Normed
x
2
= 2.067;
SRMR = 0.055; RMSEA [90% CI] = 0.077 [0.068
low (LO)
; 0.087
high (HI)
]; TLI = 0.933; CFI =
0.943). The findings in Table 2 demonstrated that each item loaded on its respective
underlying concept. In addition, all of the standardized loadings (SLs) were >0.50 and were
significant (p<0.01). In view of Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) recommendation to assess
convergent validity, we computed the average variance extracted (AVE) by each latent
construct. The findings in Table 3 denoted that the AVE scores were >0.50, while composite
Table 2.
Measurement model
test results for
Study 1
Variables and indicators Skew Kurtosis SLs t-values
Management commitment to the ecological environment (0.784
AVE
; 0.956
CR
; 0.957
Alpha
)
MCEE1 −1.156 0.577 0.862 18.466
MCEE2 −1.218 0.724 0.876 19.192
MCEE3 −1.270 1.009 0.876 19.427
MCEE4 −1.198 0.811 0.937 −
MCEE5 −0.902 0.260 0.870 18.933
MCEE6 −1.081 0.612 0.889 20.273
Green work engagement (0.763; 0.951; 0.950)
GWEN1 −0.944 0.242 0.845 15.634
GWEN2 −1.209 0.660 0.836 15.305
GWEN3 −0.557 −0.424 0.887 −
GWEN4 −0.728 −0.223 0.914 18.461
GWEN5 −1.041 0.414 0.916 15.607
GWEN6 −0.554 −0.456 0.837 15.352
Green creativity (0.692; 0.931; 0.930)
GCRE1 −0.828 0.368 0.766 12.514
GCRE2 −0.989 1.068 0.819 13.975
GCRE3 −0.970 0.717 0.874 −
GCRE4 −0.786 0.656 0.819 13.972
GCRE5 −0.825 0.834 0.834 14.401
GCRE6 −0.691 −0.023 0.873 12.656
Task-related pro-environmental behavior (0.661; 0.852; 0.877)
TPEB1 −1.512 1.725 0.687 9.576
TPEB2 −0.892 −0.200 0.857 13.122
TPEB3 −1.216 0.084 0.881 −
Proactive pro-environmental behavior (0.789; 0.918; 0.898)
PPEB1 −0.014 0.501 0.879 13.136
PPEB2 −0.966 0.329 0.899 15.751
PPEB3 −0.110 0.590 0.886 −
Mardia’s coefficient of multivariate kurtosis = 327.010 < p(p+2)= 624
Notes: AVE = average variance extracted; CR = composite reliability; SLs = standardized loadings; CI =
confidence interval; Skew = skewness. pis the number of observed variables. All SLs were significant (p<
0.01)
IJCHM
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Gender 1.000
2. Organizational tenure 0.228** 1.000
3. MCEE 0.001 0.290** 1.000
4. GWEN 0.132 0.187* 0.455** [0.218] 1.000
5. GCRE 0.075 0.182* 0.357** [0.131] 0.624** [0.397] 1.000
6. TPEB 0.060 0.277** 0.443** [0.270] 0.361** [0.195] 0.485** [0.278] 1.000
7. PPEB 0.093 0.169* 0.417** [0.188] 0.605** [0.384] 0.561** [0.338] 0.628** [0.582] 1.000
8. POB 0.018 0.025 0.001 0.036 0.007 0.040 0.040 1.000
AVE 0.784 0.763 0.692 0.661 0.789
Mean 0.324 2.413 5.617 4.441 3.925 4.287 4.151 0.358
Standard deviation 0.469 1.155 1.377 1.384 0.793 0.819 0.870 0.481
Notes: Gender was coded as 0 = male and 1 = female. Organizational tenure was measured in six categories. Correlation between observed variables are
presented below the diagonal and the squared correlation between latent variables are presented within the parentheses [ ]. MCEE = management commitment to
the ecological environment; GWEN = green work engagement; GCRE = green creativity; TPEB = task-related pro-environmental behavior; PPEB = proactive
pro-environmental behavior; POB = place of birth; AVE = average variance extracted. *p<0.05, **p<0.01 (two-tailed test)
Table 3.
Summary statistics,
intercorrelations
(observed variables)
and discriminant
validity test results
for Study 1
Hotel
employees’
green work
outcomes
reliability values were >0.60. Coefficient
a
for each variable was >0.70. Overall, the
findings (i.e. model fit statistics, SLs, AVEs and composite reliability) verified convergent
validity as well as internal consistency reliability (e.g. coefficient
a
)(Bagozzi and Yi, 1988;
Fornell and Larcker, 1981;Hair et al., 2010).
We also gauged the discriminant validity of the measures. As shown in Table 3,we
calculated the squared correlation for each latent variable. No shared variance between
latent constructs exceeded the AVE per variable. These findings supported the discriminant
validity of the measures (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
The measure intercorrelations, as well as descriptive statistics for observed variables, were
given in Table 3. When the marker variable was controlled, the partial correlation analysis
results did not amend the significance of the correlations among the study constructs.
Accordingly, CMV did not seem to be a threat in our paper (Lindell and Whitney, 2001).
Structural model: test of hypotheses
Prior to the assessment of the hypothesized associations, we compared the partially mediated
model (the proposed model) (
x
2[df]
=527.921
[272]
, Normed
x
2
= 1.941; SRMR = 0.052; RMSEA
[90% CI] = 0.073 [0.063
LO
;0.082
HI
]; TLI = 0.931; CFI = 0.942) with the fully mediated model (the
competing model) (
x
2[df]
=546.389
[275]
, Normed
x
2
= 1.987; SRMR = 0.074; RMSEA [90% CI] =
0.074 [0.065
LO
;0.084
HI
]; TLI = 0.927; CFI = 0.939). The result was significant (D
x
2[df]
= 18.468
[3]
,
p<0.01) and revealed that the partial mediation model was superior to the full-mediation model.
After the assessment of the model fit, the individual associations between variables were
analyzed. Table 4 demonstrated the standardized path coefficients and t-values for each
hypothesized linkage. Specifically, the findings denoted that MCEE positively influenced
GWEN (
b
GWEN.MCEE
= 0.458, t= 5.936, p<0.01). This led to the confirmation of H1.
However, MCEE was not significantly related to green creativity (
b
Green creativity.MCEE
=
0.073, t= 0.997). Hence, H2 was not supported.
MCEE positively exerted a positive effect on task-related PEB (
b
Task-related PEB.MCEE
=
0.363, t= 4.099, p<0.01). Hence, H3 was confirmed. Consistent with H4, the findings lent
credence to the positive linkage between MCEE and proactive PEB (
b
Proactive PEB.MCEE
=
0.180, t= 2.447, p<0.05).
GWEN positively affected green creativity at p<0.01 (
b
Green creativity.GWEN
= 0.588,
t= 7.329). This finding lent support to H5. The relationship between GWEN and task-
related PEP was positive (
b
Task-related PEB.G WEN
= 0.242, t= 2.897, p<0.01). This path
was in the hypothesized direction, which resulted in support of H6.H7 was supported
since GWEN positively related to proactive PEP at p<0.01 (
b
Proactive PEB.GWEN
=
0.530, t= 6.764).
As shown in Table 4, the BC bootstrapped 95% CIs for the mediation effects such as
MCEE !GWEN !Green creativity (B= 0.166; Standard error (SE) = 0.034; 95% CI =
0.107
LO
; 0.241
HI
), task-related PEB (B= 0.057; SE = 0.025; 95% CI = 0.017
LO
; 0.118
HI
) and
proactive PEB (B= 0.153; SE = 0.040; 95% CI = 0.090
LO
; 0.249
HI
) were significant because
zero was not included in the BC bootstrapped 95% CIs (Preacher and Selig, 2012). Hence,
H8–H10 were supported.
Organizational tenure was positively associated with MCEE (
g
MCEE.Organizational tenure
=
0.294, t= 3.852, p<0.01) and task-related PEP (
g
Task-related PEB.Organizational tenure
= 0.155, t=
2.088, p<0.05). Employees with longer tenure received positive signals about MCEE and
exhibited task-related PEP at elevated levels. Without the control variables, no changes
concerning the significance of the direct and mediating impacts were observed. MCEE had a
R
2
value of 8.2%, HGWEN of 23.7%, green creativity of 40.5%, task-related PEP of 34.3%
and proactive PEB of 41.2%.
IJCHM
Hypothesized paths
Direct effects Path coefficients (
b
)t-values Results
H1. MCEE !GWEN (
b
GWEN.MCEE
) 0.458 5.936** Supported
H2. MCEE !GCRE (
b
GCRE.MCEE
) 0.073 0.997 ns Not supported
H3. MCEE !TPEB (
b
TPEB.MCEE
) 0.363 4.099** Supported
H4. MCEE !PPEB (
b
PPEB.MCEE
) 0.180 2.447* Supported
H5. GWEN !GCRE (
b
GCRE.GWEN
) 0.588 7.329** Supported
H6. GWEN !TPEB (
b
TPEB.GWEN
) 0.242 2.897** Supported
H7. GWEN !PPEB (
b
PPEB.GWEN
) 0.530 6.764** Supported
OT !MCEE (
g
MCEE.OT
) 0.294 3.852**
OT !TPEB (
g
TPEB.OT
) 0.155 2.088*
Indirect effects Effects (B) Bootstrap Ses BC Bootstrap 95% CI Results
H8. MCEE !GWEN !GCRE 0.166 0.034 0.107
LO
; 0.241
HI
Supported
H9. MCEE !GWEN !TPEB 0.057 0.025 0.017
LO
; 0.118
HI
Supported
H10. MCEE !GWEN !PPEB 0.153 0.040 0.090
LO
; 0.249
HI
Supported
R
2
: MCEE = 0.082; GWEN = 0.237; GCRE = 0.405; TPEB = 0.343; PPEB = 0.412
Notes: Number of bootstrap samples: 10,000. MCEE = management commitment to the ecological environment; GWEN = green work engagement; GCRE = green
creativity; TPEB = task-related pro-environmental behavior; PPEB = proactive pro-environmental behavior; OT = organizational tenure; B= unstandardized indirect
point estimate; Ses = standard errors; BC = bias-corrected; CI = confidence interval; ns = not significant. *p<0.05, **p<0.01 (two-tailed test)
Table 4.
Mediation model
estimation and
hypotheses test
results for Study 1
Hotel
employees’
green work
outcomes
Study 2: method
Sample and procedure
Data came from a judgmental sample of customer-contact employees in Seoul, the capital
city of South Korea to provide empirical support for the findings reported in Study 1. Three
four- and five five-star hotels agreed to partake in our study. We followed the same
procedural remedies in Study 1 to control the risk of CMV in Study 2.
Data collection was completed within almost 20 days in September 2021. In light of the
hotels’instructions, 270 questionnaires were distributed to employees (e.g. reception clerks,
food service workers) by the representatives in each hotel. In total, 218 questionnaires were
obtained. However, 16 questionnaires had missing information in a number of items.
Consequently, 202 questionnaires were received. The response rate was 74.8 (202/270)%.
Table 5 presents participants’profile. Respondents’organizational tenure reported in our
paper (Studies 1 and2) is comparable to the ones in other studies (Peng et al., 2020).
Instrumentation
The same measures from Study 1 were used in Study 2. The questionnaire in English was
translated into Korean by the back-translation technique. There was no difficulty or
problematic content to understand the measurement items through this procedure. In addition,
the findings of a pilot test among 15 customer-contact employees concerning the readability
and understandability of the items did not lead to any changes in measurement items.
The results showed a one-factor solution for MCEE and GWEN with an eigenvalue >1.0.
The variance explained by MCEE and GWEN was 80.79% and 78.10%, respectively. The
factor loadings were in the range of 0.851 to 0.924 (MCEE) and 0.842 to 0.900 (GWEN). The
psychometric properties in terms of internal consistency reliability were also confirmed in
Table 5.
Respondents’profile
for Study 2 (n= 202)
Characteristics Frequency (%)
Gender
Male
Female
98
104
48.5
51.5
Age
18–27
28–37
38–47
48–57
58–67
34
78
66
18
6
16.8
38.6
32.7
8.9
3.0
Education
Secondary and high school
Two-year college degree
Four-year college degree
Graduate degree
3
111
67
21
1.5
55.0
33.1
10.4
Organizational tenure
Less than 1 year
1–5
6–10
11–15
16–20
Longer than 20 years
29
102
41
14
9
7
14.4
50.5
20.2
6.9
4.5
3.5
IJCHM
Study 2 because all coefficient alphas (MCEE 0.952; GWEN 0.944; green creativity 0.913;
task-related PEB 0.840; proactive PEB 0.938) were greater than the traditionally
recommended threshold level of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2010) (Table 6).
Data analysis
We followed the same analyses in Study 1 to test the measurement model and assess the
hypothesized linkages in the structural model. The sample size (n= 202) in Study 2 was also
deemed sufficient (Soper, 2021).
Study 2: results
Measurement model: validity and reliability
As depicted in Table 6, the univariate normality of the data was satisfied because the
absolute values of skewness and kurtosis were less than 3.00 (Kline, 2011). Moreover, since
Table 6.
Measurement model
test results for Study 2
Variables and indicators Skew Kurtosis SLs t-values
Management commitment to the ecological environment (0.765
AVE
; 0.951
CR
; 0.952
Alpha
)
MCEE1 −0.967 0.491 0.874 19.569
MCEE2 −0.886 0.190 0.869 19.160
MCEE3 −0.818 0.187 0.926 −
MCEE4 −0.793 −0.106 0.880 20.045
MCEE5 −0.496 −0.357 0.846 18.051
MCEE6 −0.694 0.102 0.851 18.384
Green work engagement (0.734; 0.943; 0.944)
GWEN1 −0.676 −0.376 0.853 15.670
GWEN2 −0.985 0.107 0.804 14.161
GWEN3 −0.301 −0.787 0.848 15.285
GWEN4 −0.645 −0.486 0.882 16.664
GWEN5 −0.951 0.355 0.898 17.012
GWEN6 −0.463 0.733 0.851 −
Green creativity (0.640; 0.914; 0.913)
GCRE1 0.667 0.027 0.810 −
GCRE2 −0.518 −0.070 0.793 12.807
GCRE3 0.842 0.789 0.822 12.892
GCRE4 −0.660 0.188 0.770 12.080
GCRE5 −0.353 −0.322 0.766 11.995
GCRE6 −0.554 0.256 0.835 13.189
Task-related pro-environmental behavior (0.630; 0.834; 0.840)
TPEB1 1.069 0.506 0.676 9.048
TPEB2 −0.853 0.207 0.793 10.778
TPEB3 −0.916 0.329 0.896 −
Proactive pro-environmental behavior (0.856; 0.947; 0.938)
PPEB1 −1.264 1.403 0.929 17.897
PPEB2 −1.303 1.252 0.922 −
PPEB3 −1.173 0.893 0.925 17.760
Mardia’s coefficient of multivariate kurtosis = 148.497 < p(p+ 2) = 624
Notes: AVE = average variance extracted; CR = composite reliability; Skew = skewness; SLs =
standardized loadings; CI = confidence interval. pis the number of observed variables. All SLs were
significant at the 0.01 level
Hotel
employees’
green work
outcomes
the Mardia’scoefficient of multivariate kurtosis (148.497) was less than p(pþ2) (p= the
number of observed variables = 24) = 624, the multivariate normal distribution was also
confirmed (Bollen, 1989;Mardia, 1985).
The model fit statistics (
x
2[df]
= 369.435
[234]
, Normed
x
2
= 1.579; SRMR = 0.041; RMSEA
[90% CI] = 0.054 [0.043
LO
; 0.064
HI
]; TLI = 0.962; CFI = 0.967) was well matched to the data.
As shown in Table 6, all SLs were greater than 0.50 and were significant at p<0.01. The
AVE and composite reliability scores of all latent variables (Table 6) were calculated to be
higher than the threshold levels of 0.50 and 0.60, respectively (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988;Fornell
and Larcker, 1981). When the above analysis results were comprehensively checked,
convergent validity wassufficiently satisfied (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Table 7 shows the AVE scores of latent variables and the squared correlation coefficients
between latent variables. Representatively, the pair of task-related PEB and proactive PEB
with the highest correlation coefficient was verified. The correlation coefficient of the two
variables was 0.635, and AVE was 0.630 (task-related PEB) and 0.856 (proactive PEB),
respectively. Since the two AVE values were larger than the squared correlation coefficient
of 0.403 (0.635 0.635), discriminant validity was also verified (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Table 7 also delineates summary statistics and intercorrelations (observed variables).
Consistent with the results of Study 1, when the marker variable was controlled, the partial
correlation analysis results showed no change in the significance of the correlations between
the study variables. Therefore, CMV did not appear to be an issue in the current study
(Lindell and Whitney, 2001).
Structural model: test of hypotheses
The result surfacing from the comparison (D
x
2[df]
= 13.917
[3]
,p<0.01) of the partial
mediation model (the proposed model) (
x
2[df]
= 410.950
[272]
, Normed
x
2
= 1.511, SRMR =
0.040; RMSEA [90% CI] = 0.050 [0.040
LO
; 0.060
HI
]; TLI = 0.960; CFI = 0.967) with the full
mediation model (the competing model) (
x
2[df]
= 424.867
[275]
, Normed
x
2
= 1.545, SRMR =
0.060; RMSEA [90% CI] = 0.052 [0.042
LO
; 0.062
HI
]; TLI = 0.958; CFI = 0.964) showed that the
partial mediation model was better than the full mediation model.
The hypotheses test results of the partial mediation model were presented in Table 8. Six
of the seven hypotheses about the direct impacts were supported. H1 was verified because
MCEE had a positive effect on GWEN (
b
GWEN.MCEE
= 0.311, t= 4.263, p<0.01). However,
contrary to our expectations, H2 was not supported because MCEE did not significantly
affect green creativity (
b
Green creativity.MCEE
= 0.041, t= 0.623). As hypothesized, the analysis
suggested that MCEE showed a positive association with task-related PEB (
b
Task-related PEB.
MCEE
= 0.251, t= 3.264) and proactive PEB (
b
Proactive PEB.MCEE
= 0.198, t= 2.920) at p<
0.01, thus confirming H3 and H4, respectively. The path coefficients from GWEN to green
creativity (
b
Green creativity.GWEN
= 0.602, t= 7.612), task-related PEB (
b
Task-related PEB.GWEN
=
0.351, t= 4.327) and proactive PEB (
b
Proactive PEB.GWEN
= 0.444, t= 6.175) were significant at
p<0.01, thus supporting H5,H6, and H7 respectively.
All hypotheses about the three mediating roles of GWEN analyzed by applying the BC
bootstrapping technique were supported. The indirect impacts of MCEE on green creativity
(B= 0.120; SE = 0.037; 95% CI = 0.056
LO
; 0.202
HI
), task-related PEB (B= 0.057; SE = 0.021;
95% CI = 0.024
LO
; 0.114
HI
) and proactive PEB (B= 0.093; SE = 0.033; 95% CI = 0.040
LO
;
0.176
HI
) through GWEN were significant because the BC bootstrapped 95% CIs did not
contain zero (Preacher and Selig, 2012). Hence, H8–H10 were also supported.
No control variables were significantly associated with the study variables. Like the
results of Study 1, without the control variables, no changes concerning the significance of
the direct and mediating impacts were observed. The results explained 1.5%, 12.1%, 40.1%,
IJCHM
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Gender 1.000
2. Organizational tenure 0.084 1.000
3. MCEE 0.005 0.120 1.000
4. GWEN 0.056 0.148* 0.305** [0.106] 1.000
5. GCRE 0.057 0.179* 0.223** [0.061] 0.578** [0.386] 1.000
6. TPEB 0.051 0.196** 0.315** [0.143] 0.377** [0.197] 0.414** [0.216] 1.000
7. PPEB 0.087 0.126 0.323** [0.119] 0.479** [0.255] 0.460** [0.243] 0.559** [0.403] 1.000
8. POB 0.121 0.087 0.015 0.042 0.006 0.006 0.069 1.000
AVE 0.765 0.734 0.640 0.630 0.856
Mean 0.515 2.470 5.540 4.708 3.909 4.328 4.370 0.634
Standard deviation 0.501 1.168 1.144 1.092 0.722 0.681 0.738 0.483
Notes: Gender was coded as 0 = male and 1 = female. Organizational tenure was measured in six categories. Correlation between observed variables are
presented below the diagonal and the squared correlation between latent variables are presented within the parentheses [ ]. MCEE = management commitment to
the ecological environment; GWEN = green work engagement; GCRE = green creativity; TPEB = task-related pro-environmental behavior; PPEB = proactive
pro-environmental behavior; POB = place of birth; AVE = average variance extracted. *p<0.05, **p<0.01 (two-tailed test)
Table 7.
Summary statistics,
intercorrelations
(observed variables)
and discriminant
validity test results
for Study 2
Hotel
employees’
green work
outcomes
Hypothesized paths
Direct effects Path coefficients (
b
)t-values Results
H1. MCEE !GWEN (
b
GWEN.MCEE
) 0.311 4.263** Supported
H2. MCEE !GCRE (
b
GCRE.MCEE
) 0.041 0.623
ns
Not supported
H3. MCEE !TPEB (
b
TPEB.MCEE
) 0.251 3.264** Supported
H4. MCEE !PPEB (
b
PPEB.MCEE
) 0.198 2.920** Supported
H5. GWEN !GCRE (
b
GCRE.GWEN
) 0.602 7.612** Supported
H6. GWEN !TPEB (
b
TPEB.GWEN
) 0.351 4.327** Supported
H7. GWEN !PPEB (
b
PPEB.GWEN
) 0.444 6.175** Supported
Indirect effects Effects (B) Bootstrap Ses BC Bootstrap 95% CI Results
H8. MCEE !GWEN !GCRE 0.120 0.037 0.056
LO
; 0.202
HI
Supported
H9. MCEE !GWEN !TPEB 0.057 0.021 0.024
LO
; 0.114
HI
Supported
H10. MCEE !GWEN !PPEB 0.093 0.033 0.040
LO
; 0.176
HI
Supported
R
2
: MCEE = 0.015; GWEN = 0.121; GCRE = 0.401; TPEB = 0.275; PPEB = 0.304
Notes: Number of bootstrap samples: 10,000. MCEE = management commitment to the ecological environment; GWEN = green work engagement; GCRE =
green creativity; TPEB = task-related pro-environmental behavior; PPEB = proactive pro-environmental behavior; OT = organizational tenure; B=
unstandardized indirect point estimate; SEs = standard errors; BC = bias-corrected; CI = confidence interval; ns = not significant. **p<0.01 (two-tailed test)
Table 8.
Mediation model
estimation and
hypotheses test
results for Study 2
IJCHM
27.5% and 30.4% of the variance in MCEE, GWEN, green creativity, task-related PEB and
proactive PEB, respectively.
Additional analyses
An independent sample t-test was performed to check whether there were differences
between hotel categories by country for the five variables included in the research model. In
two of the samples, there was no significant difference between hotel categories in the
MCEE, task-related PEB and proactive PEB variables, but there was a significant difference
in the GWEN and green creativity variables (p<0.01). The findings indicated that
employees in the four-star hotels were more green work-engaged and were more involved in
green creativity than theones in the five-star hotels.
To conclude that a specific variable controls the relationship between the two variables,
the direction of the moderating effect must be consistent with the hypothesis and the free
model must be shown to be excellent in the
x
2
comparison between the free model and the
constraint model (Bagozzi and Yi, 1989). As depicted in Table 9, it was analyzed whether
there were differences between Turkey and South Korea in all (direct) hypothesized
relationships. The direction of all hypotheses was consistent between the two countries.
However, in the case of the free model, the
x
2
value was smaller than the constraint model
by 2.285, 0.093, 0.835, 0.097, 0.286, 1.189 and 0.101, respectively, but the degree of freedom
decreased by 1.0. In the case of the free model, the constraint model was better than the free
model because the
x
2
value was not decreased enough to make up for the decrease in degree
of freedom. Therefore, no difference was found between the two countries in all (direct)
hypothesized relationships.
Discussion
Conclusions
Our paper develops and empirically examines a model of the interrelationships of MCEE,
GWEN, green creativity, task-related PEB and proactive PEB, underpinned by social
exchange, signaling, JD-R and reformulation of attitude theories (Bagozzi, 1992;Bakker and
Demerouti, 2017;Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005;Connelly et al., 2011). These relationships
were assessed with data obtained from hotel employees in Turkey and South Korea. The
findings were supportive of theoverwhelming majority of hypotheses in Studies 1 and 2 and
delineated evidence about the viability of the model.
Lack of management’s intentions is a major reason behind failure of the company’sES
and green efforts. Employees in such a workplace are unlikely to exhibit GWEN. Our
findings support this conclusion. Specifically, the findings suggest that MCEE exerts a
strong positive impact on GWEN. This is consistent with social exchange theory
(Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005) that employees respond via elevated levels of GWEN when
there are quality and trusting relationships between the company and employees as a result
of MCEE. It is evident that employees are highly green work-engaged when they find that
management of the hotel has a spirit for ES and is interested in developing or develops
employees’green knowledge and skills.
MCEE also boosts employees’task-related and proactive PEBs. As propounded by
signaling theory (Connelly et al., 2011), employees interpret various signals associated with
the company’s investment in the ecological environment. That is, employees interpret the
presence of the company’s ES and green efforts (e.g. green training) as positive signals
surfacing from MCEE. Such employees exhibit higher task-related and proactive PEBs as a
consequence of MCEE. On the contrary, the findings do not support the linkage between
MCEE and green creativity. It seems that green creativity is the distal outcome for MCEE,
Hotel
employees’
green work
outcomes
Country
Turkey (n= 179) Korea (n= 202) Baseline model
(Freely estimated)
Nested model
(Constrained to be equal)Paths Path coefficient t-values Path coefficient t-values
H1. MCEE !GWEN 0.458 5.936** 0.311 4.263**
x
2[df]
= 938.927
[544]
x
2[df]
= 941.212
[545] a
H2. MCEE !GCRE 0.073 0.997
ns
0.041 0.623
ns
x
2[df]
= 938.927
[544]
x
2[df]
= 939.020
[545] b
H3. MCEE !TPEB 0.363 4.099** 0.251 3.264**
x
2[df]
= 938.927
[544]
x
2[df]
= 939.762
[545] c
H4. MCEE !PPEB 0.180 2.447* 0.198 2.920**
x
2[df]
= 938.927
[544]
x
2[df]
= 939.024
[545] d
H5. GWEN !GCRE 0.558 7.329** 0.602 7.612**
x
2[df]
= 938.927
[544]
x
2[df]
= 939.213
[545] e
H6. GWEN !TPEB 0.242 2.897** 0.351 4.327**
x
2[df]
= 938.927
[544]
x
2[df]
= 940.116
[545] f
H7. GWEN !PPEB 0.530 6.764** 0.444 6.175**
x
2[df]
= 938.927
[544]
x
2[df]
= 939.028
[545] g
Baseline model fit
x
2[df]
= 938.927
[544]
, Normed
x
2
= 1.726; SRMR = 0.052; RMSEA [90% CI] = 0.044 [0.039
LO
; 0.048
HI
]; TLI = 0.945; CFI = 0.954
x
2
different test (Equivalence test)
a. D
x
2[df]
= 2.285
[1]
ns
b. D
x
2[df]
= 0.093
[1]
ns
c. D
x
2[df]
= 0.835
[1]
ns
d. D
x
2[df]
= 0.097
[1]
ns
e. D
x
2[df]
= 0.286
[1]
ns
f. D
x
2[df]
= 1.189
[1]
ns
g. D
x
2[df]
= 0.101
[1]
ns
Notes: MCEE = management commitment to the ecological environment; GWEN = green work engagement; GCRE = green creativity; TPEB = task-related pro-
environmental behavior; PPEB = proactive pro-environmental behavior; ns = not significant. *p<0.05, **p<0.01 (two-tailed test)
Table 9.
Difference test
results of path
coefficients between
countries:
equivalence test for
the structural model
IJCHM
which is mediated by GWEN. Employees try to find out whether management is really
committed to the protection of natural resources and the environment. If the company is
really committed to the ecological environment, then they display higher GWEN, which
results in green creativity at elevated levels.
Congruent with JD-R theory (Bakker and Demerouti, 2017) and recent studies
(Aboramadan, 2022;Bhutto et al., 2021), GWEN, as a motivational variable, fosters
employees’green creativity, task-related PEB and proactive PEB. This also corroborates the
findings of other studies that job performance is one of the immediate outcomes of work
engagement (Kaya and Karatepe, 2020). Green work-engaged employees have goal-
orientation and focus closely on their tasks. These employees possess the energy, dedication
and concentration to display green creativity and PEBs.
Our findings are concordant with reformulation of attitude theory (Bagozzi, 1992) that
GWEN (emotional response) mediates the impact of MCEE (cognitively appraisal) on hotel
employees’green creativity, task-related PEB and proactive PEB (behavioral responses).
That is, employees’appraisal of MCEE precedes emotional reactions such as GWEN, which,
in turn, govern their green work outcomes. While GWEN is a complete mediator between
MCEE and green creativity, it partly mediates the impact of MCEE on task-related and
proactive PEBs.
Theoretical implications
The findings of our study contribute to the relevant literature by testing the
interrelationships of MCEE, GWEN, green creativity, task-related PEB and proactive PEB.
First, MCEE is a critical predictor of employee behaviors (Erdogan et al., 2015). However,
there is a scarcity of empirical research about how MCEE influences employees’green work
outcomes. This is important because management cannot accomplish its environmental
goals without the active involvement of employees (Paillé, 2020). Our research also responds
to Loureiro et al.’s (2022) call for research concerning employee engagement in eco-friendly
behaviors or PEBs. Hence, our paper fills in the gap by gauging the association between
MCEE and the abovementioned green work outcomes.
Second, employees who work with intensity on environmental tasks, feel positive about
green-related tasks and devote much attention and contribute to the company’s ES efforts
are highly green work engaged (Aboramadan, 2022). Employees’GWEN is one of the critical
tools for the achievement of ES. However, the antecedents and consequences of GWEN have
been largely unexplored in the extant literature. Our paper adds to the general literature of
GWEN by gauging the effect of MCEE on GWEN and the influence of GWEN on critical
green work consequences.
Third, our paper advances knowledge about the mediating mechanism that links MCEE
to employees’green creativity, task-related PEB and proactive PEB. That is, our paper
demonstrated the effect of GWEN in the intermediate association between MCEE and the
aforementioned green work outcomes.
Fourth, the findings implicitly highlight the significance of MCCE in motivating
employees to display green behaviors. MCEE is one of the major reasons behind employees’
PEBs. Such employees would be role models among newcomers and influence public
attitudes and quality of life.
Finally, unlike most of the empirical pieces in the hospitality and tourism literature, we
assessed the aforesaid relationships through data obtained from hotel employees in Turkey
(Study 1) and South Korea (Study 2). The results provided strong support for the viability of
the model we proposed. In closing, the findings presented in our paper were consistent with
the tenets of social exchange, signaling, JD-R and reformulation of attitude theories.
Hotel
employees’
green work
outcomes
Management implications
Our research findings can advance hoteliers’understanding of MCEE and its relationship to
critical green work outcomes. First, hotels should send powerful signals to workers that
management is committed to the preservation and protection of the environment. Inclusion
of ES in the organizational vision and mission, statements and the company’sofficial Web
page, as well as social media, would be among the most important signals of MCEE. For
example, the Accor Group is noted for its Planet 21 program and shares it with its
stakeholders through Web page and social media (Accor, 2021). This explicitly shows the
international chain hotel’s commitment to the ecological environment.
With green training, empowerment, teamwork and rewards as the positive signals,
management can increase employees’environmental awareness, develop their green
knowledge and skills and expect them to contribute to the ES and greening efforts.
Specifically, the company’s ES efforts at the organizational and departmental levels should
be shared with employees in training programs. Such training programs should be one of
the means to empower employees with their green tasks. Employees who attend green
training sessions and learn how to practice empowerment with their green tasks engage in
PEBs (Ari et al., 2020). Management should reward employees who display PEBs and
support the company’s ES efforts.
Second, employees working in a company where management is committed to
controlling the depletion of natural resources, diminishing water and energy consumption,
reducing environmental pollution and achieving sustainable development display GWEN at
high levels. Such employees, in turn, exhibit elevated levels of green creativity, task-related
PEB and proactive PEB. With this realization, management can take advantage of green
training, empowerment and rewards. Specifically, management should motivate employees
to initiate novel green ideas and offer new solutions to green-related problems. Management
should motivate these employees to perform their daily green tasks in environmentally
friendly ways and take initiatives to go beyond the role requirements of their green job (e.g.
conserving materials, using recycled papers and turning off the electronic appliances or
equipment if the room or area is unoccupied).
Third, it is important to implement rigorous selection procedures to hire the right
individuals who can contribute to the organization’s ES efforts. During the selection process,
the adapted version of the GWEN scale can be used to ascertain the candidates’
environmental awareness and consciousness, as well as their knowledge about the
company’s ES efforts. Management can give priority to the employment of candidates
whose environmental and green values are congruent with those of the organization.
Fourth, hotels can arrange competition to select the greenest creative employee (green
creativity) and the most environmentally friendly employee (PEB). To do this, managers and
supervisors should monitor employees closely and assess them in light of their novel green
ideas and frequency of their environmentally friendly behaviors displayed in the
organization. Management can announce the winners in social media and the company’s
Web page. The winners can be given a chance to design the greenest rooms with their
signatures in the hotel.
In closing, hospitality and tourism companies are among the major energy and water
consumers (Wang et al., 2018). Consistent with the sustainable development goals of the
United Nations, hotels should not hesitate to invest in green practices in their business
processes. Hotels should pay particular attention to the sustainable production and
consumption patterns. Such practices would highlight the company’s commitment to the
ecological environment. Employees with favorable perceptions about these practices would
IJCHM
be green work-engaged at high levels and therefore display higher green creativity and
PEBs.
Limitations and future research
The findings in our paper are supportive of the hypothesized associations. As is the
case with any other paper, there are several limitations that could be addressed in
future research. Perhaps, most notable is that we used self-report data, which raises
issues about CMV (Podsakoff et al., 2003). However, we used both procedural and
statistical remedies to control CMV. From a statistical viewpoint, the findings
associated with the use of a marker variable suggested that CMV was not an issue in
Studies 1 and 2 (Lindell and Whitney, 2001). Nevertheless, gathering data from
supervisors or managers to assess employees’green work outcomes would be useful. In
addition, the design we used was cross-sectional. Such design precludes us making any
conclusion of causality among the constructs. With this recognition, future research can
replicate our study using a longitudinal design.
In this paper, we sought to demystify GWEN as a mediator of the impact of MCEE
on green creativity, task-related PEB and proactive PEB. In future studies, using
GWEN, green or environmental commitment and green knowledge sharing as the
mediators could enable us to ascertain the differential pathways linking MCEE to the
abovementioned critical green work outcomes. The sample of our study consisted of
customer-contact employees due to their critical role in service delivery process. In
future studies, employees working in front- and back-of-the-house can be included in
the sample and the green-related factors affecting their green behaviors can be
explored. On a closing note, replication studies in different settings such as airlines
and casinos in different countries would increase the understanding about the
interrelationships of MCEE, GWEN, green creativity, task-related PEB and proactive
PEB.
References
Ababneh, O.M.A. (2021), “How do green HRM practices affect employees’green behaviors? The role of
employee engagement and personality attributes”,Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, Vol. 64 No. 7, pp. 1204-1226.
Aboramadan, M. (2022), “The effect of green HRM on employee green behaviors in higher education: the
mediating mechanism of green work engagement”,International Journal of Organizational Analysis,
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 7-23.
Aboramadan, M. and Karatepe, O.M. (2021), “Green human resource management, perceived
green organizational support and their effects on hotel employees’behavioral
consequences”,International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,Vol.33
No. 10, pp. 3199-3222.
Aboramadan, M., Kundi, Y.M. and Farao, C. (2021), “Examining the effects of environmentally-specific
servant leadership on green work outcomes among hotel employees: the mediating role of
climate for green creativity”,Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 30 No. 8,
pp. 929-956.
Accor (2021), “Acting here planet 21”, available at: https://group.accor.com/en/commitment/positive-
hospitality/acting-here (accessed 30 November 2021).
Agyeiwaah, E., Dayour, F. and Zhou, J.Y. (2021), “How does employee commitment impact customers’
attitudinal loyalty?”,Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, (in press).
Hotel
employees’
green work
outcomes
Ari, E., Karatepe, O.M., Rezapouraghdam, H. and Avci, T. (2020), “A conceptual model for green human
resource management: indicators, differential pathways, and multiple pro-environmental
outcomes”,Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 17, p. 7089.
Asghar, M., Tayyab, M., Gull, N., Zhijie, S., Shi, R. and Tao, X. (2021), “Polychronicity, work engagement, and
turnover intention: the moderating role of perceived organizational support in the hotel industry”,
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 49, pp. 129-139, December.
Babakus, E., Bienstock, C.C. and Van Scotter, J.R. (2004), “Linking perceived quality and customer
satisfaction to store traffic and revenues growth”,Decision Sciences, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 713-737.
Bagozzi, R.P. (1992), “The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior”,Social Psychology
Quarterly, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp.178-204.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”,Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1989), “The degree of intention formation as a moderator of the attitude-
behavior relationship”,Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 266-279.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2017), “Job demands-resources theory: taking stock and looking
forward”,Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 273-285.
Bhutto,T.A.,Farooq,R.,Talwar,S.,Awan,U.andDhir,A.(2021),“Green inclusive leadership and
green creativity in the tourism and hospitality sector: serial mediation of green
psychological climate and work engagement”,Journal of Sustainable Tourism,Vol.29
No. 10, pp. 1716-1737.
Bissing-Olson, M.J., Iyer, A., Fielding, K.S. and Zacher, H. (2013), “Relationships between daily affect
and pro-environmental behavior at work: the moderating role of pro-environmental attitude”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 156-175.
Bollen, K.A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Cabral, C. and Jabbour, C.J.C. (2020), “Understanding the human side of green hospitalitymanagement”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 88, p. 102389, July.
Chan, E.S.W. and Hsu, C.H.C. (2016), “Environmental management research in hospitality”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 886-923.
Chaudhary, R. (2019), “Green human resource management and job pursuit intention: examining the
underlying processes”,Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 26
No. 4, pp. 929-937.
Chen, Y.-S. and Chang, C.-H. (2013), “The determinants of green product development performance:
green dynamic capabilities, green transformational leadership, and green creativity”,Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 116No. 1, pp. 107-119, August.
Cho, M. and Yoo, J.J.-E. (2021), “Customer pressure and restaurant employee green creative
behavior: serial mediation effects of restaurant ethical standards and employee green
passion”,International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,Vol.33No.12,
pp. 4505-4525.
Connelly, B.L., Certo, S.T., Ireland, R.D. and Reutzel, C.R. (2011), “Signaling theory: a review and
assessment”,Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 39-67.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”,Journal
of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900.
De Souza Meira, J.V. and Hancer, M. (2021), “Using the social exchange theory to explore the employee-
organization relationship in the hospitality industry”,International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 670-692.
Do, T.T.P. and Luu, D.T. (2020), “Origins and consequences of intrapreneurship with behavior-based
approach among employees in the hospitality industry”,International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 12, pp. 3949-3969.
IJCHM
Erdogan, B., Bauer, T.N. and Taylor, S. (2015), “Management commitment to the ecological
environment and employees: implications for employee attitudes and citizenship behaviors”,
Human Relations, Vol. 68No. 11, pp. 1669-1691.
Farooq, R., Zhang, Z., Talwar, S. and Dhir, A. (2021), “Do green human resource management and self-
efficacy facilitate green creativity? A study of luxury hotels and resorts”,Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, (in press).
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gurlek, M. and Tuna, M. (2018), “Reinforcing competitive advantage through green organizational
culture and green innovation”,The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 38 Nos 7/8, pp.467-491.
Hair, J.F. Jr., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global
Perspective, 7th ed., Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Haldorai, K., Kim, W.G. and Garcia, R.L.F. (2022), “Top management green commitment and green
intellectual capital as enablers of hotel environmental performance: the mediating role of green
human resource management”,Tourism Management, Vol. 88, p. 104431.
Haldorai, K., Kim, W.G., Phetvaroon, K. and Li, J. (2020), “Left out of the office ‘tribe’:theinfluence of
workplace ostracism on employee work engagement”,International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 2717-2735.
Hameed, Z., Naeem, R.M., Hassan, M., Naeem, M., Nazim, M. and Maqbool, A. (2021), “How GHRM is
related to green creativity? A moderated mediation model of green transformational leadership
and green perceived organizational support”,International Journal of Manpower, (in press).
Han, H., Moon, H. and Hyun, S.S. (2020), “Uncovering the determinants of pro-environmental
consumption for green hotels and green restaurants: a mixed-method approach”,International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 1581-1603.
Hsiao, T.-Y., Chuang, C.-M. and Huang, L. (2018), “The contents, determinants, and strategic procedure
for implementing suitable green activities in star hotels”,International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 69, pp. 1-13, January.
Judd, C.M., Smith, E.R. and Kidder, L.H. (1991), Research Methods in Social Relations, 6th ed., Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Fort Worth, TX.
Kalyar, M.N., Ali, F. and Shafique, I. (2021), “Green mindfulness and green creativity nexus in
hospitality industry: examining the effects of green process management and CSR”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 33 No. 8, pp. 2653-2675.
Karatepe, O.M. and Kim, T.T. (2020), “Investigating the selected consequences of boreout among cabin
crew”,Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 82, p. 101739, January.
Karatepe, O.M., Rezapouraghdam, H. and Hassannia, R. (2021a), “Does employee engagement mediate
the influence of psychological contract breach on pro-environmental behaviors and intent to
remain with the organization in the hotel industry”,Journal of Hospitality Marketing and
Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 326-353.
Karatepe, O.M., Rezapouraghdam, H. and Hassannia, R. (2021b), “Sense of calling, emotional
exhaustion and their effects on hotel employees’green and non-green work outcomes”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 33 No. 10,pp. 3705-3728.
Kaya, B. and Karatepe, O.M. (2020), “Does servant leadership better explain work engagement, career
satisfaction and adaptive performance than authentic leadership?”,International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 2075-2295.
Kim, A., Kim, Y., Han, K., Jackson, S.E. and Ployhart, R.E. (2017), “Multilevel influences on voluntary
workplace green behavior: individual differences, leader behavior, and coworker advocacy”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 1335-1358.
Kline, R.B. (2011), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed., The Guilford Press,
New York, NY.
Hotel
employees’
green work
outcomes
Lindell, M.K. and Whitney, D.J. (2001), “Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional
designs”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No.1, pp. 114-121.
Loureiro, S.M.C., Guerreiro, J. and Han, H. (2022), “Past, present, and future of pro-environmental
behavior in tourism and hospitality: a text-mining approach”,Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 258-278.
Luu, T.T. (2019), “Building employees’organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: the role
of environmentally-specific servant leadership and a moderated mediation mechanism”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 406-426.
Luu, T.T. (2021), “Green creative behavior in the tourism industry: the role green entrepreneurial
orientation and a dual-mediation mechanism”,Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 29 No. 8,
pp. 1290-1318.
Mardia, K.V. (1985), Mardia’s Test of Multinormality, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Mittal, S. and Dhar, R.L. (2016), “Effect of green transformational leadership on green creativity: a
study of tourist hotels”,Tourism Management, Vol. 57, pp. 118-127, December.
Nisar, Q.A., Haider, S., Ali, F., Jamshed, S., Ryu, K. and Gill, S.S. (2021), “Green human resource
management practices and environmental performance in Malaysian green hotels: the role of
green intellectual capital and pro-environmental behavior”,Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 311, p. 127504, August.
Ogretmenoglu, M., Akova, O. and Goktepe, S. (2021), “The mediating effects of green organizational
citizenship on the relationship between green transformational leadership and green creativity:
evidence from hotels”,Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, (in press).
Onder, M. and Nyadera, I.N. (2019), “The role of non-economic drivers in development planning: the
case of South Korea and Turkey”,International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 43 No. 4,
pp. 283-293.
Orlowski, M., Bufquin, D. and Nalley, M.E. (2021), “The influence of social perceptions on restaurant
employee work engagement and extra-role customer service behavior: a moderated mediation
model”,Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 261-275.
Paillé, P. (2020), Greening the Workplace: Theories, Methods, and Research, Palgrave MacMillan, Cham.
Park, J., Kim, H.J. and McCleary, K.W. (2014), “The impact of top management’s environmental
attitudes on hotel companies’environmental management”,Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 95-115.
Peng, X., Lee, S. and Lu, Z. (2020), “Employees’perceived job performance, organizational
identification, and pro-environmental behaviors in the hotel industry”,International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 90, p. 102632.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Preacher, K.J. and Selig, J.P. (2012), “Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for indirect
effects”,Communication Methods and Measures, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 77-98.
Rezapouraghdam, H., Alipour, H. and Darvishmotevali, M. (2018), “Employee workplace spirituality
and pro-environmental behavior in the hotel industry”,Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 26
No. 5, pp. 740-758.
Rich, B.L., LePine, J.A. and Crawford, E.R. (2010), “Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job
performance”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 617-635.
Saks, A.M. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement”,Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 600-619.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Salanova, M. (2006), “The measurement of work engagement with a
short questionnaire: a cross-national study”,Educational and Psychological Measurement,
Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 701-716.
IJCHM
Shah, S.H.A., Cheema, S., Al-Ghazali, B.M., Ali, M. and Rafiq, N. (2020), “Perceived corporate social
responsibility and pro-environmental behaviors: the role of organizational identification and
coworker pro-environmental advocacy”,Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 366-377.
Sharma, T., Chen, J. and Liu, W.Y. (2020), “Eco-innovation in hospitality research (1998-2018): a
systematic review”,International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 32
No. 2, pp. 913-933.
Soper, D.S. (2021), “A-priori sample size calculator for structural equation models”, available at: www.
danielsoper.com/statcalc/calculator.aspx?id=89 (accessed 30 November 2021).
Spence, M. (1973), “Job market signaling”,The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 87 No. 3,
pp. 355-374.
Tuan, L.T. (2020), “Environmentally-specific servant leadership and green creativity among tourism
employees: dual mediation paths”,Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 86-109.
Tuan, L.T. (2021), “Disentangling green service innovative behavior among hospitality employees: the
role of customer green involvement”,International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 99,
p. 103045.
Ugwu, F.O., Onyishi, E.I., Anozie, O.O. and Ugwu, L.E. (2021), “Customer incivility and employee work
engagement in the hospitality industry: roles of supervisor positive gossip and workplace
friendship prevalence”,Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, (in press).
Wang, C.H. and Chen, H.-T. (2020), “Relationships among workplace incivility, work engagement and
job performance”,Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 415-429.
Wang, J., Wang, S., Xue, H. and Li, Y.W.J. (2018), “Green image and consumers’word-of-mouth
intention in the green hotel industry: the moderating effect of millennial”,Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol.181, pp. 426-436.
Zhang, J. and Huang, R. (2019), “Employees’pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs) at international hotel
chains (IHCs) in China: the mediating role of environmental concerns”,Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Management, Vol. 39, pp. 129-136.
Zhang, H., Zhang, X. and Bai, B. (2021), “Tourism employee pro-environmental behavior: an integrated
multi-level model”,Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 47, pp. 443-452, June.
Zientara, P. and Zamojska, A. (2018), “Green organizational climates and employee pro-environmental
behavior in the hotel industry”,Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 1142-1159.
Corresponding author
Osman M. Karatepe can be contacted at: osman.karatepe@emu.edu.tr
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Hotel
employees’
green work
outcomes
