Next Article in Journal
Can the Digital Economy Promote the Upgrading of Urban Environmental Quality?
Next Article in Special Issue
Analysis of the Impact of Environmental Perception on the Health Status of Middle-Aged and Older Adults: A Study Based on CFPS 2020 Data
Previous Article in Journal
Acceptability of School Menus: A Systematic Review of Assessment Methods
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Study on Farmers’ Participation in Environmental Protection in the Context of Rural Revitalization: The Moderating Role of Policy Environment
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 20
Issue 3
10.3390/ijerph20032244
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Green Management and Sustainable Performance of Small- and Medium-Sized Hospitality Businesses: Moderating the Role of an Employee’s Pro-Environmental Behaviour

by
Ibrahim A. Elshaer
1,2,*,
Alaa M. S. Azazz
3,4,* and
Sameh Fayyad
2
1
Department of Management, College of Business Administration, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsaa 380, Saudi Arabia
2
Hotel Studies Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Suez Canal University, Ismailia 41522, Egypt
3
Department of Tourism and Hospitality, Arts College, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsaa 380, Saudi Arabia
4
Tourism Studies Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Suez Canal University, Ismailia 41522, Egypt
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(3), 2244; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032244
Submission received: 13 December 2022 / Revised: 20 January 2023 / Accepted: 24 January 2023 / Published: 27 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Environmental Management and Pro-Environmental Behaviors)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
As green management practices (GMPs) matter not only for improving the organizations’ tribble line performance (environmental, economic, and social) but also can sustain a competitive advantage. Since the tourism and hospitality industry is subject to environmental expectations from visitors, governments, and the community, it is vital to understand what motivates GMPs to overcome environmental obstacles and satisfy those demands. However, the current literature fails to comprehensively justify how small- and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) tackle green management difficulties when implementing their plans, even though these SMEs could be a leading contributor to environmental concerns. Although many scholars assert that employees’ pro-environmental behaviours are decisive in boosting efforts of green management to improve corporate sustainable performance, only limited studies probed the importance of employees’ pro-environmental behaviours in SMEs in developing countries. To fill this research gap, the data was gathered from 304 small- and medium-sized hotels and travel agency middle managers using a self-administered survey approach. The collected data was analysed using the Smart PLS-structural equation modelling technique. The PLS-SEM results demonstrated that GMPs can improve environmental, economic, and social performance and these relationships can be strengthened through the moderating effects of employees’ pro-environmental behaviour. The study findings revealed that small- and medium-sized hospitality businesses should focus on creating a culture of environmental stewardship and actively involve employees in green initiatives to enhance sustainable performance. The study is important as it helps to understand the role of employee pro-environmental behaviour in green management and sustainable performance in small- and medium-sized hospitality businesses and can help the industry to adopt more sustainable practices. Several theoretical and practical implications were discussed and opportunities for further research were elaborated.

1. Introduction

With the advent of the real environmental movement in the mid-1960s, which developed relatively rapidly over the next decades because of the continued use and waste of non-renewable resources, and the dramatic increase in the consumption rates, waste, and environmental pollution. Society began to blame corporations for many of the world’s environmental woes, and they were held accountable for finding solutions; firms had little option but to try to integrate green management practices into their operational processes [1,2]. Over time, green management became a famous slogan internationally in the 2000s, and managerial leaders discovered that business and environmental objectives should be the same [3]. While adopting eco-friendly conscious strategies enables organizations to hold their social responsibility and do what is morally right toward the environment [4,5,6], it also helps businesses at the same time to stay competitive in their markets, improve their financial outcomes, firm value, product innovation, and sustain them over time [7,8].
According to institutional theory and stakeholder theory, [9] businesses often engage in green practices and innovation to avoid economical costs and political pressure [10,11], and to satisfy various stakeholders’ expectations by complying with social and moral norms [12], as well as to overcome competitors’ mimetic pressure [13]. As a result, firms accepted the notion that effective green management has the power to meet the three sustainability principles, namely economic success, environmental integrity, and social equality [14,15]. Generally, green management practices attempt to improve a firm’s sustainable performance by converting inputs (natural materials and auxiliaries) into products or outputs (goods and services) by emphasizing the balance and synergy of economic, social, and environmental advantages [16].
Furthermore, workers’ realization of the significance and gravity of environmental concerns can satisfactorily respond to such problems by engaging in pro-environmental activities that reduce resource waste and save operating expenses [17]. Therefore, previous research found the importance of employees’ pro-environmental behaviours in boosting efforts of green management to improve corporate sustainable performance [18].
In developing economies, small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) contribute up to 40% of the gross domestic product. These figures rise even higher when informal SMEs are included. At the same time, these SMEs around the world add 60–70% of the global pollution [19]. Although there is a critical influence of green management practices on sustainable corporate performance, namely “environmental performance, financial performance, and social performance,” few studies have explored this relationship, especially in small- and medium-sized hospitality businesses (e.g., hotels and travel agents) in the context of emerging markets, especially in developing countries [16]. Furthermore, many scholars have advocated for empirical research to explore employees’ pro-environmental behaviours at the workplace to investigate their role in going green strategies [20]. However, limited studies probed the importance of employees’ pro-environmental behaviours in developing countries, where issues and challenges linked to the environment are specifically salient to SMEs in emerging markets [17]. As a result, there is a recognised need in the hotel and travel agent sectors for further research that investigates the outcomes that green management may achieve at the triple bottom line (TBL): economic, environmental, and social performance, given that SMEs may face additional constraints due to a lack of knowledge and resources to invest in strategies of green management [21].
Seles et al. [22] argued that institutional theory is the most suitable fit to illustrate corporate sustainable performance within the social and environmental dimensions. Stakeholder theory is also one of the practical approaches in social, environmental, and sustainability management examination, providing a starting point for investigations in a massive number of publications on corporate sustainability and sustainability management [23]. In the same vein, Hart [24] proposed “a natural resource-based vision of the firm”, which advised enterprises to use three interconnected strategies to gain a competitive advantage: pollution avoidance, product stewardship, and sustainable performance. Accordingly, the originality of this study, according to the institutional theory, the stakeholder theory, and the natural-resource-based view, is to examine the relationships between green management practices and corporate sustainable performance, namely environmental, economic, and social performance in SMEs in the context of emerging markets in developing countries and the moderating effects of employees’ pro-environmental behaviour. In short, the current research tries to give answers to the following questions: what are the influences of GMPs on small- and medium-sized hotel and travel agencies’ sustainable performance? Furthermore, is there a connection between GMPs at small- and medium-sized hotels and travel agencies and sustainable performance (environmental, economic, and social) moderated by the employees’ pro-environmental behaviour? Thus, in the realm of green management research, this study strengthens the empirical evidence from developing countries. Green management practices are essential for achieving sustainable performance for the hotel and travel agents. By implementing policies and practices that support and encourage pro-environmental behaviour among employees, organizations can improve their environmental performance, reputation, and financial performance.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Evolution

2.1. Theoretical Background of the Study

In the context of the social sciences, Deegan et al. [25] indicated that it is always preferable to get profound insights through more than one theory to gain a more comprehensive grasp of the practice. Therefore, our study tries to construct an integrated theoretical framework for explaining green management practices (GMPs) by small- and medium-sized hotels and travel agencies by integrating two mainstream theories, i.e., institutional theory and stakeholder theory, which have been employed in the green management literature by considering theoretical predictive motivations of GMPs. According to Fernando and Lawrence [26], the two theories are connected and complementary rather than competing. Most significantly, they may be included and related to GMPs in order to justify the motivations for such practices from a multi-theoretical standpoint. Based on stakeholder theory, sustainability management requires enterprises to provide “an important contribution toward sustainable development of the economy, society, and the ecological environment [27]. Here, in response to stakeholder concerns, corporations include non-financial indicators in green CEO compensation, holding them accountable for their eco-friendly behaviour and, consequently, their influence on sustainable performance [28]. This is because, if a CEO operates in a stewardship capacity, protecting the corporation and the ecosystem, a corporation’s green practices and innovations will be improved [29]. Similarly, according to institutional theory, institutional pressure affects businesses to incorporate environmental and social matters into their corporate strategies, products, and services, leading to improvements in the sustainability performance [30]. Consequently, we can argue that, according to the institutional theory and stakeholder theory, managers of the small- and medium-sized hotel and travel agencies seek to respond to the pressures and motivations of stakeholders and the institutional pressures and motivations by adopting GMPs to improve sustainable performance (environmental, economic, and social), and at the same time, these pressures and motivations may help to develop employee’s pro-environmental behaviour which may support the relationship between GMPs and sustainable performance.

2.2. Green Management and Sustainable Performance

Green management is a type of environmentally conscious business management that concentrates on the voluntary prevention or continuing decrease of pollution, waste, and emissions [31]. Through the experimental examination of the literature handling historical, practical, and theoretical views, Pane Haden et al. [1] defined green management as “ the organization-wide process of applying innovation to achieve sustainability, waste reduction, social responsibility, and a competitive advantage via continuous learning and development and by embracing environmental goals and strategies that are fully integrated with the goals and strategies of the organization”. Accordingly, companies’ green management must go beyond legal issues and involve conceptual practices and tools such as green production, green marketing, green design, and incorporating green considerations into the organizations’ long-term goals [15,32,33]. Figure 1 shows Hart’s [32] strategy framework that describes how businesses could use the practices of green management to increase profitability by boosting corporate green sustainability.
Employing the natural resource-based view, businesses became confined by and dependent on ecosystems. In other words, strategy and competitive advantage will likely be based on qualities that enable ecologically friendly economic activity [32,33,34]. Therefore, corporate sustainable performance became the primary aim of the business and academic studies. According to the triple bottom line (TBL) approach, corporate sustainable performance is measured across three essential indicators: social, environmental, and economic [35,36]. Economic performance is evaluated in terms of operation and finance indicators. It is operationally related to organizations’ capacity to reduce input prices, energy consumption, and waste treatment and disposal [37]. Financially, it is measured by market share, profitability, and return on investment (ROI) [38]. Environmental performance is related to businesses’ capacity to conserve energy, reduce waste, and reduce the use of hazardous inputs [39,40]. While social performance evaluates the degree to which an organization contributes to society beyond economic interests, such that the industry generates a profit and its actions do not harm society [41].
However, some investigations have proven no link between green management and financial performance [42,43]. Handoko [44] found that green management positively influences financial performance, market performance, and society’s welfare. Specifically, green management positively influences financial and operational performance through reduction in production costs, minimized environmental damage, efficient energy consumption, minimized waste, adoption of recycling, raw material and water consumption saving, and potential open opportunities for green markets that have yet to be primarily recognized. Furthermore, enhancing the company’s image and green technology, improving the strategy the for firms’ competitiveness, and increasing social and health benefits [16,45,46] ultimately positively affects the economic performance of the firm. Consequently, we can hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1 (H1):
Green management is positively associated with economic performance.
Adopting green management strategies can help a firm improve its environmental performance (EP) [47], by decreasing solid and water waste, carbon emissions, the usage of contaminated and harmful inputs, the commonness of environmental mishaps, and the general ecological effect of a firm’s operation [48]. Based on this discussion, the following are hypothesized:
Hypothesis 2 (H2):
Green management are positively associated with environmental performance.
Regarding social performance, adopting green management practices improves employees’ conditions as the local residents, allowing individuals to enjoy a healthier life [49]. Similarly, it is recognized that the most significant organizational benefits of tackling green management practices are increased social responsibility awareness among employees, as well as talent recruitment and retention [46]. There is also evidence that corporations that engaged in social responsibilities saw significant rewards in terms of customer and employee satisfaction, great personnel recruiting, and innovation, all of which are likely to strengthen a firm’s social performance [49,50]. These arguments direct to the following hypothesis, as illustrated in Figure 2:
Hypothesis 3 (H3):
Green management is positively associated with social performance.

2.3. Employee’s Pro-Environmental Behaviour as a Moderator in the Relationship of Green Management and Sustainable Performance

Many businesses are content to meet only the minimal environmental legal obligations by adopting a reactive environmental strategy [51]. Because green management commonly does not create short-term profits and often takes a longer time, with increased spending of resources, to contribute to a business’s profitability [52]. In contrast, companies that voluntarily and discretionarily adopt green management practices tend to move beyond their legal obligations to participate in more effective environmental protection, i.e., adopting a proactive environmental strategy [53]. Therefore, green management requires employees to be inspired, empowered, and pro-environmental for greening to succeed [15]. Accordingly, an organization’s effectiveness in developing and enforcing multiple firm-level green programmes relies on its employees’ pro-environmental behaviours [54]. Employees’ pro-environmental behaviour is “discretionary/voluntary/non-voluntary acts that lead to [the] sustainability of organizational environment(s) which are not directly part of formal environmental management policies or systems” [55]. Employees whose pro-environmental behaviours can conserve resources by shutting off unneeded electrical equipment, utilising stairs instead of elevators, utilising double-sided papers for printing, and getting rid of unnecessary waste to save the natural environment [17,56]. Pro-environmental behaviours will not only contribute to the greening of firms but will also positively influence climate change and stop further environmental and ecological degradation [54]. Additionally, it directly contributes to the organisation’s financial and non-financial success [57]. Accordingly, this study suggests the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4 (H4):
Pro-environmental behaviour moderates the influence of green management on environmental performance.
Hypothesis 5 (H5):
Pro-environmental behaviour moderates the influence of green management on economic performance.
Hypothesis 6 (H6):
Pro-environmental behaviour moderates the influence of green management on social performance.

3. Methods

3.1. Data Collection Process and Sampling Selection

This study explores the connections between green management practices and sustainable performance with the moderating role of employees’ pro-environmental behaviour. The study was directed and conducted on employees at the managerial level at SMEs (e.g., hotels and travel agents). Hotels and travel agents were selected as the targeted sample, as these two industries are closely related and have a significant impact on the environment. By including both industries in the sample, the study aims to examine the relationship between green management and sustainable performance in these two industries and how employee pro-environmental behaviour may moderate this relationship. A drop-and-collect method was adopted depending on the research team personnel connections and relationships. The research team are engaged in the hospitality sector, as they are academics in the tourism and hotel management faculty and have wide connections with human resource managers in the field. The survey was delivered to HRM in hotel and travel agents to redistribute it to employees in the middle-managerial levels to complete the survey. Employees in the middle managerial level were selected as they are considered the linking chain between normal employees and the top management and have the ability to provide the required data. The employed scales were adopted from English literature. Consequently, we translated the scales into Arabic so that the targeted employees could entirely understand. We employed a convenience sampling technique due to its time- and money-saving merits in contacting respondents [8]. A total of 304 (170 from hotels and 134 from travel agents) valid replies were obtained after dropping the questionnaires in October and November 2022. The sample size of 304 responses in the current study is appropriate for analysis using PLS-SEM, as it meets Nunnally’s [58] recommendation of at least 10 responses per scale item (the study has 26 scale items, for a minimum recommended sample size of 260) and conforms with the criteria of Hair et al. [59] for at least 100–150 responses to generate adequate estimations.
Because respondents’ privacy is a substantial issue, we begin the questionnaire introduction with a statement to explain the study’s primary purpose and the strict confidentiality that would be preserved with any data collected. The researchers used the independent sample t-test to compare the mean scores for early and late responses and found no significant differences (p > 0.05), indicating that non-response bias is not a concern in this study [60]. Furthermore, the researchers used Harman’s single factor procedure and SPSS v21 to test for the presence of common method variance (CMV) by analysing all study variables through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) without rotating the factors. As a result, they found that one dimension was able to explain 33% of the variance, indicating that CMV is not an issue in this study. The previous results were confirmed by checking the VIF values, where no value was found to exceed 5, which further confirms that CMV is not an issue in our study.

3.2. The Study Measurements

All the measures employed were obtained from previous measures that showed adequate psychometric properties and were interrelated to our study theme. All factors, with their reflective variables and references, are shown in Table 1.

3.3. Data Analysis Techniques

“Structural Equation Modelling” (SEM) and “Partial least squares” (PLS) were employed so that the justified relationships with moderating effects of employees’ pro-environmental behaviour could be explored and evaluated. PLS-SEM allows the retention of a larger number of reflective items per factor than other statistical techniques. We followed Leguina’s [61] two-step approach in analysing the collected data. In this approach, the measurement model should first be evaluated for reliability and validity, and then the structural model can be assessed for hypotheses testing and confirmation. To evaluate the measurement model, we adopted the suggested criteria introduced by Hair et al. [62], which contain several threshold metrics such as the “standardized factor loading” (>0.7), the “composite reliability, CR” (>0.7), the “average variance extracted, AVE” (>0.5), the “normed fit index” (higher than 0.90), the “Standardized root mean square Residual, SRMR” (<0.08), the R2 (>0.1), and the Stone–Geisser Q2 (>0.0).

4. The Study Results

4.1. Descriptive Results

According to the results, 75% of the survey participants at the middle management level were male and 25% were female. In terms of age, 5% were over 20 years old, 15% were between 26 and 35, 35% were between 36 and 45, and 45% were 46 or older. Education levels showed that 20% had a secondary school certificate, 65% had an undergraduate degree, and 15% had a postgraduate degree. Additionally, 60% of the respondents worked in 5-star hotels, while 40% worked in the travel agent industry. Experience levels revealed that 15% had one year of experience, 30% had 2 to 4 years, 30% had 5 to 7 years, and 25% had 8 years or more.

4.2. The Outer Model Assessment (Measurement Model)

As proposed by Hair et al. [63], we have assessed for factor loadings, construct validity, reliability, internal consistency, averaged variance extracted (AVE) (Table 1), and dimensions discriminant validity with factor cross loadings (Table 2), Heterotrait–Monotrait Criterion (Table 3), and Fornell–Larcker Criterion (Table 4). As all the recommended minimum and/or maximum levels were adequate [63,64], the suggested outer measurement model is appropriate, and the scale shows good convergent validity [65].
Concerning the evaluation of dimensions discriminant validity, both the Fornell–Larcker and Heterotrait–Monotrait values complied with the recommended thresholds [66]. Therefore, the scale exhibited adequate discriminant validity.
Table
Table 1. Psychometric Properties.
Table 1. Psychometric Properties.
Fac. Loadingsa ValueC.RAVE
Recommended threshold>0.7>0.7>0.7>0.5
Economic performance (Econ_P) [67,68,69,70,71]0.8050.8500.628
Improved market share0.874
Improved company image (i.e., company is seen as a green company)0.806
Improvement in company’s position in the marketplace0.752
Increase in profitability0.729
Environmental performance (Envir_P) [72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81]0.9130.9270.659
Reduction of CO2 emissions0.875
Reduction of wastewater0.863
Reduction of solid wastes0.732
Reduction of energy consumption0.896
Decrease in production of toxic / harmful / hazardous / flammable substances0.784
Decrease in material usage0.760
Improved compliance with environmental standards0.875
Green management (Green_M) [82,83,84,85]0.9460.9470.786
The management of my organization is highly committed to following environment-friendly policies. 0.891
We regularly review and redesign our strategies to ensure their compliance with environmental criteria. 0.895
Our organization is open to adopting new or improving existing management systems with respect to policies and practices. 0.893
The management ensures the availability of infrastructure to improve the operational processes.0.911
Our management ensures that our production and service activities are environment-friendly. 0.895
The management of our organization takes initiatives to raise awareness about the environmental issues and impacts of business operations.0.833
Pro-Environmental Behaviour (Pro_Envir) [86,87,88]0.9400.9460.770
Performance appraisal records environmental performance
concerns and policy 		0.883
Performance appraisal includes environmental incidents and responsibilities0.876
Employee gets reward for environmental management 0.875
Employees are involved in becoming environmentally friendly 0.886
Uses teamwork for resolving environmental issues 0.887
Employees discuss environmental issues in team meetings0.858
Social performance (Soci_P) [53,81,89,90,91,92]0.8360.8400.752
Improved relationship with the community and stakeholders0.852
Improved work safety0.889
Improved living quality of the surrounding community0.860
Table
Table 2. Fac. Cross-loadings.
Table 2. Fac. Cross-loadings.
12345
1-Economical performance
Econ_P_10.8740.6380.2690.2980.513
Econ_P_20.8060.4560.2100.1750.308
Econ_P_30.7520.3890.1520.1450.304
Econ_P_40.7290.3760.2130.1840.376
2-Environmental performance
Envir_P_10.5670.7550.3970.3120.566
Envir_P_20.5290.8750.3580.3470.641
Envir_P_30.4880.8630.3500.3170.620
Envir_P_40.4900.7320.2110.2460.495
Envir_P_50.4960.8960.3800.3580.658
Envir_P_60.4540.7840.2500.2570.498
Envir_P_70.4130.7600.2490.2570.480
3-Green management
Green_M_10.2220.3420.8910.4820.406
Green_M_20.2260.3490.8950.4760.409
Green_M_30.2600.3530.8930.5020.406
Green_M_40.2790.3880.9110.5410.452
Green_M_50.2380.3000.8950.5420.386
Green_M_60.2350.3800.8330.6120.427
4-Pro-Environmental Behaviour
Pro_Envir_10.2400.3380.5030.8830.399
Pro_Envir_20.2550.3880.4700.8760.360
Pro_Envir_30.1960.2650.4870.8750.331
Pro_Envir_40.2660.3700.5610.8860.399
Pro_Envir_50.2480.3580.5240.8870.399
Pro_Envir_60.1780.2180.5960.8580.358
5-Social performance
Soci_P_10.3660.4930.4690.3780.852
Soci_P_20.4580.6540.3680.3680.889
Soci_P_30.4640.7080.3710.3660.860
Bold items: “for discriminant validity, the outer factor loading of the reflective items have should have higher value than the cross-loading related scale measures”.
Table
Table 3. HTMT Matrix.
Table 3. HTMT Matrix.
Factors 12345
1-Economical performance
2-Environmental performance0.681
3-Green management0.3030.414
4-Pro-Environmental Behaviour0.2850.3900.631
5-Social performance0.5800.8060.5200.479
HTMT: Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio.
For proper discriminant validity, all HTMT should be less than the value of 0.90.
Table
Table 4. Fornell–Larcker criterion matrix.
Table 4. Fornell–Larcker criterion matrix.
Factors12345
1-Economical performance0.792
2-Environmental performance0.6080.812
3-Green management0.2750.3990.887
4-Pro-Environmental Behaviour0.2670.3750.5940.878
5-Social performance0.4920.7060.4690.4290.867
Bold values: “for a proper discriminant validity, AVE values (bold) have to show values that are higher than the inter-variable correlation coefficient”.
Following the suggestions of Sarstedt et al. [59], assessment of the outer model’s collinearity was needed in the next phase of the analysis process. Considering this, we calculated the VIF values for each reflective item, which should be less than 10 [62]; the findings demonstrated that all variables have VIF values less than 10. Hence, the data did not deteriorate from the multicollinearity problem. A bootstrap analysis technique was then conducted to examine the proposed hypotheses and their related t-values and significant p-values.

4.3. The Evaluation of the Inner Structural Model (Hypotheses Testing)

PLS-SEM was used to check the inner model for hypotheses testing once the outer model had been tested and confirmed to be accurate. The GoF of the inner model was evaluated by employing several criteria adopted from those suggested by [62,65,93]. Table 5 demonstrates that the model fulfilled all the conditions needed to approve its fit and prediction capability. The SRMR, R2, Q2, and NFI values exceeded the thresholds, permitting us further to assess the proposed hypotheses of the current study.
Smart PLS4 has been conducted to run a bootstrapping method, which calculates the regression weights (β), t-statistics, and significance P level of the direct relationships and moderating impacts. As depicted in Table 5, we evaluated a total of nine hypotheses, three direct hypotheses, and three moderating effects.
The findings, as pictured in Figure 3 and depicted in Table 5, demonstrated that green management had a significant (p < 0.001) and positive influence on economic performance (β = 0.261, t = 3.566, and p = 0.000), environmental performance (β = 0.355, t = 4.456, and p = 0.000), and social performance (β = 0.419, t = 6.997, and p = 0.000); consequently, H1, H2, and H3 can be supported.
For the moderating evaluation, as pictured in Figure 4, the simple slope analysis approved the moderating effects of employees’ pro-environmental behaviour on the tested relationship. In more details, the Smart-PLS findings demonstrated that employees’ pro-environmental behaviour significantly improved the significant impact of green management on economic performance (β = 0.171, t = 2.600, and p = 0.010), which means that the result can support H4. Similarly, employees’ pro-environmental behaviour significantly improved the significant impact of green management on environmental performance (β = 0.171, t = 2.472, and p = 0.016) and social performance (β = 0.181, t = 2.649, and p = 0.008), permitting us to support H5 and H6.

5. Discussion and Implication

Although SMEs, including those in the hospitality industry, are critical to the contemporary economy—they represent over 80 per cent of all global enterprises [15,94]. However, their potential contribution to environmental problems is extensive. According to some estimates, they may be accountable for as much as 60 to 70% of carbon dioxide emissions and commercial waste [95,96]. Global competition, on the other hand, forces SMEs to enhance their organisational structures to apply environmentally friendly practise norms and standards [97]. This is contrary to some scholars who argue that the benefits of applying green management practices are relevant to larger companies only, not to SMEs [98,99]. Our study’s empirical results indicated that green management positively affects ECP, ENP, and SOP in small and medium hotels and travel agents. The results of the study show that the application of green management practices to SMEs produced a good impact not only to the environmental performance but also on economic and social performance, i.e., environment protection, cost savings, and improvement of employees’ and the local community’s conditions; all three have been proven to contribute to enhance the competitiveness of hotel and travel agent SMEs through product uniqueness, market expansion opportunities, and promoted image. According to these findings, small- and medium-sized hospitality businesses have switched from reactively addressing environmental issues to a proactive method to take advantage of the benefits of greening. In this context, Lee [100] indicated that SMEs are moving from a command-and-control technique to a market and competition approach in executing green management. SMEs, such as hotels and travel agents, can have advantages over large enterprises regarding guaranteeing effective green management: lines of communication are often shorter in smaller businesses, organisational structures are less complicated, employees continually fulfil numerous roles, and access to top management is more accessible. These features might be significant advantages for SMEs in terms of good green management [15].
Regarding assessing the moderating effect, studies of green management concerning SMEs are very scarce in the literature on business and management. Therefore, the main aim of the current research was to test the moderating role of employees’ pro-environmental behaviour in the relationship between green management practices and sustainable performance, i.e., environmental, economic, and social performance, in trying to understand how small- and medium-sized hospitality businesses adopt green management. The empirical results validated the positive moderation effects of the employees’ pro-environmental behaviour variable on the relationship between green management practices and environmental, economic, and social performance. In other words, according to the simple slope analysis for the moderating effects in Figure 4, employees’ pro-environmental behaviour strengthened the connection between green management and environmental, economic, and social performance. Accordingly, adopting green management practices will enhance the firm’s sustainable performance through employees’ pro-environmental behaviour at the workplace [101], while its absence would worsen environmental effects and weaken green management outcomes (e.g., environmental, economic, and social performance) [102]. Many scholars have also asserted that employees’ pro-environmental behaviours are critical for supporting environmental protection, boosting a corporation’s sustainable performance, and promoting the emphasis on eco-friendly activities like recycling, green initiatives, green engagement, and eco-supportive activities [103,104,105,106]. Accordingly, we can confirm that employees’ pro-environmental behaviour may help businesses overcome some obstacles to green management practices, such as a lack of resources and knowledge, high implementation costs, and a lack of long-term environmental goals.

6. Conclusions

On the basis of merging the relevant literature and theory, this article conducted an in-depth investigation of the association between green management practices and SMEs’ sustainable performance with testing the moderator role of the employees’ pro-environmental behaviour in this relationship and putting forward the corresponding study hypotheses. A total of 304 (170 from hotels and 134 from travel agents) valid datapoints were collected by means of questionnaires. Convergent and discriminant validity and the research hypotheses were evaluated using SEM with the Smart PLS program V.4. The findings approved that the scale has good validity. Furthermore, the findings showed that green management positively affects environmental, economic, and social performance (i.e., sustainable performance). The results also validated the positive moderation effects of the employees’ pro-environmental behaviour variable on the relationship between green management and the three sustainable performance components.
According to Freeman [107], in the framework of stakeholder theory, managers must understand the requirements and concerns of stakeholder groups in order to secure the necessary support for the corporation’s future survival. Similarly, institutional theory is established on the assumption that corporation options are not merely rational economic decisions but are also profoundly affected by external norms, values, and conventions [108]. Thus, businesses strive to adopt initiatives and practices to gain legitimacy or acceptance within the community to guarantee access to essential and scarce resources [109]. According to this theoretical lens, our research contributes to numerous paths in terms of theoretical and practical implications; the current study used the institutional theory, stakeholder theory and the natural-resource-based view to prove that green management practices enhance the triple bottom line (TBL): economic, environmental, and social performance with using the employees’ pro-environmental behaviour variable as a moderator between them in small- and medium-sized hospitality businesses (i.e., hotels and travel agents) in the context of emerging markets, especially in developing countries. Thus, the study responds to demands to explore the green management practices of SMEs in many countries, with the goal of shedding light on the similarities and variations [97,110], in addition to calls for empirical studies to investigate employees’ pro-environmental behaviours at the workplace to investigate their role in green strategy success [20]. As a result, the findings revealed in our study add to green management and behaviour theory and practice, as well as the SME literature. Finally, the study recommends supporting the employees’ pro-environmental behaviour to stimulate them to cope with environmental issues through task coping styles [111] to raise their expectations regarding sustainable performance [112]. Thus, this would overcome the obstacles of greening in small- and medium-sized hospitality businesses.
Similar to prior research on this area, the present study contains a number of limitations, and it is proposed that other research routes be pursued. First, the study tested the impact of green management practices on SMEs’ sustainable performance, while the employees’ pro-environmental behaviour role was examined as moderator; however, other variables can be explored and evaluated as moderators, such as employees’ experience, satisfaction, and/or loyalty, while different factors can be tested. Second, using cross-sectional data makes it impossible to determine the exact causal relationships between latent variables. In the future, researchers may use either numerous or longitudinal data sources to validate the structural model presented in this paper in a different context. Finally, the study only focused on small- and medium-sized hospitality businesses (hotels and travel agents), and the findings may not be generalizable to larger organizations or other industries.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.A.E. and S.F.; methodology, I.A.E., S.F. and A.M.S.A.; software, I.A.E. and S.F.; validation, I.A.E., A.M.S.A. and S.F.; formal analysis, I.A.E. and A.M.S.A.; investigation, I.A.E., S.F. and A.M.S.A.; resources, I.A.E.; data curation, I.A.E.; writing—original draft preparation, S.F., I.A.E. and A.M.S.A.; writing—review and editing, I.A.E., S.F. and A.M.S.A.; visualization, I.A.E.; supervision, I.A.E.; project administration, I.A.E., S.F. and A.M.S.A.; funding acquisition, I.A.E. and A.M.S.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors extend their appreciation to the deputyship of Research & Innovation, Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia for funding this research work through the project number INST056.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the deanship of the Scientific Research Ethical Committee, King Faisal University (project number: INST056, date of approval: 25 April 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data is available upon request from researchers who meet the eligibility criteria. Kindly contact the first author privately through e-mail.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Pane Haden, S.S.; Oyler, J.D.; Humphreys, J.H. Historical, Practical, and Theoretical Perspectives on Green Management. Manag. Decis. 2009, 47, 1041–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Roh, T.; Lee, K.; Yang, J.Y. How Do Intellectual Property Rights and Government Support Drive a Firm’s Green Innovation? The Mediating Role of Open Innovation. J. Clean Prod. 2021, 317, 128422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Banerjee, S.B. Managerial Perceptions of Corporate Environmentalism: Interpretations from Industry and Strategic Implications for Organizations. J. Manag. Stud. 2001, 38, 489–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Nattrass, B.; Altomare, M. The Natural Step for Business: Wealth, Ecology and the Evolutionary Corporation; New Society Publishers: Gabriola Island, BC, Canada, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  5. Porter, M.E.; Van Der Linde, C. Green and Competitive: Ending the Stalemate. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1995, 73, 120–134. [Google Scholar]
  6. Wu, L.; Liu, H. How Bricolage Influences Green Management in High-polluting Manufacturing Firms: The Role of Stakeholder Engagement. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 3616–3634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Li, Z.; Liao, G.; Albitar, K. Does Corporate Environmental Responsibility Engagement Affect Firm Value? The Mediating Role of Corporate Innovation. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 1045–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Liao, Z. Is Environmental Innovation Conducive to Corporate Financing? The Moderating Role of Advertising Expenditures. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 954–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Li, X.; Yang, J.; Liu, H.; Zhuang, X. Entrepreneurial Orientation and Green Management in an Emerging Economy: The Moderating Effects of Social Legitimacy and Ownership Type. J. Clean Prod. 2021, 316, 128293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Menguc, B.; Auh, S.; Ozanne, L. The Interactive Effect of Internal and External Factors on a Proactive Environmental Strategy and Its Influence on a Firm’s Performance. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 94, 279–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Almaqtari, F.A.; Elsheikh, T.; Tawfik, O.I.; Youssef, M.A.E.-A. Exploring the Impact of Sustainability, Board Characteristics, and Firm-Specifics on Firm Value: A Comparative Study of the United Kingdom and Turkey. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N.; Bansal, P.; Aragón-Correa, J.A. Older and Wiser: How CEOs’ Time Perspective Influences Long-Term Investments in Environmentally Responsible Technologies. Br. J. Manag. 2019, 30, 134–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Suk, S.; Liu, X.; Sudo, K. A Survey Study of Energy Saving Activities of Industrial Companies in the Republic of Korea. J. Clean Prod. 2013, 41, 301–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Berry, M.A.; Rondinelli, D.A. Proactive Corporate Environmental Management: A New Industrial Revolution. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 1998, 12, 38–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Lee, K. Why and How to Adopt Green Management into Business Organizations? Manag. Decis. 2009, 47, 1101–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Raharjo, K. The Role of Green Management in Creating Sustainability Performance on the Small and Medium Enterprises. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2019, 30, 557–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Farrukh, M.; Ansari, N.; Raza, A.; Wu, Y.; Wang, H. Fostering Employee’s pro-Environmental Behavior through Green Transformational Leadership, Green Human Resource Management and Environmental Knowledge. Technol. Forecast Soc. Chang. 2022, 179, 121643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Li, Z.; Xue, J.; Li, R.; Chen, H.; Wang, T. Environmentally Specific Transformational Leadership and Employee’s Pro-Environmental Behavior: The Mediating Roles of Environmental Passion and Autonomous Motivation. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yu, H.; Shabbir, M.S.; Ahmad, N.; Ariza-Montes, A.; Vega-Muñoz, A.; Han, H.; Scholz, M.; Sial, M.S. A Contemporary Issue of Micro-Foundation of CSR, Employee Pro-Environmental Behavior, and Environmental Performance toward Energy Saving, Carbon Emission Reduction, and Recycling. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Shah, S.H.A.; Cheema, S.; Al-Ghazali, B.M.; Ali, M.; Rafiq, N. Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility and Pro-environmental Behaviors: The Role of Organizational Identification and Coworker Pro-environmental Advocacy. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2021, 28, 366–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hitchens, D.; Clausen, J.; Trainor, M.; Keil, M.; Thankappan, S. Competitiveness, Environmental Performance and Management of SMEs. Greener Manag. Int. 2003, 2003, 44–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Seles, B.M.R.P.; de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Dangelico, R.M. The Green Bullwhip Effect, the Diffusion of Green Supply Chain Practices, and Institutional Pressures: Evidence from the Automotive Sector. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016, 182, 342–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sobaih, A.E.E.; Elshaer, I.; Hasanein, A.M.; Abdelaziz, A.S. Responses to COVID-19: The role of performance in the relationship between small hospitality enterprises’ resilience and sustainable tourism development. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 94, 102824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Hart, S.L. A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 986–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Deegan, C.; Rankin, M.; Voght, P. Firms’ Disclosure Reactions to Major Social Incidents: Australian Evidence. Account. Forum 2000, 24, 101–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Fernando, S.; Lawrence, S. A Theoretical Framework for Csr Practices: Integrating Legitimacy Theory, Stakeholder Theory and Institutional Theory. J. Theor. Account. Res. 2014, 10, 149–178. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hörisch, J.; Freeman, R.E.; Schaltegger, S. Applying Stakeholder Theory in Sustainability Management. Organ Environ. 2014, 27, 328–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Al-Shaer, H.; Zaman, M. CEO Compensation and Sustainability Reporting Assurance: Evidence from the UK. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 158, 233–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Shui, X.; Zhang, M.; Smart, P.; Ye, F. Sustainable Corporate Governance for Environmental Innovation: A Configurational Analysis on Board Capital, CEO Power and Ownership Structure. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 149, 786–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Weber, O. The Sustainability Performance of Chinese Banks: Institutional Impact. SSRN Electron. J. 2016, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Raut, R.D.; Luthra, S.; Narkhede, B.E.; Mangla, S.K.; Gardas, B.B.; Priyadarshinee, P. Examining the Performance Oriented Indicators for Implementing Green Management Practices in the Indian Agro Sector. J. Clean Prod. 2019, 215, 926–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hart, S.L. Innovation, Creative Destruction and Sustainability. Res. Technol. Manag. 2005, 48, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Peng, Y.-S.; Lin, S.-S. Local Responsiveness Pressure, Subsidiary Resources, Green Management Adoption and Subsidiary’s Performance: Evidence from Taiwanese Manufactures. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 79, 199–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yang, J.Y.; Roh, T. Open for Green Innovation: From the Perspective of Green Process and Green Consumer Innovation. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Al-Hakimi, M.A.; Al-Swidi, A.K.; Gelaidan, H.M.; Mohammed, A. The Influence of Green Manufacturing Practices on the Corporate Sustainable Performance of SMEs under the Effect of Green Organizational Culture: A Moderated Mediation Analysis. J. Clean Prod. 2022, 376, 134346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hourneaux, F., Jr.; da Silva Gabriel, M.L.; Gallardo-Vázquez, D.A. Triple Bottom Line and Sustainable Performance Measurement in Industrial Companies. Rev. Gestão 2018, 25, 413–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Afum, E.; Agyabeng-Mensah, Y.; Sun, Z.; Frimpong, B.; Kusi, L.Y.; Acquah, I.S.K. Exploring the Link between Green Manufacturing, Operational Competitiveness, Firm Reputation and Sustainable Performance Dimensions: A Mediated Approach. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2020, 31, 1417–1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yang, F.; Yang, M.; Xue, B.; Luo, Q. The Effects of China’s Western Development Strategy Implementation on Local Ecological Economic Performance. J. Clean Prod. 2018, 202, 925–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Han, Z.; Huo, B. The Impact of Green Supply Chain Integration on Sustainable Performance. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2020, 120, 657–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Roh, T.; Noh, J.; Oh, Y.; Park, K.-S. Structural Relationships of a Firm’s Green Strategies for Environmental Performance: The Roles of Green Supply Chain Management and Green Marketing Innovation. J. Clean Prod. 2022, 356, 131877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Huo, B.; Gu, M.; Wang, Z. Green or Lean? A Supply Chain Approach to Sustainable Performance. J. Clean Prod. 2019, 216, 152–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cordeiro, J.J.; Sarkis, J. Environmental Proactivism and Firm Performance: Evidence from Security Analyst Earnings Forecasts. Bus. Strategy Environ. 1997, 6, 104–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Link, S.; Naveh, E. Standardization and Discretion: Does the Environmental Standard ISO 14001 Lead to Performance Benefits? IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2006, 53, 508–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Handoko, S. Model Pengembangan Green Business Melalui Corporate Social Responsibility Pada Perusahaan Go Public Di Bursa Efek Indonesia. J. Ilm. Aset. 2012, 14, 75–82. [Google Scholar]
  45. Shrivastava, P. Environmental Technologies and Competitive Advantage. Strateg. Manag. J. 1995, 16, 183–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mehta, K.; Chugan, P.K. Green HRM in Pursuit of Environmentally Sustainable Business. Univers. J. Ind. Bus. Manag. 2015, 3, 74–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Jabbour, C.J.C.; Santos, F.C.A. The Central Role of Human Resource Management in the Search for Sustainable Organizations. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2008, 19, 2133–2154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Shashi; Centobelli, P.; Cerchione, R.; Singh, R. The Impact of Leanness and Innovativeness on Environmental and Financial Performance: Insights from Indian SMEs. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019, 212, 111–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zaid, A.A.; Jaaron, A.A.M.; Talib Bon, A. The Impact of Green Human Resource Management and Green Supply Chain Management Practices on Sustainable Performance: An Empirical Study. J. Clean Prod. 2018, 204, 965–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wagner, M. ‘Green’ Human Resource Benefits: Do They Matter as Determinants of Environmental Management System Implementation? J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 114, 443–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Tashman, P.; Flankova, S.; van Essen, M.; Marano, V. Why Do Firms Participate in Voluntary Environmental Programs? A Meta-Analysis of the Role of Institutions, Resources, and Program Stringency. Organ Environ. 2022, 35, 3–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Slawinski, N.; Pinkse, J.; Busch, T.; Banerjee, S.B. The Role of Short-Termism and Uncertainty Avoidance in Organizational Inaction on Climate Change. Bus. Soc. 2017, 56, 253–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ramanathan, R. Understanding Complexity: The Curvilinear Relationship Between Environmental Performance and Firm Performance. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 149, 383–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Robertson, J.L.; Barling, J. Greening Organizations through Leaders’ Influence on Employees’ pro-Environmental Behaviors. J. Organ Behav. 2013, 34, 176–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kim, A.; Kim, Y.; Han, K.; Jackson, S.E.; Ployhart, R.E. Multilevel Influences on Voluntary Workplace Green Behavior: Individual Differences, Leader Behavior, and Coworker Advocacy. J. Manag. 2017, 43, 1335–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Baughn, C.C.; Bodie, N.L.; McIntosh, J.C. Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility in Asian Countries and Other Geographical Regions. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2007, 14, 189–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wesselink, R.; Blok, V.; Ringersma, J. Pro-Environmental Behaviour in the Workplace and the Role of Managers and Organisation. J. Clean Prod. 2017, 168, 1679–1687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory 3E; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  59. Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.; Hair, J. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. In Handbook of Market Research; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Armstrong, J.S.; Overton, T.S. Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys. J. Mark. Res. 1977, 14, 396–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Leguina, A. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Int. J. Res. Method Educ. 2015, 38, 220–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares (PLS) Structural Equation Modeling; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  63. Hair Jr, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  64. Henseler, J.; Sarstedt, M. Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Partial Least Squares Path Modeling. Comput. Stat. 2013, 28, 565–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Chin, W.W. The Partial Least Squares Approach for Structural Equation Modeling. Mod. Methods Bus. Res. 1998, 295, 295–336. [Google Scholar]
  66. Henseler, J.; Dijkstra, T.K.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Diamantopoulos, A.; Straub, D.W.; Ketchen, D.J., Jr.; Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Calantone, R.J. Common Beliefs and Reality about PLS: Comments on Rönkkö and Evermann. Organ Res. Methods 2014, 17, 182–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Eltayeb, T.K.; Zailani, S.; Ramayah, T. Green Supply Chain Initiatives among Certified Companies in Malaysia and Environmental Sustainability: Investigating the Outcomes. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2011, 55, 495–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Klassen, R.D.; McLaughlin, C.P. The Impact of Environmental Management on Firm Performance. Manag. Sci. 1996, 42, 1199–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Rao, P.; Holt, D. Do Green Supply Chains Lead to Competitiveness and Economic Performance? Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2005, 25, 898–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Smith, A.D. Reverse Logistics Programs: Gauging Their Effects on CRM and Online Behavior. VINE 2005, 35, 166–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Wagner, M. How to Reconcile Environmental and Economic Performance to Improve Corporate Sustainability: Corporate Environmental Strategies in the European Paper Industry. J. Environ. Manag. 2005, 76, 105–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Garetti, M.; Taisch, M. Sustainable Manufacturing: Trends and Research Challenges. Prod. Plan. Control 2012, 23, 83–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Agency, I.E. World Energy Outlook; OECD/IEA Paris: Paris, France, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  74. Sachs, W. Transcript of the Lecture on: Can Globalisation Become a Driver for Sustainable Development; Wuppertal Institute: Wuppertal, Germany, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  75. Sarkis, J. Manufacturing’s Role in Corporate Environmental Sustainability—Concerns for the New Millennium. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2001, 21, 666–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Yusuf, Y.Y.; Gunasekaran, A.; Musa, A.; El-Berishy, N.M.; Abubakar, T.; Ambursa, H.M. The UK Oil and Gas Supply Chains: An Empirical Analysis of Adoption of Sustainable Measures and Performance Outcomes. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2013, 146, 501–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Yang, M.G.; Hong, P.; Modi, S.B. Impact of Lean Manufacturing and Environmental Management on Business Performance: An Empirical Study of Manufacturing Firms. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2011, 129, 251–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Veleva, V.; Hart, M.; Greiner, T.; Crumbley, C. Indicators of Sustainable Production. J. Clean Prod. 2001, 9, 447–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Jeswiet, J.; Kara, S. Carbon Emissions and CESTM in Manufacturing. CIRP Ann. 2008, 57, 17–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. King, A.A.; Lenox, M.J. Does It Really Pay to Be Green? An Empirical Study of Firm Environmental and Financial Performance: An Empirical Study of Firm Environmental and Financial Performance. J. Ind. Ecol. 2001, 5, 105–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Hutchins, M.J.; Sutherland, J.W. An Exploration of Measures of Social Sustainability and Their Application to Supply Chain Decisions. J. Clean Prod. 2008, 16, 1688–1698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Li, D.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, L.; Chen, X.; Cao, C. Impact of Quality Management on Green Innovation. J. Clean Prod. 2018, 170, 462–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Frondel, M.; Horbach, J.; Rennings, K. End-of-Pipe or Cleaner Production? An Empirical Comparison of Environmental Innovation Decisions across OECD Countries. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2007, 16, 571–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Yu, Y.; Huo, B. The Impact of Environmental Orientation on Supplier Green Management and Financial Performance: The Moderating Role of Relational Capital. J. Clean Prod. 2019, 211, 628–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Ho, Y.-C.; Wang, W.B.; Shieh, W.L. An Empirical Study of Green Management and Performance in Taiwanese Electronics Firms. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2016, 3, 1266787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Elshaer, I.A.; Sobaih, A.E.E.; Aliedan, M.; Azazz, A.M.S. The Effect of Green Human Resource Management on Environmental Performance in Small Tourism Enterprises: Mediating Role of Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Frese, M.; Fay, D.; Hilburger, T.; Leng, K.; Tag, A. The Concept of Personal Initiative: Operationalization, Reliability and Validity in Two German Samples. J. Occup. Organ Psychol. 1997, 70, 139–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Williams, L.J.; Anderson, S.E. Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship and In-Role Behaviors. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 601–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Falck, O.; Heblich, S. Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing Well by Doing Good. Bus. Horiz. 2007, 50, 247–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Geyer, R.; Jackson, T. Supply Loops and Their Constraints: The Industrial Ecology of Recycling and Reuse. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2004, 46, 55–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Holmes, S.M.; Power, M.L.; Walter, C.K. A Motor Carrier Wellness Program: Development and Testing. Transp. J. 1996, 35, 33–48. [Google Scholar]
  92. McElroy, J.C.; Rodriguez, J.M.; Griffin, G.C.; Morrow, P.C.; Wilson, M.G. Career Stage, Time Spent on the Road, and Truckload Driver Attitudes. Transp. J. 1993, 33, 5–14. [Google Scholar]
  93. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing. In Advances in International Marketing; Sinkovics, R.R., Ghauri, P.N., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2009; Volume 20, pp. 277–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Elshaer, I.A.; AboAlkhair, A.M.; Fayyad, S.; Azazz, A.M.S. Post-COVID-19 Family Micro-Business Resources and Agritourism Performance: A Two-Mediated Moderated Quantitative-Based Model with a PLS-SEM Data Analysis Method. Mathematics 2023, 11, 359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Worthington, I.; Patton, D. Strategic Intent in the Management of the Green Environment within SMEs. Long Range Plann. 2005, 38, 197–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Revell, A.; Rutherfoord, R. UK Environmental Policy and the Small Firm: Broadening the Focus. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2003, 12, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Ghadimi, P.; O’Neill, S.; Wang, C.; Sutherland, J.W. Analysis of Enablers on the Successful Implementation of Green Manufacturing for Irish SMEs. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2020, 32, 85–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Alberti, M.; Caini, L.; Calabrese, A.; Rossi, D. Evaluation of the Costs and Benefits of an Environmental Management System. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2000, 38, 4455–4466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Noci, G.; Verganti, R. Managing ‘Green’ Product Innovation in Small Firms. RD Manag. 1999, 29, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Lee, K.-H. Corporate Social Responsiveness in the Korean Electronics Industry. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2007, 14, 219–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Suganthi, L. Examining the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility, Performance, Employees’ pro-Environmental Behavior at Work with Green Practices as Mediator. J. Clean Prod. 2019, 232, 739–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Tudor, T.L.; Bannister, S.; Butler, S.; White, P.; Jones, K.; Woolridge, A.C.; Bates, M.P.; Phillips, P.S. Can Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Citizenship Be Employed in the Effective Management of Waste? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2008, 52, 764–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Robertson, J.L.; Barling, J. Toward a New Measure of Organizational Environmental Citizenship Behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 75, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Priyankara, H.; Luo, F.; Saeed, A.; Nubuor, S.; Jayasuriya, M. How Does Leader’s Support for Environment Promote Organizational Citizenship Behaviour for Environment? A Multi-Theory Perspective. Sustainability 2018, 10, 271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Casaló, L.V.; Escario, J.-J.; Rodriguez-Sanchez, C. Analyzing Differences between Different Types of Pro-Environmental Behaviors: Do Attitude Intensity and Type of Knowledge Matter? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 149, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Latif, B.; Gunarathne, N.; Gaskin, J.; Ong, T.S.; Ali, M. Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility and Pro-Environmental Behavior: The Effect of Green Shared Vision and Personal Ties. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 186, 106572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Freeman, R.E.E.; McVea, J. A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Management. SSRN Electron. J. 2001, 183–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Tate, W.L.; Dooley, K.J.; Ellram, L.M. Transaction Cost and Institutional Drivers of Supplier Adoption of Environmental Practices. J. Bus. Logist. 2011, 32, 6–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Chu, Z.; Xu, J.; Lai, F.; Collins, B.J. Institutional Theory and Environmental Pressures: The Moderating Effect of Market Uncertainty on Innovation and Firm Performance. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2018, 65, 392–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Seth, D.; Rehman, M.A.A.; Shrivastava, R.L. Green Manufacturing Drivers and Their Relationships for Small and Medium(SME) and Large Industries. J. Clean Prod. 2018, 198, 1381–1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Elshaer, I.A.; Azazz, A.M.S.; Fayyad, S. Positive Humor and Work Withdrawal Behaviors: The Role of Stress Coping Styles in the Hotel Industry Amid COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Elshaer, I.A.; Azazz, A.M.S.; Fayyad, S. Underdog Environmental Expectations and Environmental Organizational Citizenship Behavior in the Hotel Industry: Mediation of Desire to Prove Others Wrong and Individual Green Values as a Moderator. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 20 02244 g001 550
Figure 1. Hart’s (Hart [32]) strategy framework.
Figure 1. Hart’s (Hart [32]) strategy framework.
Ijerph 20 02244 g001
Ijerph 20 02244 g002 550
Figure 2. The research model. Dotted line: moderating effects; solid lines: direct effects.
Figure 2. The research model. Dotted line: moderating effects; solid lines: direct effects.
Ijerph 20 02244 g002
Ijerph 20 02244 g003 550
Figure 3. The study’s Inner and Outer model.
Figure 3. The study’s Inner and Outer model.
Ijerph 20 02244 g003
Ijerph 20 02244 g004 550
Figure 4. Simple Slope analysis for the moderating effects.
Figure 4. Simple Slope analysis for the moderating effects.
Ijerph 20 02244 g004
Table
Table 5. The findings of the inner model.
Table 5. The findings of the inner model.
Proposed HypothesesβT-Valuep-ValuesResults
Direct Paths
H1- Green management -> Economical performance0.2613.5660.000Confirmed
H2- Green management -> Environmental performance0.3554.4560.000Confirmed
H3- Green management -> Social performance0.4196.9970.000
Moderating Effects
H7- Pro-environmental behaviour x Green management -> Economical performance0.1652.6000.010Confirmed
H8-Pro-environmental behaviour x Green management -> Environmental performance0.1712.4270.016Confirmed
H9-Pro-environmental behaviour x Green management -> Social performance0.1812.6490.008Confirmed
GoF: Environmental performance, Social performance, and Economic performance R2 values exceeded the recommended cut-off point of 0.10. Environmental performance (Q2 = 0.182), Social performance Q2 = 0.272), and Economical performance (Q2 = 0.095) Q2 values exceeded the suggested threshold value of 0.0, SRMR = 0.042 (below the threshold of 0.05); and NFI = 0.967 (more than the cut-off value of 0.90).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Elshaer, I.A.; Azazz, A.M.S.; Fayyad, S. Green Management and Sustainable Performance of Small- and Medium-Sized Hospitality Businesses: Moderating the Role of an Employee’s Pro-Environmental Behaviour. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 2244. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032244

AMA Style

Elshaer IA, Azazz AMS, Fayyad S. Green Management and Sustainable Performance of Small- and Medium-Sized Hospitality Businesses: Moderating the Role of an Employee’s Pro-Environmental Behaviour. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(3):2244. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032244

Chicago/Turabian Style

Elshaer, Ibrahim A., Alaa M. S. Azazz, and Sameh Fayyad. 2023. "Green Management and Sustainable Performance of Small- and Medium-Sized Hospitality Businesses: Moderating the Role of an Employee’s Pro-Environmental Behaviour" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 3: 2244. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032244

APA Style

Elshaer, I. A., Azazz, A. M. S., & Fayyad, S. (2023). Green Management and Sustainable Performance of Small- and Medium-Sized Hospitality Businesses: Moderating the Role of an Employee’s Pro-Environmental Behaviour. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(3), 2244. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032244

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop