The Role of CSR in Promoting Energy-Specific Pro-Environmental Behavior among Hotel Employees

Abstract

Mitigating environmental crises requires efforts to reduce carbon emission at every level and segment of an economy. In this respect, the energy sector is blamed for increasing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) throughout the globe. Specifically, it was specified that electrical energy contributes to 35% of the world’s GHG emissions. Without a doubt, the topics related to clean and green energies remained a part of academic discussion; however, a critical knowledge gap exists in most studies. That is, most of the prior literature focused only on the production side (supply side) of electrical energy, neglecting the consumption side (consumption at the level of individuals). Given that a significant amount of electricity has been consumed by the individuals in buildings (homes, offices, or others) for heating and cooling purposes, it is important to promote a target-specific (energy-specific) pro-environmental behavior (TSPEB) of individuals. However, such a debate did not receive any significant attention previously. Further, psychological factors such as employees’ environmental commitment (EEC) and green self-efficacy (GSE) were identified as critical mediators to drive different employees’ outcomes, but the mediating effect of EEC and GSE was not tested earlier to foster TSPEB in a CSR framework. The data for the current work were collected from employees of different hotels in a developing country by employing a survey strategy (n = 383). The structural equation modeling was used to analyze the data, which confirmed that hospitality employees’ CSR perceptions could improve TSPEB. The statistical results also confirmed the significant mediating effects of EEC and GSE. The finding of this study will help the hospitality sector to improve its efforts for de-carbonization by improving the energy consumption behavior of employees as an outcome of CSR.

1. Introduction

Considering rising environmental issues in most parts of the globe, environmental sustainability is a critical concern for all societies and segments worldwide. Given that preserving nature and the biosphere is a central challenge for many countries, scholars have indicated that efforts are necessary to mitigate the level of CO₂ emissions [1]. In this vein, it was specified that the role of individuals is critical for a sustainable future [2]. Environmental data also indicate that around 60% of worldwide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are associated with consumption at individual levels [3]. Undoubtedly, human-led environmental issues require significant attention if the world is to see a sustainable future. To make the matter worse, climate reports show that the pace with which the earth’s temperature has been rising has already been shortening the transition time for de-carbonization [4]. Put simply, if not managed on war-like footings, humanity will face severe environmental conditions in the coming years.

Industrial activities of businesses around the world have a direct relationship with the rising environmental issues. This applies, for example, to the manufacturing practices of several industries, including the textile sector [5], the agriculture sector [6], the plastic industry [7], and the transport industry [8], etc. Undoubtedly, the role of businesses in causing negative environmental externalities was criticized at different levels. However, industrial practices are not the only cause of the climate change issues. Indeed, the inappropriate individual behavior toward nature and the biosphere is also one of the reasons why environmental issues are rising globally. Moreover, a United Nations (UN) document reveals that the energy sector, especially electrical energy, is one of the largest contributors to global GHG emissions. The UN document further shows that 35% of GHG worldwide is associated with electrical energy [9].

The advancement in industrialization and the development of advanced technologies have contributed significantly to making electricity an important part of the manufacturing process and a prerequisite for households and individuals in workplaces. The ever-increasing electricity demand, as well as the critical issue of climate change, have necessitated increased efforts to promote the distribution of “green” and renewable energy and to expand its use. Hence, the required actions must also be carried out at different levels of government (e.g., national, regional, or local and local) and with a range of factors: economic, legal, political, cultural, institutional, and so on. Therefore, electricity consumption on the part of individuals has emerged as a contemporary research topic in recent times. Responding to this, some recent social theorists have also investigated some critical aspects of individual behavior that contribute to electricity consumption and saving [10,11]. Such investigations advance the discussion on energy consumption from a sustainability perspective, which is very important because poor policies in many countries are proven to be detrimental to nature and the biosphere, leading to a global environmental crisis as a result of climate change. Regulations and necessary actions of international organizations are needed, as they drive changes in the behaviors of end-users [12]. Therefore, the attitude of an individual is of seminal importance to mitigate the severity of climate change [13]. Consumption practices include reducing energy consumption, using renewable energy sources, reducing water use, using a variety of clean energy sources, using mass transportation instead of a personal vehicle, reducing food waste and other products (zero waste), and the sharing of resources leading to direct and indirect energy conservation, which ultimately will slow down the pace of climate change [14].

In this vein, a large amount of electrical energy is consumed by individuals. Most of the electricity is primarily used by individuals in buildings for heating and cooling purposes. While energy demand for heating and cooling is growing globally, the environmental hazards are also expected to rise as it is expected that emissions from heating and cooling equipment (air conditioners, heaters, etc.) may increase by 90% in 2050, compared to 2017 [9]. To address such environmental issues associated with the energy sector, the concepts of green and clean energy have become central topics of debate among academicians and practitioners. However, a critical gap exists in the available literature on GHG. That is, most of the literature has attempted to deal with the environmental issues by paying attention to the supply side (production) of energy [15,16]. Nevertheless, the demand side (usage of energy by individuals) has not received significant attention, especially on how to improve the sustainable behavior of employees for energy consumption in an organizational context, which remains an under-studied terrain. We intend to fill this knowledge gap by exploring the factors that drive the energy consumption behavior of employees in an organizational context.

The sustainable behavior of individuals, eco-friendly behavior, and environment-friendly behavior are referred to as individuals’ pro-environmental behavior (PEB). This study defines PEB by referring to the definition of Kollmuss and Agyeman [17], who argue that “PEB constitutes any behavior of individuals which tends to limit one’s negative impact on the environment. ” From an organizational perspective, different examples of PEB include employees using scrap papers for taking notes, bringing re-usable utensils (coffee mugs, etc.) to the workplace instead of disposable utensils, preserving water and energy, etc. Generally, the bulk of the literature has investigated the role of PEB from an environmental perspective [18,19]. Nonetheless, most of the literature in the domain of PEB of employees focused on a general approach (considering different general aspects of employees’ PEB). Considering the recent environmental issues associated with the energy sector and considering the role of individuals in mitigating environmental hazards, it was important to discuss the target-specific approach of employees’ PEB. For example, how to improve the energy consumption behavior of individuals (an aspect of PEB) was not discussed earlier, at least to the best of our knowledge. Therefore, a critical aim of this study is to explore the factors that drive the energy-specific PEB (TSPEB) of employees.

The literature indicates that the corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities of an enterprise can affect the behavior of employees. In this respect, we can refer to the studies of Ahmad, et al. [20], Deng, et al. [21], Fu, et al. [22], Ahmad, et al. [23], and Ahmad, et al. [24] who document a positive association between employees’ CSR perceptions and their behavior. In this vein, the concept of CSR was previously approached by scholars to examine its effect at a meso level, [25,26]. Even the relationship of CSR with the energy-saving behavior of corporations (meso level) was also reported by the previous scholars [27]. However, Aguinis and Glavas were among the first who highlighted the potential role of CSR at a micro level (at the level of employees) [28,29]. They proposed that CSR is an important strategy to influence different employee outcomes. Soon after that, the concepts like internal CSR [30], micro aspect of CSR [31], and CSR at the level of employees became a part of academic debate [32,33]. Although the potential role of CSR in influencing employees’ behavior was discussed at different levels, even in the field of PEB, different studies exist from a CSR perspective. Still, the role of CSR in driving the TSPEB of employees was missed by the scholars. Thus, to advance the above debate, we aim to investigate the relationship between CSR and the TSPEB of employees.

The complex nature of human behavior is mentioned at different levels in the prior literature [34,35]. Indeed, it was argued that in an organizational context, organizational factors (for example, CSR) [36,37] and personal factors [38,39] both contribute to shaping the behavior of employees. To this aspect, the mediating role of employees’ environmental commitment (a personal factor) was discussed [40,41], but its mediating role in a CSR framework was not emphasized previously. This motivates us to bridge this knowledge gap by aiming to investigate the mediating role of employees’ environmental commitment between CSR and PEB.

Similarly, another personal factor that can drive the specific behavior of individuals in a certain context is self-efficacy. Bandura [42] defined self-efficacy as “one’s belief in his or her abilities to meet different challenges in order to complete a task successfully.” Generally, the literature regards self-efficacy as one’s general belief to be capable of doing things successfully. However, it was also argued that, in a specific organizational context, self-efficacy could influence a specific behavior of individuals [43,44]. This implies self-efficacy requires a specific context to significantly influence a specific behavior. Perhaps this is the reason most of the researchers investigated the mediating role of self-efficacy in different frameworks [45,46]. However, the mediating role of green self-efficacy (a specific form of self-efficacy from an environmental perspective) in influencing the PEB of employees, as an antecedent of CSR, was less emphasized previously. Therefore, this study introduces the variable of green self-efficacy (GSE) as a mediator in the above-proposed relationship.

The prime focus of this study is Pakistan’s hospitality sector, a developing nation in South Asia. Encountered by several environmental challenges, the South-Asian nation is facing a severe energy crisis. While poor environmental planning, government negligence, and different political pressures led the country to face the current environmental crisis situation [47] on the supply side, the poor behavior of individuals on the demand side is also a reason for this terrible situation. It was estimated that more than 25% of electricity was being wasted in Pakistan by individuals due to their inappropriate behavior towards energy consumption [48]. To further aggravate the situation, most of the energy generation in Pakistan is associated with fossil fuel that emits pollution during the process of electricity production. It was also specified that a careful individual attitude toward electricity consumption could reduce load-shedding by 88%. This clearly indicates that promoting an energy-friendly individual behavior in all sectors is required with no exception of the hospitality sector. Indeed, the hospitality sector is perhaps the top-rated service sector known for its out-sized carbon footprint worldwide [49]. A recent report shows that Pakistan’s hospitality sector produces enormous environmental impact, especially through energy consumption. However, the report also specified that if the staff in the hospitality sector shows responsible environmental behavior, a positive environmental change can be expected [50]. Therefore, there is a dire need to address this problem by investigating if the CSR activities of a certain hotel can improve the TSPEB of employees.

2. Literature

Social identity theory (ST) was proposed by Tajfel [51] about four decades ago. Nonetheless, its implication in organizational theory was first emphasized in the early 1990s when Ashforth and colleagues [52] employed this theory to explain individual behavior. Indeed, ST suggests that the personal identification of a person is influenced by others while a person socially interacts with others. In an organizational context, the behavioral scientist uses this theory to explain the behavior of employees by arguing that an organization, as a social group, can influence employees’ behavior due to a specific social context. In other words, employees’ personal identification is influenced by observing some specific act of their organization. In this vein, when employees notice the ethical engagement of their organization to preserve nature and the biosphere, such noble intention provides a base for the employees to identify themselves with that organization. The previous CSR scholars have extensively applied this theory to explain different employee behaviors [23,53,54]. Generally, it was established in the literature that the ethical commitment of an enterprise gives birth to sense-making among employees, which leads them to act in a manner that improves the overall image of their social group (an organization) [55]. When looked at from this perspective, the environmental efforts of an ethical organization inculcate a sense-making process among employees for the environment. Responding to this ethical commitment of their ethical organization, employees put forth efforts to improve this ethical image of their social group. Thus they are expected to act pro-environmentally.

Further, prior literature has well discussed the relationship between employees’ CSR perceptions of an organization and their PEB [37,56]. The study of Vlachos, et al. [53] argued that the ethical orientation of an organization is something that the employees positively evaluate. The other researchers have also mentioned this positive evaluation on the part of employees as an antecedent of CSR [54,57]. Specifically, it was realized when employees observe the ethical conduct of an organization under the umbrella of CSR to benefit society, the community, and the biosphere, they are self-motivated to help their organization to achieve its sustainability objectives [58,59,60]. An ethical organization tends to benefit all stakeholders through its social responsibility commitment [61]. Employees are also important stakeholders of an organization. When they see that their ethical organization shows a concern to reduce its environmental dilapidation under the umbrella of CSR, they not only appreciate such efforts of their organization, but they become passionate about supporting such sustainability initiatives of their ethical organization [62,63]. More specifically, when an organization shows its concern to preserve nature and the biosphere, especially through its energy-efficient measures, it conveys this message to the employees that it considers the environmental aspect of its business operations. Such ethical organization takes different measures to preserve the energy, for example, installing green and renewable energy equipment, or using energy-efficient machinery [19,64]. Because employees strongly identify themselves with an ethical organization, they put forth extra efforts to maintain the social identity of their group (the ethical orientation of an organization in the current perspective), thus they are expected to follow the energy-saving orientation of their organization. Consequently, they are expected to be motivated to show an energy-friendly behavior, especially towards energy consumption and preservation. Thus, the following hypothesis may be proposed:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): 

It is expected that a positive link exists between employees’ CSR perceptions and their TSPEB.

The commitment of employees is referred to as a psychological state of mind which describes the extent to which an employee associates himself or herself with an organization [65]. The literature suggests that individual commitment can guide behavior [66,67]. Nonetheless, most of the literature discusses commitment in general terms with few exceptions [68,69]. A committed employee shows extra engagement to solve the group challenges and to achieve collective goals [70]. From an environmental perspective, this study uses the definition of Cantor, et al. [71], who define environmental commitment as “an internal sense of obligation of an employee to preserve the environment and biosphere.” The literature specifies that employees’ commitment enhance due to their CSR perceptions [72,73]. Afsar and Umrani [74] mentioned that employees’ perceptions influence their behavioral intentions. They further asserted that being the employees of an ethical organization, they willfully associate themselves with such an organization which fosters their commitment. Extending the debate between the association of CSR and employee commitment from an environmental perspective, we assume that employees working in an ethical organization with a concern for the environment show a greater environmental commitment. This line of reasoning is also supported by Afsar and Umrani [74].

Specifically, the work of Safari, et al. [75] showed that the greater environmental commitment of employees urges them to practice sustainable behavior more frequently, for example, employees with environmental commitment show a responsible behavior towards recycling, energy, and water conservation, etc. In a hospitality context, a recent study by Zientara and Zamojska [76] indicated that employees positively evaluate the environmental CSR strategies of a hotel, which then enhances their environmental commitment to preserving the biosphere. Similarly, the effect of employees’ CSR perceptions on their environmental commitment can also be explained with the help of ST. In this respect, the sense-making process of employees leads them to develop an environmentally friendly feeling due to the ethical commitment of their organization to preserve nature and the environment. Afsar, et al. [77] mentioned that when the environmental concern of employees is greater, they show a larger commitment to act pro-environmentally. The study of Ansari, et al. [40] also documented a positive relationship between employees’ environmental commitment and PEB. Yusliza, et al. [78] argued that employees’ environmental commitment is a critical factor in spurring their PEB. CSR initiatives of an enterprise not only enhance the commitment level of employees of all ages, but such ethical conduct also helps employees to develop a strong emotional bond with such a socially responsible organization insofar as employees’ personal identities are tied up, at least partially, to their workplaces [79]. At the same time, employees feel that if their organization is helping to save the community and biosphere, they should also support their organization by showing an enhanced level of environmental commitment [80]. To conclude this debate, the relationship between CSR and employee commitment is well discussed in the prior literature. At the same time, it was also mentioned that the environmental commitment of employees could thrive in their PEB. When put together, an ethical organization’s environmental concern (especially through energy conservation) will influence employees’ environmental commitment, which then enhances TSPEB. Therefore:

Hypothesis 2 (H2): 

It is expected that the environmental preference of an organization under the umbrella of CSR can influence employees’ environmental commitment.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): 

Employees’ environmental commitment will mediate between CSR and TSPEB.

Self-efficacy is a psychological factor that shapes individual behavior [81]. From an environmental perspective, it was established in the literature that GSE could guide the PEB of individuals [78,82]. The study by Huang [83] reported that GSE perceptions of individuals led them to engage in all kinds of PEBs. In a hospitality context, the work of Kim, et al. [84] documented a positive relationship between GSE and employees’ PEB. They further asserted that employees with high GSE believe that they could help their organization in reducing its environmental footprint. Tabernero and Hernández [85] validated that the greater the degree of self-efficacy of an employee, the higher the likelihood that he or she would partake in different environmentally friendly activities. In like vein, Abraham, et al. [86] believed that GSE was a significant predictor of PEB. The relationship between GSE and PEB has been discussed in prior literature [87,88].

Various organizational factors influence GSE perceptions of employees. For example, many social scientists have established a positive role between leadership style and employees’ GSE perceptions [87,89]. Specifically, the role of servant leadership in spurring GSE’s perception of employees was highlighted previously [82]. Similarly, it was also specified that transformational leadership style could positively influence employees’ GSE perceptions [89,90]. Even the intervening role of self-efficacy in a leadership framework to influence different behaviors of employees was discussed at different levels [91,92]. Our argument here is that CSR as an organizational factor also enhances GSE on the part of employees. The literature establishes that GSE perceptions of individuals can drive several kinds of PEBs including their recycling behavior [85], using eco-friendly shopping bags [93], and energy-saving behavior [94]. The work by Foster, et al. [95] showed that individuals with a higher level of environmental self-efficacy are motivated to invest more effort to practice different forms of PEB. Because employees’ self-efficacy is influenced by different organizational factors including CSR, it is expected that employees’ perceptions about the CSR activities of an organization will promote them at a higher level of GSE which then leads them towards TSPEB. Specifically, when employees see that their organization prefers to engage in such activities that help improve its environmental footprint, they feel that they can also contribute to reducing environmental dilapidation. This implies that employees working in a socially responsible organization are expected to have a higher level of GSE to preserve the environment, which then induces their TSPEB. Therefore:

Hypothesis 4 (H4): 

It is expected that the environmental preference of an organization under the umbrella of CSR can influence GSE perceptions of employees.

Hypothesis 5 (H5): 

Employees’ GSE perceptions will mediate between CSR and TSPEB.

The hypothesized framework of this study has been shown in Figure 1, which is as below.

3. Methods

3.1. Study Sector, Sample, and Procedure

Being included in the list of developing nations, Pakistan has emerged as an important destination for investment, especially for the tourism and hospitality sector. Surveys confirm that Pakistan’s tourism and hospitality sector has been flourishing for the last decade. Specifically, it was estimated that the tourism and hospitality sector will grow 3% per annum by 2026 [96]. We targeted the hotel industry to serve the purpose of this research. The hotel industry in Pakistan includes different upscale and medium-scale hotels. Nishat, Faletti’s, Monal, Serena, Avari, Marriot, and Pearl Continental are examples of some leading national and international hotels in the country.

Based on the reports of some recent surveys, it is expected that this sector will grow further in the coming years. However, the growing trend in this sector has environmental consequences too. It is important for this sector to take different measures at each level for de-carbonization to assure that the growth in this sector will not correspond to the increase in carbon emissions. Hotels influence the biosphere negatively through different operations; for instance, the overuse of water and energy by the hotel enterprises has been mentioned several times. Moreover, considering the 24/7 nature of this business, the hotel industry is the leading service sector with a large carbon footprint. Climate scientists believe this sector may improve its environmental efficiency by promoting sustainable behavior among its employees [50]. This clearly shows the logic of conducting this survey in the hotel sector.

We, in this respect, collected the data from two large cities in Pakistan, including Karachi and Lahore. Both of these cities constitute a large market share of the total hotel business in the country, but this was not the only reason to consider these cities for this survey. Indeed, Karachi and Lahore are known for their poor environmental conditions worldwide as both are included in the top ten cities of the world facing vulnerable environmental conditions. Specifically, Lahore is the most polluted city in the world [97]. Considering its multi-million population, whose health is at stake, it is important to take emergency measures at every level and sector to preserve nature and the biosphere.

Prior to approaching a certain hotel organization, we confirmed whether it has some specific CSR plan or not. Web pages of different hotels were explored to see their social responsibility engagement. Almost all upscale hotels were involved in different CSR activities, and they were communicating these activities to the community by establishing a spate webpage related to their social responsibility initiatives. After confirming the CSR engagement of a hotel organization, we approached different hotels with a formal request to facilitate us in the data collection activity. Six hotels agreed to provide us with the needed support to advance the data collection process. We acknowledge the support of the management of such hotels. Hotel employees were the respondents for this survey. Specifically, employees with managerial and non-managerial positions were invited to fill the data collection instrument (an adapted questionnaire). The sample includes respondents from different departments, for example, administration, room services, kitchen, etc. Moreover, employees with different levels (manager/supervisors, and employees with non-supervisory designation) were invited to participate in this survey. A three-stage data collection strategy was adapted with an interval of two weeks between each administration. It took almost three months to complete this data collection activity (February to April 2021).

3.2. Instrument

A self-administered adapted questionnaire was given to each respondent in this survey. We considered the famous paper-pencil method to fill the surveys. Furthermore, prior to producing the finalized version of this survey, the field expert evaluated the proposed items (including academia and sector) [98,99,100]. There were two major compositions in our questionnaire, including the socio-demographic information of the respondents and the items to measure different variables of this study. The ethical standards of the Helsinki Declaration were also followed to ensure the ethical standards [101,102]. A total of 600 surveys was initially distributed among six sampled hotel employees. A valid response rate of 64% was achieved (n = 383). In this vein, the male respondents were 69%, and the ages of our sampled employees were between 22 and 40 years (86%). Most of the respondents had a graduation certificate. Lastly, the experience of most employees ranged from 1 to 10 years.

3.3. Measures

This study has four variables (CSR, TSPEB, employees’ environmental commitment-EEC, and GSE). The items of these variables were adapted from different published sources. For instance, to measure employees’ CSR perceptions, we adapted the well-known scale of Turker [103], which included seventeen items. Among these, six items were related to employees’ general CSR perceptions: “This hotel makes investment (especially energy-specific) to create a better life for future generations.” Another six items were related to employee-specific CSR: “This hotel encourages its employees to participate in the voluntary activities.” The remaining five items were related to customers and the government. Therefore because this study focuses on employees, we considered twelve items to measure employees’ CSR perceptions. This scale showed a good inter-item consistency (α = 0.906). To measure TSPEB, we adapted eight energy related items from Blok, et al. [104] “I make sure that heating/air conditioning is off or reduced outside working hours” and “I switch off my computer/notebook when I leave my office for a considerable period”. The α = 0.869 was significant for this scale. Likewise, we used eight items adapted from Raineri and Paillé [105] to measure EEC “I really care about the environmental concern of my hotel” and “The environmental concern of my hotel means a lot to me.” The overall α = 0.898 was observed for this scale. Lastly, the six items of GSE were borrowed from the study of Chen, et al. [106] “I can achieve most environmental goals” and “I can perform effectively on environmental missions.” The α value for this scale was 0.841. All responses were taken on a five-point Likert scale. Full detail on adapted items is available in Appendix A.

3.4. Non-Response Bias and Common Latent Factor Test

To evaluate whether a non-response bias prevails in the dataset of this survey, a chi-square difference test was applied between two groups (one with full information and the other with partial information). The results confirmed the absence of any significant difference, indicating that a non-response bias did not exist. Similarly, to address the issue of common method variance (CMV), we performed a common latent factor test (CLF) in AMOS software. For this purpose, two measurement models were developed (baseline and a CLF model) which were then compared. It was revealed that both models show, more or less, the same factor loadings (λ was not > 0.2 in any case). This implies that a CMV issue was not critical in this survey.

4. Results

4.1. Validity and Reliability

We started the data analysis process by evaluating the validity and reliability of each variable. For this purpose, the standardized factor loadings extracted from the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were noted in the first place. This step was helpful to see if the factor loading (λ) of each item was appropriate. Usually, the λ value above 0.7 is considered significant, implying that an item of a variable explains a sheer amount of variance compared to the error term. In this respect, four variables were evaluated (CSR = 12 items, TSPEB = 8 items, EEC = 8 items, GSE = 6 items). The results of CFA revealed that one item of TSPEB and one item of GSE did not load well on to their respective factor (λ < 0.5). Therefore, we deleted these items and performed the next stages of data analysis without considering these items. In this vein, a total of 32 items was retained (CSR = 12 items, TSPEB = 7 items, EEC = 8 items, GSE = 5 items).

The factor loadings of retained items were helpful to calculate the value of average-variance-extracted (AVE) for CSR, TSPEB, EEC, and GSE. Based on AVE for a variable, we were able to decide on the significance of convergent validity (CnV) for a variable. In this respect, an AVE > 0.5 indicates a good CnV, implying that the items of a variable converged on it significantly. It was noted that all AVEs were significant: for instance, the AVE value for the variable CSR was 0.521, which shows a significant value. Similarly, all other variables’ AVEs were also significant. We also calculated composite reliability (CR) for CSR, TSPEB, EEC, and GSE. The CR values for all variables were > than 0.7 (0.929 for CSR, 0.884 for TSPEB, 0.911 for EEC, and 0.858 for GSE). The results for CnV, CR, and factor loadings have been reported in

Table 1. Validity and reliability.

	λ	λ2	S.E	T. Values	E-Variance	AVE	CR
CSR						0.521	0.929
	0.709	0.503	0.065	10.91	0.497
	0.723	0.523	0.064	11.30	0.477
	0.761	0.579	0.055	13.84	0.421
	0.702	0.493	0.066	10.64	0.507
	0.716	0.513	0.065	11.02	0.487
	0.719	0.517	0.065	11.06	0.483
	0.720	0.518	0.065	11.08	0.482
	0.744	0.554	0.060	12.40	0.446
	0.728	0.530	0.062	11.74	0.470
	0.726	0.527	0.063	11.52	0.473
	0.708	0.501	0.066	10.73	0.499
	0.701	0.491	0.066	10.62	0.509
TSPEB						0.522	0.884
	0.710	0.504	0.065	10.92	0.496
	0.706	0.498	0.066	10.70	0.502
	0.704	0.496	0.066	10.67	0.504
	0.779	0.607	0.052	14.98	0.393
	0.731	0.534	0.062	11.79	0.466
	0.700	0.490	0.066	10.61	0.510
	0.722	0.521	0.064	11.28	0.479
EEC						0.561	0.911
	0.742	0.551	0.061	12.16	0.449
	0.759	0.576	0.056	13.55	0.424
	0.748	0.560	0.059	12.68	0.440
	0.740	0.548	0.061	12.13	0.452
	0.738	0.545	0.061	12.10	0.455
	0.767	0.588	0.054	14.20	0.412
	0.740	0.548	0.061	12.13	0.452
	0.755	0.570	0.055	13.73	0.430
GSE						0.547	0.858
	0.782	0.612	0.050	15.64	0.388
	0.715	0.511	0.065	11.00	0.489
	0.760	0.578	0.056	13.57	0.422
	0.717	0.514	0.065	11.03	0.486
	0.722	0.521	0.065	11.11	0.479

Notes: λ = Item loadings, C.R = composite reliability, ∑λ² = sum of square of item loadings, E-Variance = error variance.

.

4.2. Correlations

Next, a correlation analysis was carried out to see the nature and direction (positive or negative) of correlation between different pairs of variables. The output of correlation analysis revealed that correlation (r) was positive in all cases. Moreover, the r-values were significant (p < 0.001). To further elucidate, the r-value between CSR ⇔ TSPEB was 0.374, which was positive and significant. This implies that CSR and TSPEB positively relate to each other. Similarly, all other cases were also positive and significant. These positive and significant r-values were in line with the theoretical statements of different hypotheses in this study.

The discriminant validity (DsV) analysis was carried out to confirm that the items of a variable were not similar to the items of other variables. To proceed in the process of DsV, we took the square root (sq) of AVE for all four variables. To establish a significant DsV value for a variable, it is necessary that the sq of AVE for a variable must produce a greater value than the r-values. To explain in more simple words, let’s consider the case of CSR. The sqAVE for CSR was 0.722 which was > than all r-values (0.374, 0.296, and 0.277). This confirmed that DsV for CSR was significant. For further detail on correlation analysis and DsV values, we refer to

Table 2. Correlations and discriminant validity.

Construct	CSR	TSPEB	EEC	GSE	Mean	SD
CSR	0.722	0.374	0.296	0.277	4.09	0.49
TSPEB		0.722	0.335	0.369	3.79	0.55
EEC			0.749	0.199	3.67	0.62
GSE				0.740	2.92	0.74

Notes: S.D = standard deviation, diagonal = discriminant validity values, p < 0.001.

.

Next, we developed different alternate measurement models in AMOS software. These models were compared with the hypothesized model to see which model well fits the dataset. Three alternate models (Model 2, 3 and 4 in

Table 3. Model fit comparison, alternate vs. hypothesized models.

Model	x2/df	Δx2/df	NFI	CFI	RMSEA
Model-1 (hypothesized) CSR, TSPEB, GSE, EEC	2.166	-	0.949	0.951	0.051
Model-2 (3-factor) CSR + TSPEB, GSE and EEC	2.989	0.823	0.896	0.898	0.062
Model-3 (2-factor) CSR + TSPEB + EEC and GSE	4.597	1.608	0.727	0.731	0.070
Model-4 (1-factor) CSR + TSPEB + EEC + GSE	5.482	0.885	0.675	0.682	0.084

) were developed in this respect. The comparison of these models with the hypothesized model (Model 1) showed that the model fit values (NFI, CFI), chi-square (x²) divided by degree of freedom (df) and RMSEA values were more significant compared to the alternate models. (NFI = 0.939, CFI = 0.939, x²/df = 2.166, and RMSEA = 0.057)

4.3. Total, Direct and Indirect Effects

Finally, we used structural equation modeling (SEM) to statistically evaluate the hypothesized relationships. In this respect, AMOS 21 version was used. Specifically, a two-stage process was followed to evaluate the different hypotheses of this study. Firstly, we developed a direct effect structural model in which no mediator was involved. This direct effect model was developed to analyze the statements of H1, H2, and H4. For example, the statement of H1 was related to the relationship between CSR and TSPEB. In this vein, the beta value (β) was positive (β = 0.560) and significant (p < 0.05 with non-zero lower and upper limit confidence intervals). These results were enough to statistically accept the theoretical statement of H1. Hence, it was proved that CSR could drive TSPEB positively. The same above process can be repeated to arrive at a conclusion that H2 and H4 of this study were also accepted.

Secondly, to test the mediating effects, the structural model was redeveloped by including EEC and GSE as mediators. For this purpose, we used the bootstrapping method in AMOS. A larger bootstrapping sample was considered for this purpose [107]. The output of this mediated model showed that both EEC and GSE mediated between CSR and TSPEB significantly. Moreover, the mediation effects were partial in nature (β = 0.093, z = 8.454, p = 0.002, CI = 0.106–0.169ꟷH3; β = 0.099, z = 9.900, p = 0.000, and CI = 0.077–0.148ꟷH5). These results warrant that H3 and H5 were statistically significant.

Table 4. Total, direct, indirect and conditional effects.

Hypotheses	Relationship	Estimates (SE)	t/z	p-Value	CI
Total effect (CSR→TSPEB) With no mediators	positive	0.560(0.033)	16.969	0.000	0.429–0.656
Direct effects
(CSR→TSPEB)	Positive	0.368(0.039)	9.436	0.007	0.298–0.392
(CSR→EEC)	Positive	0.277(0.044)	6.295	0.003	0.310–0.368
(EEC→TSPEB)	Positive	0.336(0.040)	8.400	0.000	0.402–0.487
(CSR→GSE)	Positive	0.272(0.045)	6.044	0.000	0.317–0.390
(GSE→TSPEB)	Positive	0.365(0.039)	9.358	0.002	0.308–0.412
Including mediators
Indirect effect (CSR→EEC→TSPEB)	positive	0.093(0.011)	8.454	0.002	0.106–0.169
(CSR→GSE→TSPEB)	positive	0.099(0.010)	9.900	0.000	0.077–0.148

Notes: CI = 95% confidence interval with lower and upper limits.

represents the output of both structural models.

5. Discussion

The statistical findings of this work indicate that CSR, EEC, and GSE are some of the critical factors that can significantly promote TSPEB among employees, especially from an energy-saving perspective. Specifically, these findings show that CSR influences the TSPEB directly and indirectly through the mediating effect of EEC and GSE. The ethical commitment of an organization is positively evaluated by its employees as indicated by a plethora of previous researchers [108,109,110]. Further, following ST, the sense-making process of employees leads them to proudly identify themselves with an ethical organization as a consequence of its CSR activities and show extra commitment to maintaining its ethical image and improving it on a further level. Importantly, when employees see an ethical organization is taking different sustainable initiatives for sustainability (especially for energy efficiency), such responsible initiatives guide the employees to become more self-responsible. The positive relationship between CSR and employees’ PEB has been established previously [37,56]; however, the current energy-specific context of PEB was less emphasized.

The commitment of employees also improves as an outcome of CSR. The greater environmental commitment of employees motivates them to partake in different sustainability-related behaviors more frequently [74]. When environmental concern of employees is greater, they show a larger commitment to act pro-socially. In this respect, the statistical evidence proves that the environmental commitment of employees can induce their PEB from an energy-specific perspective. The previous studies also showed a positive relationship between EEC and PEB. The mediating effect of EEC to spur PEB has been mentioned in prior the literature [74,111].

Similarly, our results confirmed the direct and mediating effect of GSE to spur TSPEB of employees. Especially from an energy consumption and preservation perspective, employees with a higher level of GSE believe that if they consume less energy, they can support the eco-energy initiatives of their organization. These findings are also in line with previous studies [84,88,89]. In this respect, when employees work in an ethical hotel that shows a greater environmental commitment (especially from an energy efficiency perspective), their GSE perceptions are further enhanced, leading them to show greater TSPEB commitment.

5.1. Theoretical Implications

Our study advances the theory by providing different implications. First of all, this study advances the literature on GHG emissions from a demand-side perspective. As specified earlier in this draft, most of the literature has sought to deal with the environmental issues by paying attention to the supply side (production) of energy [15,16]. Nevertheless, the demand side (usage of energy by individuals) did not receive significant attention. Especially, how to improve the sustainable behavior of employees for energy consumption and preservation in an organizational context has remained an under-studied terrain. This study is an attempt to fill this theoretical gap by investigating the relationship between CSR and TSPEB of employees in the hospitality sector of Pakistan. Secondly, another important theoretical contribution of our study is that the bulk of the previous literature has investigated PEB from a general perspective, for instance, considering different general aspects of employees’ PEB in an organizational context. However, the energy-specific context of PEB was not discussed earlier. Considering the recent environmental issues associated with the energy sector and considering the role of individuals in mitigating environmental hazards, it was important to discuss the role of TSPEB of employees. Similarly, this study advances theoretical debate to explain employees’ behavior, especially their TSPEB, by simultaneously taking into consideration the mediating effect of EEC and GSE in a unified model, which, at least to the best of our knowledge, was not highlighted previously. Specifically, our study extends the theoretical frameworks of Afsar and Umrani [74] and Yusliza, et al. [78]. In this vein, Afsar and colleagues did a decent job by introducing EEC as a mediator in a CSR framework, but they missed the energy-specific context of PEB. Yusliza and colleagues considered both EEC and GSE in a unified model to influence the PEB of employees, but they too investigated PEB from a general perspective.

5.2. Practical Implications

Similarly, our study has different important implications for the hospitality sector of Pakistan, which is known for its large carbon footprint. In this respect, our study helps this sector by arguing that the role of individuals is critical to improving the ecological footprint of a hotel. Especially from an energy efficiency perspective, this implication has a special meaning, as in Pakistan, individuals waste more than 25% of electricity due to their inappropriate behavior towards energy consumption. Therefore, if the behavior of individuals, including employees, is improved, the country can hope to have a better and sustainable future by reducing the energy consumption level at an individual level. In this respect, we suggest the management of hotels in Pakistan to carefully plan their CSR strategies, especially from an energy perspective. The energy efficiency plans of a hotel under CSR help a hotel to reduce its energy usage on the supply side (for example, by installing eco-friendly equipment); such CSR plans also help a hotel organization to improve the energy consumption and preservation on the demand side (by improving employees’ TSPEB). Similarly, Pakistan’s hospitality sector produces enormous environmental impact, especially through energy consumption. By referring to a recent report [50], in which it was suggested that the role of employees in this sector is critical for energy consumption, the results indicate that the TSPEB of employees is very important. In this respect, the role of CSR is critical. On one end, employees’ CSR perceptions build positive feelings among employees. On the other end, employees support an ethical enterprise through their TSPEB. Our study also highlighted the roles of EEC and GSE in spurring their TSPEB. In this respect, we suggest that hotel managers carefully plan employee training programs with a special focus on these two aspects. Especially, the management needs to promote this belief among employees during different training sessions that their individual role in environmental efficiency is very important.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research Guidelines

This study faces some limitations, which provide motivations for future researchers. First, this study employed a non-probability sampling method. The reason for choosing a non-probability sampling method lies in the fact that most hotels were reluctant to share the list of their employees with us due to their policy matters. Therefore, in the absence of any sampling frame, it was impossible to subscribe to any probability sampling methods. We invite future researchers to deal with this issue by following a probability sampling method, if possible. The geographical focus of this study was another point that we feel contributes to a potential limitation in our study. Given that this study only collected the data from two large cities in Pakistan, it is suggested that a larger geographical area should be covered by including more cities in future studies. Lastly, this study used perceptual measures of CSR to arrive at different conclusions. Though most consumer and employee surveys in the field of CSR were investigated by opting for perceptual CSR measures in the past, we still suggest adopting some objective CSR measures in future studies. Lastly, we suggest in the future that our theoretical model should be tested in other industries to see if CSR can promote TSPEB among employees in other sectors of an economy.

6. Conclusions

Pakistan currently is facing an acute energy crisis. While the supply side of energy production is being managed poorly in the country as a result of poor planning, government negligence, and different political pressures, the demand side is also equally responsible. Considering the large amount of energy wastage at the level of individuals, it is important to change the behavior of individuals towards energy consumption at all levels. Currently, Pakistan has been facing a severe energy shortfall. The ranks and files in the country observe several planned and un-planned electricity load-shedding intervals. In this respect, as specified earlier, a careful attitude of individuals can limit this load-shedding by 88%. Therefore, promoting energy-friendly behavior in all sectors of the economy is urgently required. The hospitality sector has no exception in this respect, as its energy consumption is huge compared to other service sectors because it operates on a 24/7 basis. In this respect, we suggest hotel management carefully reconsider CSR strategies in line with the energy-saving perspective. Hotel management in this respect needs to clearly communicate with the employees that a particular hotel shows a strong environmental concern and wants to preserve nature and the biosphere through its CSR activities. At the same time, the management should communicate explicitly to its employees that their role is critical in supporting a hotel to achieve its sustainability objectives, especially from an electrical energy perspective. On a further note, hotel management needs to arrange different programs for employees that are closely aligned with its CSR and sustainability orientation, so that employees are further motivated to partake in different PEBs in the workplace. Similarly, special seminars may also be conducted with a focus on enhancing the self-efficacy perceptions of employees to foster this belief that they can meaningfully contribute to their organization by reducing environmental crises. Considering the above discussion, we recommend that if this sector has to manage the demand side of energy efficiently, well-planned CSR activities could be the way forward.