Research on the Factors Influencing the Mechanism of Property Management Enterprises’ Ecological Behavior in China

Abstract

The ecological behavior of property management enterprises is crucial to the performance of green buildings. The understanding of property management enterprises’ ecological behavior, however, is rather limited. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the mechanism of the affecting factors upon the ecological behavior of property management enterprises. The qualitative analysis method was used to collect and identify the influencing factors, which were further classified as those of stimulus, status, scenario, and result. A theoretical model of the action mechanism of influencing factors and related hypotheses has been constructed based on the planned behavior theory. The proposed hypotheses have been empirically analyzed by the quantitative analysis of a questionnaire survey. The results indicate that there are significant differences in ecological behavior implementation under different status factors, while the impact of enterprise nature on property management ecological behavior is not significant. Regarding the stimulus factors, market pressure and government regulation are the main external incentive factors. The scenario factors could be resistant forces and moderate the implementation of ecological behavior. For the result factors, property management enterprises pay attention to whether the implementation of ecological behavior can produce direct benefits. The research findings constitute valuable references for further development of the property management industry.

1. Introduction

Developing green buildings and promoting energy conservation are important components of the emission reduction strategy in China. The Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development et al. [1] announced their intention to add basic requirements of green buildings into the compulsory code for building construction and unveiled the aim that green buildings could account for 70% of the total floor area of new buildings in urban areas. Due to government promotion, green buildings are becoming more common in China. By the end of 2018, the total floor area of green buildings in China exceeded 3 billion m², with more than 13,000 certificated green buildings [2]. Green building development in China has been internationally acknowledged. The implementation effect, however, has also been criticized as problematically insufficient [3,4]. The key reason lies in, but is not limited to, the over-emphasis on design while being negligent of the operation of green buildings [5,6]. City authorities and practitioners exclusively focus on the design and construction, but ignore the fact that green buildings must operate to save energy and reduce emissions. Systematical understanding on how to operate and manage green buildings is still inadequate, hence curbing green performance achievement and high-quality development of green buildings [7]. Property management is critical to achieve the designed ecological aims and sustainability performance of green buildings [8]. Liu et al. [9] found that the actual energy consumption of green buildings is significantly related to their property management rather than to their rated certification. Regarding the operation of certified green buildings in Shanghai, it has been found that technologies in the reclaimed water system, rainwater system, and exhaust heat recovery system are beset with operational problems [10]. Traditional property management firms are weak in the capabilities to operate green buildings with complicated and advanced technologies, leading to poor green performance. Furthermore, numerous ordinary employees in property management industry in China do not receive training related with green technologies [11]. Industry survey and research data indicate that 35% of existing green buildings have encountered problems caused by improper operation and management, resulting in buildings failing to fulfill ecological functions [12]. The low-quality property services and outdated ecological concepts prevent the achievement of green building objectives. As a result, designed operational standards and energy-saving targets for sustainable green building development have not been met.

Property management firm’s experience and attitudes towards green building operation are critical to green building performance [13]. Property management gains new interpretations and concepts with the concern of ecological operations and maintenance standards in China. Cheng and Huang [14] pointed out that green buildings’ operation and maintenance are related to their input, transformation, and output, with the aim of conducing the quality, cost, and ecological services of green buildings. Wang and Ge [12] highlighted the necessity of life-cycle management, human-oriented methods, and intelligent technology in green property management through the comparative analysis of green and traditional property management. Green property management is created to build a better environment by the latest technologies, and hence could be viewed as an extended concept from green building [15]. Liu et al. [16] established energy-saving methods in property management using the concept of traditional energy methods. Jiang et al. [17] found that in general, the ecological behavioral methods in property management highly increase the community residences’ happiness index and sense of belonging. Jing [18] further argued that green property management also contributes to resource-saving and human settlement environment improvement. Similar to the concept of green property management in China, the concept of sustainable facility management (SFM) aims to reduce the influence of buildings on the environment [19]. SFM could be viewed as such a process during which the property managers are empowered to change the structure/building and operation for the purpose of reducing negative influence. SFM is becoming an interdisciplinary research field that covers building performance/sustainability tools, standards/sustainable management, clients’ satisfaction, etc.

Currently, no consensus exists over the identification and analysis of factors that affect the sustainable operations and maintenance of buildings and communities [20,21]. Current research primarily focuses on the theoretical analysis of green property management concepts [21] and practical analysis [22], which highlight a paucity of in-depth analysis on promoting ecological practices in property management. Hence, obstacles remain in the process of transitioning from traditional to green property management. In order to fill this research gap, it is necessary to study property management enterprises’ behavior. Property management firms have been found to be unmotivated to initiate sustainable endeavors. For example, the unwillingness to use new technologies, concerns over increased operation cost, and clients’ lack of needs of sustainable property have been identified as obstacles in the process of property management firms operation launching sustainable initiatives [23,24,25].

This study analyzes the influencing factors of property management enterprises’ ecological behaviors (hereafter refer as PMEEB) and understands the action mechanism between the factors, by creatively combining qualitative and quantitative research approaches. First, the grounded theory is adopted to identify the influencing factors of PMEEB, which are then combined with the behavior science theory to develop a theoretical model of PMEEB. Based on the developed theoretical model, hypotheses are developed and verified by collecting empirical data. This paper creatively identified and tested factors such as property management enterprises’ ecological guiding behavior, ecological investment behavior, and professional ecological behaviors and their action mechanism. In terms of research methods, this research combined qualitative and quantitative research approaches to improve its reliability and validity. Specifically, the qualitative research method is adopted to identify the influencing factors of PMEEB, and then the action mechanism is verified based on the quantitative research method. This paper serves as a comprehensive empirical analysis of PMEEB in China. The research will help property management enterprises better understand the implications of ecological behaviors and promote the development of ecological communities and green lifestyles. Moreover, it yields insights into guiding governments and organizations in fully overcoming the obstacles to green property management development and might be a reference for future government decision-making.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Improving Emphasis on Sustainable Property Management Behaviours

Recent literature of property management emphasizes sustainable property management. Despite the differences of business model, both the Chinese and international property management enterprises recognize its importance in sustainable building operation [26]. Sustainable property management addresses the climate change and the ecology system and pays more attention on environment management [27]. According to the International Facility Management Association, the service contents of sustainable property management include energy management, waste recycle management, environment responsibility, community participation, carbon emissions, etc. [28]. Junghans and Olsson [29] convincingly argued that the sustainable property management of green buildings could effectively reduce energy consumption in building operation. In the research field of the Chinese property management, scholars such as Ren [30], Wang et al. [31], and Xiong [32] advanced the meanings of sustainable property management on the basis of their studies on concepts and contents of property management service. Wang et al. [33], Cheng et al. [34], and Huang et al. [35] proposed meanings of sustainable property management from the perspective of green building operation. Liu et al. [16] highlighted the significance of property management on building energy saving. The increasing application of intelligent control systems and digital technologies proposes higher requirements for property management enterprise managers. Ghaffarianhoseini et al. [36] argued that operating building by new digital technologies is very challenging for property management enterprises managers. The high operation cost raised by green technologies has a negative effect on managers’ willingness, especially when the profit is low. There is an urgent need to encourage property managers to value sustainability more highly in order to achieve sustainable operations. Hence, it appears to be highly necessary to further research on how to encourage property management enterprises to manage properties sustainably.

2.2. Influencing Factors of Property Management Enterprises’ Ecological Behaviours

Current research study both external and internal influencing factors of PMEEB. Early studies focused on external environmental pressures’ influence on PMEEB from the “stimulus-response” perspective [37]. Government’s regulative action has been identified as an important influencing factor. For instance, Mendeloff et al. [38] found that government’s inspection, warning, and fines are the main drivers of PMEEB; Parker et al. [39] and Biglan [40] found that mandatory regulations have a direct impact on PMEEB. Technology innovation is another influencing factor on PMEEB. Mohr. [41] argued that technology innovation leads to property management enterprises’ profit reduction in the short term, and hence has a negative influence on PMEEB. Community awareness of sustainability has also been proved to affect PMEEB by Books et al. [42], who further argued that community awareness of sustainability encourages property management enterprises to improve their ecological behaviors. Potential investors’ preference on sustainability could also improve PMEEB [43].

The above reviewed studies highlight the environmental stimulus on PMEEB but failed in explaining why different property management enterprises take various actions facing the same environment stimulus. In order to answer this question, scholars started to study how internal factors of the property management enterprises affect their ecological behaviors. The scale of the property management enterprise is identified as a determining factor of PMEEB. Particularly, the larger the scale of the property management enterprise, the higher the possibility that the enterprise invests in ecological behaviors [44]. Hopkins et al. [45] found large-scale property management firms are usually more capable of operating sustainable green buildings in the multifamily property management industry. Their study also showed that public owners pay more attention to sustainable operation than private owners, which could be attributed to the fact that public owners face more social responsibilities. Guan et al. [46] found that the ownership of the property management enterprises influences their investment on sustainability. Some researchers focused on green practices in the property management process. For example, Walker and Salaga [47] investigated how green practices in public assembly facilities management are influenced by ownership, organization structure, market scale, and facility types. In addition, financial status [48] and enterprise social responsibility [49] have been found to influence PMEEB directly.

Other factors such as firm leaders’ knowledge, attitudes, and policies have been found to influence PMEEB. For instance, Abbas Elmualim et al. [50] found that the ecological understandings, attitudes, and professional knowledge of leaders in property management enterprises affect the enterprises’ actions on sustainable property management. Leaders’ behaviors are particularly important when the property management industry practitioners lack understanding of green property management and sustainable property management. Property management enterprises’ ecological behaviors are also affected by the cooperation model between property management enterprises and clients. For example, Yang et al. [51] found that clients’ awards on energy saving could improve property management enterprises’ willingness to act and reduce building energy consumption. Recent applications of digital technologies such as intelligent control systems and building property information models propose higher requirements for property management enterprises. Ghaffarianhoseini et al. [36] found that the requirements of new digital technology have a negative impact on property management enterprises’ ecological behaviors because of the paradox between the high cost of new technology application and low profit of property management enterprises. Moreover, social responsibility, government policies, and sustainable development needs have a positive impact on property management enterprises’ ecological behaviors [28]. These papers have made a great contribution to sustainable property management. It has been widely agreed that property management enterprises’ ecological behaviors are influenced by complicated factors, both internal and external.

3. Research Framework and Hypotheses

In order to answer the proposed research questions, qualitative research strategies are combined with quantitative research strategies in this research. Empirical studies have shown that combined qualitative and quantitative research strategies could provide more insights into studied objects [52,53]. In terms of this research, the influencing factors are first identified by qualitative research methods, and the theoretical model of PMEEB is constructed based on the improved and planning behavior theory. Second, the research hypothesis of the action mechanism of the influencing factors is proposed in line with the theoretical model. Third, a set of effective questionnaires are designed to collect the property management enterprises’ evaluation on the hypothesis. Fourth, the hypothesis is verified and analyzed by quantitative research methods. The framework for the research process in the study is shown in Figure 1.

3.1. Initial Theoretical Model

The stimulus-response model is one of the most popular ones in existing research on influencing indicators of companies’ ecological behaviors, in that the main reasons that companies adopt ecological behaviors are stimulus and pressures from broader institutional context, such as environmental regulation announcements [37]. It is notable that this model views companies’ ecological behaviors as passive, failing to recognize the subjectivities involved in the initiating process.

To highlight the subjectivity in the behavior initiation process, Fishbein [54] proposed the multi-attribute attitude theory, which turns out be a classical and fundamental one in the field. The theory argues that the expected outcome affects individual’s behavior attitudes, which further determine individual’s behavioral intention. Fishbein and Ajzen [55] further explored the relationship between attitude and behavior and put forward the theory of reasoned action. The reasoned action theory suggests that an individual’s behavior is determined by behavioral intention, which is heavily affected by their behavioral attitude and their exposed subjective norms. This theory is widely criticized as failing to acknowledge the external environment’s effect on agencies’ behavior, nor management intervention on subjects’ behaviors. In order to improve, Ajzen [56] adopted a self-control view to study the relationship between attitude and behavior, and argued for the significance of intention and self-prediction in predicting individual’s behaviors. His study added perceived behavior as a control variable in the reasoned action theory, which was then known as the theory of planned behavior (TPB). The TPB was later widely tested in empirical studies and proved to be a valid theory to predict connections between attitude and behavior [57]. In recent years, TPB has been used to explore managers’ roles in firm decision-making processed and ecological behaviors. For example, Chou et al. [58] developed a model for green practice adoption by combining TPB and innovation diffusion theory. Zhang et al. [59] adopted TPB to explore influencing factors in firms’ adoption of clean production technologies. Ma et al. [60] developed an analysis framework for foreign invested firms’ environmental innovation practices on the bases of TPB. Long et al. [61] put forward an extended TPB model to study Chinese firms’ environment behaviors and their impact on economic and environmental performance. Liu and He [62] adopted TPB to study influencing factors upon real estate firms’ ecological behaviors. TPB highlights managers’ motivations in their decision-making process and is thus suitable to explore driving forces of companies’ ecological behaviors [63].

As an inclusive model, the TPB model provides adequate space for adjusting tuning variables, mediating variables, and independent variables according to studied empirical phenomenon [64]. The complexity and uncertainty of the market environment in which companies operate make it necessary to add moderating variables when applying TPB to study companies’ decision-making process on ecological behaviors [65]. The research of Hines et al. [66] demonstrated the significance of situational factors in affecting the degree of behavioral intention’s translation into actions. Ajzen [67] and Knussen et al. [68] further convincedly argued that the results of behavior significantly affect individuals’ further behavior.

As previously argued, TPB focuses on the effect of individual’s attitude on their behavior. Hence, theories of planned behavior are suitable to study companies’ environmental behavior, and specifically ecological behaviors in property management. Recognizing both external context and individual’s motivation and attitudes, the analysis model has been adjusted to study influencing factors of PMEEB (see Figure 2).

3.2. Identify Influencing Factors

Qualitative research approaches enable researchers to identify problems from the perspective of the research object by identifying the influencing factors of PMEEB. First, the semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions were used to collect initial data. In-depth semi-structured interviews can generate myriad textual information and rich interview data, from which concepts and categories could be abstracted. The semi-structured interview outline was used for data collection. To build a trusting relationship with the interviewees, the open access method was adopted. The interview outline is a list of questions used by the interviewer, which the interviewer can refer to during the interview. These interview outlines include:

Q1. What are the requirements of the ecological community and green building for property management enterprises?

Q2. What is the ecological pressure of property management enterprises?

Q3. What ecological and environmental protection measures have been taken?

Q4. Why property management enterprises take these ecological measures?

Q5. What are the factors that influence the ecological behavior of property management enterprises?

Q6. What are the obstacles to implement ecological behavior?

Q7. What is the impact of influencing and obstacle factors on the property management enterprises?

Second, mature residential communities and public buildings were selected for field research. Residential buildings and public buildings account for the largest proportions of certificated green buildings in China [69], and hence property management firms of these two types of buildings were selected as research objects. Property management firms in Jinan, Qingdao, Shenzhen, Nanjing, and Shijiazhuang were selected. All selected property management firms have set up their protocol for property management services. Senior managers in the selected firms were interviewed. In total, 94 interviews were conducted, among which 76 interviews were identified as valid data. Overall, 62 interviewees work on residential buildings property management while 8 interviewees work on commercial buildings management and 6 interviewees work on office buildings. These types of buildings account for the largest proportion of buildings in China, and hence the selected objects are representative–although access to other public buildings such as hospitals, schools, hotels, etc., has not been gained. Among these buildings, 62 were conducted with people from community property service companies and 14 were conducted with staff from public building property service companies.

Third, content analysis was conducted. Qualitative data analysis is the process of discovery. Through text data analysis, unique viewpoints of participants could be gathered; the social significance of their behaviors could be understood and interpreted, which facilitates theory development. The analysis process is composed of encoding, classification, and conceptualization [70]. Encoding refers to carefully reading the raw text, understanding what topics are discussed in the text, and then marking the data with related topics. Classification refers to the merging of topics, which has similar attributes. The process of categorizing is to obtain a conceptual understanding of the data by grouping individual codes into broader code categories. Conceptualization is to abstract code categories into theoretical concepts, which are then used to develop theoretical model of PMEEB. In order to test the reliability of the data analysis, data were recoded and categorized by the second author. The same code, category, and concept were identified. In the end of the coding process, authors went in and out of existing literature to check the connections between emergent categories and factors emphasized in existing literature. By doing so, the validity was assured. The simplified categorization and conceptualization process are shown in

Table 1. Categorization and conceptualization process of influencing factors.

The Representative Original Statements	Code	Category	Concept
The government authorities carry out daily checks on the implementation of ecological measures, and hence exercise adequate supervision on the property management enterprises.	Social regulation	Government regulation	Stimulus
The government will provide certain economic subsidies for green property management, which will arouse the enthusiasm of enterprises.	Economic regulation
Place emphasis on green buildin and ecology as the development trend, otherwise the enterprise will be driven out by the market.	Market competition	Market pressure
Now that the market of green building is getting bigger and bigger, property management enterprises should have the ability to operate green building facilities.	Market requirement
Energy conservation and environmental protection has been a social consensus, which is also a great pressure on property management enterprises.	Social consensus	Social supervision
The public will complain if the enterprise’s behavior causes damage to the construction facilities or community environment.	Public opinion
This will increase the initial investment of property management enterprises, including the purchase of equipment, personnel training, and so on.	Initial investment	Service cost	Scenario
Many property service companies regard the operation and management of green buildings as a burden in their work, because the cost of operation and management of green buildings is relatively high.	Operation cost
Green building requires a high level of property management talent, and there are few people in our company who are qualified for such a job.	Professional talents	Resource availability
The traditional property management technology cannot guarantee the smooth operation of green building, so the advanced management technology and method are very important.	Management technology and method
At present, a green property management standard is needed to regulate the behavior of enterprises and improve the level of property services.	Green property management standard
Our goal is to build an ecological community, which puts forward corresponding requirements for property management. Therefore, we need to learn and invest more.	Ecological community	Object factors
This shopping mall is a two-star green building, which imposes many requirements for property management, such as water saving management, energy saving management, garbage classification management, pollution prevention, and so on.	Green build
Property owners’ participation is an important contribution to the implementation of ecological measures. Therefore, owners’ participation is crucial to exercise green property management.	Owner’s willingness to participate	Owner willingness
This will lead to the increase in property management costs, but owners may not be willing to pay more.	Owner’s willingness to pay
Our company is small in scale. Currently, the projects we serve are mainly medium and low-end communities, and we pay little attention to energy conservation and environmental protection.	Enterprise scale	Enterprise scale	Status
As a state-owned enterprise, we are willing to invest in ecological and environmental protection.	Ownership nature	Enterprise nature
Management technology and professional talents are very important. There are still many deficiencies in this aspect of our enterprise. We are still in the early stage of development.	Talent and technology	Enterprise capability
We have not yet conducted green building property management, which is a challenge for our business, in that we do not know how to do it.	Experience
Our enterprise has set up green ecological values and practiced ecological management philosophy. In the future, we are going to create an image of a property management enterprise which put a premium on green and ecology.	Enterprise values	Enterprise values
We are doing a lot of ecological work now, and I think that is an advantage for our business, and that we are very competitive in the market.	Competitiveness	Enterprise profit	Result
Enterprises focus on profits. However, ecological investment is a long-term cycle. In the long run, businesses will reap economic benefits. Therefore, the property management enterprises should know whether to focus on the present or the future.	Economic income
We are building an ecological community, and ecological measures have brought good experience to the owners. Owners’ satisfaction is the driving force for the enterprise.	Owner willingness	Owner satisfaction
At present, we organize activities in the community to promote ecological protection and resource conservation. Through these activities, owners can learn relevant knowledge and change their behaviors.	Publicity, education, and guidance	Ecological guiding behavior	Ecological behavior
Recently, we made modifications to the air conditioning system, which cost about 300,000 yuan. However, the new air conditioning system has better energy efficiency. I think these investments are worth it.	Investment on replacing equipment	Ecological investment behavior
Our project gives priority to the procurement of equipment listed in the national energy-saving product catalogue, and we have fully implemented home solar water heating systems in the community.	Investment in equipment procurement
Our project sets up a platform for energy consumption monitoring, so that building energy consumption can be analyzed and targeted energy saving measures can be taken.	Energy consumption monitoring platform	Professional ecological behavior
This is a contract energy management project. We bring in professional energy management companies. This has been proved to be effective. In the future, our company will participate in more contract energy management projects.	Contract energy management
Our goal is to become a green property management demonstration project, which is a challenge for us, and the enterprise will strive to complete this work.	Green property management

. The detailed analysis process is presented in Liu et al.’s. [22] previous paper.

The collected qualitative data indicated that the PMEEB’s influencing factors are diverse and complex. It is hence necessary to study how these factors affect property management enterprises, the generation of behavioral motivation, and promote the implementation of behavior. The stimulus refers to external environment pressures such as market pressure, government regulation, and social supervision. Government regulation means that the government uses public power to restrict and regulate individual and organizational behavior by formulating rules or taking special actions. Collected data show that government regulations fall into social and economic ones. The market pressure faced by property management enterprises mainly comes from market competition and market demand. Confronted with the development of green buildings and ecological communities, property management enterprises must update their technology and management concepts to meet the needs of market development. Social supervision, meanwhile, refers to the supervision by the public and the media and includes Internet platforms, telephone complaints, and media reports.

The scenario category can be interpreted as the development environment of the property service industry. The scenario category covers resource availability, service cost, object factors, and owner willingness. Resource availability refers to the availability of professional talents, technologies, and standards that property management enterprises need to implement ecological behaviors. Service cost refers to the increased cost caused by ecological behavior implementation. Objective factors refer to whether the service objects are green buildings and ecological communities, which have special ecological demands. Owner willingness relates to owner attitudes towards the ecological behavior implementation from property services enterprises. This involves both the willingness to pay more for services and the willingness to participate in ecological protection. These factors stimulate PMEEB in a psychological way and promote the implementation of PEMB indirectly.

The status category can be interpreted as internal factors related to property management enterprises, which covers enterprise nature, enterprise scale, enterprise capabilities, and corporate values. Enterprise nature refers to the nature of its ownership: state-owned, foreign-invested, joint-stock, or privately-owned enterprises. Enterprise scale refers to the production and operation scale of a property management enterprise. Enterprise capability refers to the professional skills and talents possessed by an enterprise, which represents the level at which an enterprise can engage in ecological activities. Corporate values refer to the value orientation of the business and its employees; they are the basic beliefs and objectives driving the enterprise’s pursuit of business success. Whether the ecological concept is regarded as a corporate value affects its ecological behavior decision.

The result category can be interpreted as expected outcome after the implementation of ecological behavior. The expected outcome includes profit and owner satisfaction. Property management enterprises implement ecological measures with the expectation of gaining economic benefits and owners’ recognition. The resulting factors affect future behavior motivation and behavior implementation.

The categories of ecological behavior implementation were further identified by referring to the Code for Operation and Maintenance of Green Buildings and the Assessment Methods of Green Property Management in Shenzhen. According to the effort and method of input, PEMB is divided into ecological guiding behavior (EGB), ecological investment behavior (EIB), and professional ecological behavior (PEB). EGB addresses education and guidance practices adopted by property management enterprises to encourage others to save resources and protect the environment; examples include publicizing the concept of ecological and environmental protection to owners or holding lectures on energy conservation, water conservation, and resource conservation and publicizing relevant policies. EIB refers to the promotion of resource conservation by investing in energy efficient equipment by, for example, purchasing high-efficiency, energy-saving, and water-saving equipment, renewable energy equipment, and information technology to provide property services. PEB refers to property management enterprises conducting cutting-edge theoretical research and realizing resource-saving by implementing professional measures. This includes research on theories of sustainable operation management, green property management, and energy management models.

Based on the above analysis and the initial theoretical model of PMEEB, the adjusted theoretical model of PMEEB was built, as shown in Figure 3.

3.3. Research Hypotheses

In the adjusted theoretical model (Figure 3), there are four action paths of influencing factors: status, stimulus, scenario, and result. Status factors directly influence ecological behavior implementation. Stimulus factors affect ecological behavior implementation through the intermediate variable of ecological behavior motivation. Scenario factors are moderating variables, which have moderating effects on the transformation of ecological behavior motivation to ecological behavior implementation. Finally, result factors influence ecological behavior motivation and implementation. On the basis of this model, the following hypotheses are proposed.

In terms of status factors, organization and management theories have explored and demonstrated the influence of enterprise status on their ecological behaviors. These status factors include but are not limited to: enterprise scale [71,72], financial status [73,74], resources and capabilities [75,76], and corporate values [77,78].

In terms of the enterprise scale, Welch et al. [71] found that enterprise scale is positively related to corporate environmental behavior and that larger organizations are more likely to adopt good ecological behaviors. The larger the enterprise, the more productive resources it has. Such large enterprises can afford the environmental costs to achieve a stronger competitive advantage. Hayami et al. [79] argued that enterprise scale is a determinant of improved ecological behavior, and that enterprise scale is positively correlated with ecological behavior, such as adopting more clean production processes. However, Bao et al. [80] argued that small-scale enterprises generally have stronger environmental sensitivity and will actively cooperate with the government’s environmental policies. In contrast, large-scale enterprises generally prefer to respond to government environmental controls by paying emission fees instead of adopting more environmental management behaviors. On the basis of this, Hypothesis 1.1 is proposed.

About enterprise nature. In a study on the differences in the environmental governance behavior of enterprises with various property rights, Tang et al. [81] argue that China’s economic system makes state-owned enterprises closely linked to the government, and state-owned enterprises’ business activities are mostly subject to government intervention; when the government imposes environmental protection targets on state-owned enterprises, state-owned enterprises face greater social responsibility, and environmental policies have a significant impact on state-owned enterprises’ environmental governance. Some scholars, however, hold a different view, arguing that under the influence of controlling the size of total assets, non-state enterprises will invest relatively more in environmental protection than state-owned enterprises for environmental management purposes in order to build political connections and improve their corporate image [82]. Therefore, the different nature of property rights of enterprises leads to differences in business objectives, investment decisions, and strategic planning among enterprises, which in turn manifest themselves in behavioral differences in corporate environmental governance [83]. On the basis of this, Hypothesis 1.2 is proposed.

About enterprise capabilities. Much of the existing literature adopts resource theory to explore the impact of firms’ disposable resources and various enterprise capabilities on enterprise behavior. Hart, S.L. [84], who adopts a resource-based perspective, argued that specific disposable resources and capacity support are necessary for firms to implement environmental behaviors and gain competitive advantage. Christmann [85] preferred to view organizational capability as a complementary asset in exploring firms’ environmental behavior influencing factor analysis. Aragon-Correa and Sharma [65] further argued that firm-specific resources and capabilities are prerequisites for firms to implement environmental behaviors to gain competitive advantage. Bhupendra and Sangle [86] suggested that firms’ innovation capabilities play a driving role in their environmental behavior implementation. Hence, Hypothesis 1.3 is proposed.

About corporate values. Many scholars agree that the establishment of a sustainability-oriented corporate culture has a significant impact on firms’ adoption of environmental behaviors. On the basis of their study, Kitazawa and Sarkis [87] argued that a change in corporate values is an essential factor for the successful implementation of environmental pollution reduction measures. Linnenluecke and Griffiths [88], however, found that companies are less likely to exhibit a unified sustainability-oriented organizational culture. In his empirical study, Ágnes [77] found that in order to achieve consistent ecological behavior in the company, environmental values need to be integrated into the corporate culture steadily and explicitly, so that firm’s ecological behavior could be consistent. Hence, Hypothesis 1.4 is proposed.

H1. 

Ecological behavior implementation varies with different status factors (including enterprise scale, enterprise nature, enterprise capabilities, and corporate values).

(Null Hypothesis: Ho1. Ecological behavior implementation does not vary with different status factors, including enterprise scale, enterprise nature, enterprise capabilities, and corporate values.)

H1.1. 

Ecological behavior implementation varies with enterprise scale.

H1.2. 

Ecological behavior implementation varies with enterprise nature.

H1.3. 

Ecological behavior implementation varies with enterprise capabilities.

H1.4. 

Ecological behavior implementation varies with corporate values.

In terms of stimulus factors, their influence on enterprise behaviors have been explored from various theoretical perspectives, such as neo-institutionalism [89] and stakeholder theory [90]. The neo-institutionalism perspective emphasizes the impact of institutional environment including rules, values, and norms on organizations [91]. The stakeholder theory highlights the impact of related stakeholders on enterprise behaviors [72]. Related stakeholders include government, community, media, industry associations, investors, consumers, competitors, suppliers, etc. [92,93]. The above environmental factors have been categorized into market pressure, government regulation, and social supervision. On basis of this, Hypothesis 2 and 3 are proposed:

About government regulation. The initial environmental behaviors passively adopted by companies are mainly the ones that comply with environmental laws and regulations and are regulated by policies. In their 35-year exploration of firms along the U.S.–Mexico border, Carrillo and Zárate found that government environmental regulation is the main driver of corporate environmental behavior [94]. Chen et al. [95] analyzed the impact of government environmental policies on the firms’ environmental behavior and found that the government’s environmental policy slowly changes from end-of-pipe treatment to active prevention, and gradually develops from a regulatory to an incentive-based environmental policy, and the government implements incentive tools for enterprises to further pull them to actively implement environmental behaviors. Adopting the game theory, Jin suggested that firms tend to have less willingness to adopt ecological behaviors if the government’s supervision is not strong, but have more willingness to adopt ecological behaviors when the cost of breaking law is high [96]. Therefore, Hypothesis 3.1 is proposed.

About market pressure and social supervision. Along with the increasing attention on environmental issues, the public and market attitudes affect firms’ decision of whether to adopt ecological behavior. The public has been found to play an active and important role as one key stakeholder in monitoring firms’ environmental behaviors [97]. Moreover, the increasing popularity of green consumption has also brought the ecological behavior of enterprises into the focus of public attention. Arora et al. [98] found that many consumers with higher purchasing power prefer to spend more on environmentally friendly goods, which prompted many companies to adopt more ecological behaviors in pursuit of product differentiation. In other words, consumers’ demands on environment-friendly goods influence firms’ decisions on ecological behaviors. Based on this, Hypothesis 3.3 is proposed.

H2. 

Ecological behavior motivation is positively correlated with stimulus factors (market pressure, government regulation, and social supervision).

(Null Hypothesis: Ho2. Ecological behavior motivation is not or negatively correlated with stimulus factors including market pressure, government regulation, and social supervision.)

H3. 

Ecological behavior implementation is positively correlated with stimulus factors (market pressure, government regulation, and social supervision).

(Null Hypothesis: Ho3. Ecological behavior implementation is not or negatively correlated with stimulus factors including market pressure, government regulation, and social supervision)

H3.1. 

Ecological behavior implementation is positively correlated with government regulation.

H3.2. 

Ecological behavior implementation is positively correlated with market pressure.

H3.3. 

Ecological behavior implementation is positively correlated with social supervision.

In terms of result factors, several research has demonstrated that economic benefits and owners’ satisfaction influence enterprises’ ecological behaviors. For example, Zhang et al. [99] argued that though enterprises’ ecological behaviors contribute to cost growth, they could also bring economic benefit to themselves through wining public recognition and gaining government rewards and tax reduction. Chen [100] found that environmental performance and financial performance interact with each other on the basis of his research on 55 enterprises. Zhou [101] argued that owners’ satisfaction and good reputation could motivate enterprises to undertake ecological efforts. Therefore, this paper proposed the Hypothesis 4 and 5:

H4. 

Ecological behavior motivation is positively correlated with result factors (enterprise profit and owner satisfaction).

(Null Hypothesis: Ho4. Ecological behavior motivation is not or negatively correlated with result factors including enterprise profit and owner satisfaction)

H4.1. 

Ecological behavior motivation is positively associated with enterprise profit.

H4.2. 

Ecological behavior motivation is positively correlated with owner satisfaction.

H5. 

Ecological behavior implementation is positively correlated with result factors (enterprise profit and owner satisfaction).

(Null Hypothesis: Ho5. Ecological behavior implementation is not or negatively correlated with result factors including enterprise profit and owner satisfaction.)

H5.1. 

Ecological behavior implementation is positively correlated with enterprise profit.

H5.2. 

Ecological behavior implementation is positively correlated with owner satisfaction.

In terms of the mediation effect of ecological behavior motivation, the planned behavior theory argues that willingness is a determining factor of action. The influence of external environmental stimulus on action willingness and implementation have been explored by many researchers. For example, Graham and Woods [102] argued that market pressure provides positive motivation for enterprise ecological behaviors based on their study on multinational corporations. Yong [103] found that the impact of government regulations, market pressure, and the public on enterprise ecological motivation is negative, unconscious, and positive, respectively. Hence, Hypothesis 6 is proposed:

H6. 

Ecological behavior motivation has mediating effects on the association between stimulus factors and ecological behavior implementation.

(Null Hypothesis: Ho6. Ecological behavior motivation does not have mediating effects on the association between stimulus factors and ecological behavior implementation.)

In terms of the mediation effect of scenario factors, enterprises’ ecological strategies are moderated by managers’ perceived scenario of operating environment [104,105]. Aragon-Correa and Sharma [65] further argued that the complexity and uncertainty of operation environment and organizational decision-making scenarios have mediating effects on enterprises’ ecological behaviors. Hence, in order to test the mediating effects of scenarios in the theoretical model of PMEEB, Hypothesis 7 is proposed:

H7. 

Scenario factors have moderating effects on the association between ecological behavior motivation and ecological behavior implementation.

(Null Hypothesis: Ho7. Scenario factors do not have moderating effects on the association between ecological behavior motivation and ecological behavior implementation.)

4. Research Methods

4.1. Data Collection

To conduct an empirical analysis of the interaction and mechanism of the influencing factors, this research needs to obtain effective data. Since no valid questionnaire on PMEEB for reference is currently available, a set of effective questionnaires is designed to obtain relevant data. The combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods can serve different scale development goals [106]. The mixed methods have been used to develop questionnaires and scales such as the Hybrid Offerings Sales Capability [107,108]. Drawing upon this literature, the survey questionnaire is designed, as shown in Figure 4.

First, research variables obtained through qualitative research were identified and operationally defined. Operationalization refers to the process of forming indicators, indexes, or scales [109], whereby concepts are transformed into observable objects. During this process, the level of abstraction (concept) gradually drops to the level of experience (indicator) [110]. The research hypothesis must then be transformed from being abstract to being specific. This was completed through the empirical deduction method, which transforms abstract concepts into empirical indicators and deduces concrete hypotheses from research hypotheses. In this study, the operational definition of the variables stage is composed of the abstract definition of variables and the formation of comprehensive evaluation indicators [110]. This was followed by designing the initial questionnaire. Then, 40 property management enterprises in Shandong province were investigated to test the validity of the initial questionnaire. Analysis results show that the initial questionnaire was improved to make it more effective.

The final formal questionnaire consists of six parts: status, stimulus, scenario, ecological behavior motivation, ecological behavior implementation, and results. The status section embraces enterprise size, enterprise type, enterprise ability, and corporate values to reflect the property management enterprises’ situations. Enterprise size is measured by its annual revenue. Enterprise types encompass state-owned enterprises, joint-stock enterprises, foreign-invested enterprises, and privately-owned enterprises. The proportion of full-time managerial and technical personnel is indicative of the corresponding enterprise’s capability. Corporate values are reflected by the importance of terms such as “social welfare,” “resource conservation,” and “ecological environment.” These questions help determine each enterprise’s ecological behavior characteristics.

The stimulus section investigates government regulation, market pressure, and social supervision. Six questions about social and economic regulation are proposed to evaluate the impact of government regulation. Four questions concentrating on market competition and demand are designed to evaluate the impact of market pressure. Four questions examining media coverage and public opinion are formulated to evaluate the impact of social supervision. Respondents are required to answer on a five-point scale.

The scenario section focuses on resource availability, object factor, service cost, and owner willingness. To understand service cost, four questions are designed in evaluating the costs of equipment purchase, operation and maintenance, professional talent recruitment, and training. For information about resource availability, three questions are formulated to evaluate whether the talents, technologies, and standards of the property service industry can meet the needs of the enterprises’ ecological development. To research object factors, two questions are developed evaluating the attitude of property management enterprises towards green buildings and ecological communities. Regarding owner willingness, seven questions evaluating owners’ attitude towards PMEEB are designed. Owners’ attitudes are represented by their willingness to cooperate with property management enterprises to pay higher service fees in order to implement ecological measures. Respondents are required to answer on a five-point scale.

Ecological behavior motivation corresponds to the type of ecological behavior. This section consists of three questions that evaluate property management enterprises’ motivation to implement ecological behavior. Ecological behavior implementation includes ecological guiding behavior (EGB), ecological investment behavior (EIB), and professional ecological behavior (PEB). In this section, a total of 10 questions are used to evaluate the implementation of ecological measures by property management enterprises. Respondents are required to answer on a five-point scale.

In the result section, questions are formulated to examine enterprise benefits and owner satisfaction. To understand enterprise benefits, six questions are designed to evaluate how property management enterprises benefit through ecological behavior implementation, including enterprise economic benefit, industry visibility, and competitiveness. Two questions are also designed to evaluate whether ecological measures can improve owner satisfaction. Respondents are required to answer on a five-point scale.

The questionnaire survey was completed with the assistance of China Association of Building Energy Efficiency and Shandong Province Real Estate Association. The China Association of Building Energy Efficiency has a close cooperation with property management associations. With its assistance, questionnaires were distributed to property management firms and achieved good quality. The questionnaires were distributed to property management enterprises operating in Beijing, Shandong, Shenzhen, Shanghai, and Jiangsu. By doing so, the respondents covered eastern China, where the property management industry prospers. In addition, proper management enterprises in both the large- and small-scale were selected, so that diverse voices could be collected. The questionnaire survey was conducted through the Internet, email, and on-site distribution. The respondents were middle and higher managers in property management enterprises in China. The respondents were required to complete the questionnaire securing survey quality. The questionnaires were distributed from October 2019 to March 2020. Overall, 502 answered questionnaires were received, in which 414 valid questionnaires were collected.

Table 2. General characteristics of respondents.

	Range	Percent
Enterprise Scale (Annual operating income in CNY)	Less than five million	11.58%
	Five to ten million	18.26%
	Ten to fifty million	25.79%
	Fifty to one hundred million	21.05%
	One hundred million or more	23.32%
Enterprise nature	State-owned enterprises	23.37%
	Foreign-invested enterprises	3.62%
	Joint-stock enterprises	47.73%
	Private enterprises	21.32%
	Others	3.96%
Enterprise capabilities (The proportion of full-time managerial and technical personnel. Managerial personnel refers to staff with specific property management education or training, while technical personnel refers to staff who in charge of direct reparement and maintenance.)	Less than 10%	24.54%
	20–10%	23.78%
	30–20%	35.36
	40–30%	10.53%
	More than 40%	5.79%
Corporate values (The importance of social welfare, resource conservation and ecological environment to enterprises)	Not important	8.07%
	Relatively unimportant	15.37%
	Generally important	21.13%
	Relatively important	36.46%
	Very important	18.97%

describes the general characteristics of the surveyed property management enterprises.

4.2. Data Analysis

4.2.1. Normality Test, Reliability Test, and Validity Test

The survey data were collated, after which the normality, reliability, and validity tests were carried out with SPSS 23 software. The skewness of each question was between −1.105 and −0.152, and the kurtosis was between −1.291 and 1.735. Both skewness and kurtosis satisfy the condition of normal distribution, indicating that all items obey normal distribution. Cronbach’s Alpha was used to test the reliability of the collected data. The results showed that Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was greater than 0.8, which guarantees the internal consistency index of the scale as well as the reliability of the data. The validity test includes structure validity and content validity, which refers to the suitability and logical consistency between items and measured variables. The scale used in this study was constructed based on a literature review to indicate the relationship between variables. Furthermore, according to the results of the preliminary investigation, the wording and expression of the questions were further revised and improved. Therefore, it can be safely argued that the content validity of the scale meets the requirements. The structure validity of the scale was verified by exploratory factor analysis. Exploratory factor analysis was performed by a Kaiser Meyer Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. The results showed that the KOM values were all greater than 0.7, and Bartlett’s test of spherical values were significant. Therefore, the test results (see in

Table 3. Reliability and validity test of the scales used.

Variables		Items	Cronbach’s alpha	KMO	Sig.
Stimulus	Government regulation	6	0.909	0.953	0.000
	Market pressure	4	0.914
	Social supervision	4	0.912
Scenario	Service cost	4	0.922	0.959	0.000
	Resource availability	3	0.921
	Objective factors	2	0.906
	Owner willingness	7	0.919
Ecological behavior motivation	Ecological behavior motivation	3	0.887	0.838	0.000
Ecological behavior implementation	Ecologically guided behavior	3	0.863	0.876	0.000
	Ecological investment behavior	4	0.876
	Professional ecological behavior	3	0.842
Result	Enterprise profit	6	0.871	0.866	0.000
	Owner satisfaction	2	0.858

) showed that the data are suitable for factor analysis.

This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn.

4.2.2. Variance Analysis and Mean Analysis

The results of the variance and mean analysis of PMEEB under different status factors has been presented in

Table 4. Variance and mean analysis of ecological behavior implementation under different status factors.

Status	Sig.			Range	Means
	EGB	EIB	PEB		EGB	EIB	PEB
Enterprise scale	0.066	0.012	0.028	Less than five million	3.446	3.073	3.107
				Five to ten million	3.656	3.325	3.367
				Ten to fifty million	3.697	3.615	3.659
				Fifty to one hundred million	3.848	3.874	3.815
				One hundred million or more	4.014	3.997	3.990
Enterprise nature	0.320	0.287	0.354	State-owned enterprises	3.682	3.621	3.602
				Foreign-invested enterprises	3.732	3.301	3.272
				Joint-stock enterprises	3.671	3.572	3.751
				Private enterprises	3.482	3.225	3.112
				Others	3.416	3.231	3.193
Enterprise capabilities	0.191	0.009	0.021	Less than 10%	3.361	3.065	3.059
				20–10%	3.492	3.142	3.171
				30–20%	3.670	3.611	3.342
				40–30%	3.861	3.753	3.653
				More than 40%	4.021	3.915	3.850
Enterprise values	0.018	0.019	0.008	Not important	3.141	3.022	3.051
				Relatively unimportant	3.611	3.353	3.583
				Generally important	3.781	3.762	3.694
				Relatively important	3.891	3.842	3.881
				Very important	3.987	3.918	3.967

. The inspection level is 5%. From the results, there is no significant correlation between EGB and the enterprise scale, and the mean is generally larger. This indicates that property management enterprises are generally willing to guide owners to participate in community resource-saving activities regardless of their scale. The results show that EIB and PEB vary with different enterprise scales. Moreover, it is evident that large enterprises do more in terms of ecological investment and specialized technologies than small enterprises. This suggests that hypothesis H1.1 is partially supported.

The results show that there is no significant correlation between ecological behavior implementation (including EGB, EIB, and PEB) and enterprise nature, indicating that some state-owned property management enterprises do not play a leading role in ecological development. This suggests that hypothesis H1.2 is not supported by data.

Results also show that there is no significant correlation between EGB and enterprise capabilities. However, EIB and PEB vary with the enterprise capabilities. This demonstrates that property management enterprises with more professionals and experience are more willing to invest in ecological aspects and implement professional ecological behaviors. This means that hypothesis H1.3 is partially supported.

It can be also seen that EGB, EIB, and PEB vary with different corporate values. This shows that corporate values are an important factor affecting PMEEB. Considering social welfare, resource conservation, and ecological environment as enterprises’ development concepts will effectively guide the ecological transformation of property management enterprises. This suggests that hypothesis H1.4 is supported.

The above analysis also suggests that hypothesis H1 is partially supported. The mean of different types of enterprises is greater than 3, which indicates that property management enterprises generally have a certain enthusiasm for implementing ecological measures. EGB is widely implemented by property management enterprises. Property management enterprises guide owners to participate in ecological community construction by publicizing and promoting green ecological knowledge. EIB and PEB are influenced by enterprise scale, enterprise ability and corporate values because they require more capital and technology investment.

4.2.3. Linear Regression Analysis

The linear regression analysis was carried out to test the relationship between stimulus actors and ecological behavior motivation, as well as the relationship between stimulus factors and ecological behavior implementation. The results are shown in

Table 5. The results of linear regression analysis.

Variables		Ecological Behavior Motivation		Ecological Behavior Implementation
				EGB		EIB		PEB
		Bate	Fig.	Bate	Fig.	Bate	Fig.	Bate	Fig.
Stimulus	Government regulation	0.261	0.000	0.172	0.001	0.308	0.000	0.299	0.000
	Market pressure	0.322	0.000	0.353	0.000	0.296	0.000	0.275	0.000
	Social supervision	0.221	0.000	0.144	0.017	0.095	0.109	0.092	0.127
Result	Enterprise profit	0.237	0.000	0.217	0.000	0.246	0.000	0.227	0.000
	Owner satisfaction	0.165	0.000	0.130	0.004	0.021	0.669	0.077	0.097

. The threshold is set to 5%. The results show that ecological behavior motivation is positively correlated with stimulus factors (including market pressure, government regulation, and social supervision), which indicates that hypothesis H2 is supported. The standardized regression coefficient (bate) reflects the influence degree of the independent variable on the dependent variable [111]. Regarding specific factors, ecological behavior motivation is most significantly correlated with market pressure (bate = 0.322), secondly with government regulation (bate = 0.261), and thirdly with social supervision (bate = 0.221).

The results in Table 5 show that ecological behavior implementation (including EGB, EIB, and PEB) is positively correlated with government regulation, which indicates that hypothesis H3.1 is supported. In addition, ecological behavior implementation (including EGB, EIB and PEB) is positively correlated with market pressure, proving that hypothesis H3.2 is supported. EGB is positively correlated with social supervision. Furthermore, the correlation between EIB and social supervision is not significant (p > 0.05). In addition, the correlation between PEB and social supervision is not significant (p > 0.05). This shows that government regulation and market pressure are the main incentive factors for property management enterprises to carry out EIB and PEB. Social supervision has not been able to play an effective role, which again shows that hypothesis H3.3 is partially supported. Therefore, hypothesis H3 is partially supported. As for the specific factors, market pressure has the greatest influence on EGB (bate = 0.353), and government regulation has the greatest influence on both EIB (bate = 0.308) and g PEB (bate = 0.299). This suggests that government regulation plays a greater role in promoting the implementation of PMEEB.

A linear regression analysis of the outcome factors indicates that ecological behavior motivation is positively correlated with result factors (including enterprise profit and owner satisfaction). Hypothesis H4 is supported. Ecological behavior implementation (including EGB, EIB, and PEB) is positively correlated with enterprise profit. Hypothesis H5.1 is supported. EGB is positively correlated with owner satisfaction. However, the correlation between EIB and owner satisfaction is not significant (p > 0.05), and the same as PEB (p > 0.05). This suggests that hypothesis H5.2 is partially supported. Thus, hypothesis H5 is partially supported. This shows that property management enterprises are concerned about whether the implementation of ecological behavior can bring direct benefits, especially when there are relevant capital and technical needs to be inputted.

4.2.4. Mediating Effect Test of Ecological Behavior Motivation

The most-commonly-used-method to test the mediating effect is adopted to test the regression coefficient step by step [112]. The mediating effect test model was constructed by taking stimulus factors (including market pressure, government regulation, and social supervision) as the independent variable, ecological behavior motivation as the intermediary variable, and ecological behavior implementation (including EGB, EIB, and PEB) as the dependent variable. The results of the mediating effect test are shown in

Table 6. The results of the mediating effect test.

	M1			M2			M3
	EGB	Ecological Behavior Motivation	EGB	EIB	Ecological Behavior Motivation	EIB	PEB	Ecological Behavior Motivation	PEB
	Step 1	Step 2	Step 3	Step 1	Step 2	Step 3	Step 1	Step 2	Step 3
	Bate	Bate	Bate	Bate	Bate	Bate	Bate	Bate	Bate
Government regulation	0.172 *	0.261 *	0.119 *	0.308 *	0.261 *	0.275 *	0.299 *	0.261 *	0.257 *
Market pressure	0.353 *	0.322 *	0.247 *	0.296 *	0.322 *	0.230 *	0.275 *	0.322 *	0.191 *
Social supervision	0.144 *	0.221 *	0.071	0.095	0.221 *	0.050	0.092	0.221 *	0.035
Ecological behavior motivation			0.329 *			0.205 *			0.260 *

* Statistical significance at the 5% level.

. The threshold was set to 5%. In model 1, in the first step, linear regression analysis was carried out by taking market pressure, government regulation, and social supervision as independent variables and EGB as dependent variables. The results indicate that market pressure, government regulation, and social supervision are positively correlated with EGB (p < 0.05). In the second step, the linear regression analysis was carried out by taking market pressure, government regulation, and social supervision as independent variables and ecological behavior motivation as dependent variables. The results demonstrate that market pressure, government regulation, and social supervision are positively correlated with ecological behavior motivation (p < 0.05). In the third step, the linear regression analysis was carried out by taking government regulation, market pressure, social supervision, and ecological behavior motivation as independent variables and EGB as dependent variables. The results show that market pressure, government regulation, and ecological behavior motivation are positively correlated with EGB (p < 0.05). There is no statistical significance between social supervision and EGB (p > 0.05), which hints that ecological behavior motivation has partial mediating effects between government regulation and EGB. Moreover, ecological behavior motivation also exerts partial mediating effects between market pressure and EGB, while ecological behavior motivation has complete mediating effects between social supervision and EGB.

In model 2, the same analysis was performed. The results of the first step show that government regulation and market pressure are positively correlated with EIB (p < 0.05). There is no significant correlation, however, between social supervision and EIB (p > 0.05). The results of the second step show that market pressure, government regulation, and social supervision are positively correlated with ecological behavior motivation (p < 0.05). The results of the third step indicate that government regulation, market pressure, and ecological behavior motivation are positively correlated with EIB (p < 0.05). However, there is no significant correlation between social supervision and EIB (p > 0.05). This suggests that ecological behavior motivation has mediating effects between government regulation and EIB. Moreover, ecological behavior motivation also produces mediating effects between market pressure and EIB. However, the mediating effect of ecological behavior motivation is not significant between social supervision and EIB.

In model 3, the same analysis was performed. The results of the first step show that government regulation and market pressure are positively correlated with PEB (p < 0.05). However, there is no significant correlation between social supervision and PEB (p > 0.05). The results of the second step show that market pressure, government regulation, and social supervision are positively correlated with ecological behavior motivation (p < 0.05). The results of the third step show that market pressure, government regulation, and ecological behavior motivation are positively correlated with PEB (p < 0.05). However, there is no significant correlation between social supervision and PEB (p > 0.05). This shows that ecological behavior motivation has mediating effects between government regulation and PEB. Additionally, ecological behavior motivation has mediating effects between market pressure and PEB. However, the mediating effect of ecological behavior motivation is not significant between social supervision and PEB. The above analysis suggests that hypothesis H6 is partially supported.

4.2.5. Moderating Effect Test of Scenario Factors

A hierarchical regression equation was used to test the moderating effect of scenario factors [113]. First, independent variables and regulatory variables were centralized. Then, the model was established according to the steps of a hierarchical regression method. In the model, ecological behavior motivation is the independent variable, scenario factors are the regulating variable, while ecological behavior implementation is the dependent variable. The first step was to conduct a regression analysis of ecological behavior implementation and ecological behavior motivation. Then, scenario variables were added to the regression equation. Finally, the interaction terms of ecological behavior motivation and scenario factors were incorporated into the regression equation. Therefore, a hierarchical regression model was established to analyze the moderating effect of scenario factors. The results of hierarchical regression are shown in

Table 7. The results of the moderating effect test.

	Ecological Behavior Implementation
	Step1	Step2	Step3		Step1	Step2	Step3
	Bate	Bate	Bate		Bate	Bate	Bate
Ecological behavior motivation	0.664 *	0.638 *	0.650 *	Ecological behavior motivation	0.664 *	0.627 *	0.621 *
Service cost		−0.105 *	−0.092 *	Resource availability		0.206 *	0.209 *
Interaction terms			−0.074 *	Interaction terms			0.098 *
R²	0.440	0.451	0.456	R²	0.440	0.481	0.491
△R²	0.440	0.010	0.005	△R²	0.440	0.041	0.010
F	324.177	168.634	114.538	F	324.177	190.793	131.891
Ecological behavior motivation	0.664 *	0.631 *	0.612 *	Ecological behavior motivation	0.664 *	0.651 *	0.603 *
Objective factors		0.278 *	0.284 *	Owner willingness		0.173 *	0.179 *
Interaction terms			0.104 *	Interaction terms			0.151 *
R²	0.440	0.516	0.527	R²	0.440	0.470	0.491
△R²	0.440	0.076	0.011	△R²	0.440	0.030	0.021
F	324.177	219.446	152.219	F	324.177	182.406	131.757

* Statistical significance at the 5% level.

.

It can be seen from the moderating effect test model of the service cost that the determination coefficients (R2) of Step3 are obviously greater than those of Step1 and Step2. Moreover, the standard regression coefficient of the interaction of the term shows that it has a significant negative impact on ecological behavior implementation. Therefore, service cost has negative moderating effects on the association between ecological behavior motivation and ecological behavior implementation. It can also be seen from the moderating effect test model of resource availability that the determination coefficients (R2) of Step3 are obviously greater than those of Step1 and Step2. The standard regression coefficient of the interaction term shows that it has a significant positive impact on ecological behavior implementation. Therefore, resource availability has positive moderating effects on the association between ecological behavior motivation and ecological behavior implementation. The results also show that objective factors and owner willingness have positive moderating effects on the association between ecological behavior motivation and ecological behavior implementation. The above analysis demonstrates that hypothesis H7 is supported. Therefore, by means of scenario interventions, ecological behavior motivation can be strengthened with regards to ecological behavior implementation.

5. Discussion

Different from previous research, this paper innovatively divides ecological behavior into ecological guidance behavior, professional ecological behavior, and ecological investment behavior. This allows us to have a deeper understanding of the mechanism of ecological behavior of property management enterprises. The results show that the ecological behavior measures of property management enterprises are different under different state factors.

First, there is a significant difference in ecological behavior implementation under different status factors (including enterprise ownership, enterprise scale, enterprise capabilities and enterprise values). In terms of enterprise scale, large enterprises invest more in ecological endeavors and specialized technologies than small ones. Accordingly, property management enterprises with larger staff and more experiences are more willing to invest in and implement professional ecological behaviors. In terms of enterprise ownership, there is no significant correlation between ecological behavior implementation and enterprise ownership. This hints that some state-owned property management enterprises are not playing a leading role in ecological development. Hence, the factor of enterprise nature could be reduced from the developed model. In terms of enterprise values, it has been found that enterprise values wield a significant influence on all three kinds of ecological behaviors, which demonstrates that determining the value of green ecology is very important for property management enterprises. Thus, taking social welfare, resource conservation, and ecological environment as enterprises’ development concepts will effectively contribute to the green transformation of property management enterprises. Green values are important for property management enterprises’ green transformation. In terms of specific behavior patterns, the implementation of ecological guidance behavior (EGB) has nothing to do with enterprise scale, enterprise capacity, and enterprise nature. At present, ecological guidance behavior has been widely adopted by property management enterprises. This shows that property management enterprises are largely willing to promote community construction through publicity and guidance. The implementation of ecological guidance does not need too many resources and capital investment. Property management enterprises are willing to publicize ecological environment protection and resource conservation to guide owners’ behavior. Enterprise scale, enterprise capability, and enterprise values are significantly correlated with professional ecological behavior (EIB) and ecological investment behavior (PEB). The choice of EIB and PEB is carefully considered because this involves more capital and technology investment.

Second, government regulation and market pressure are the main external incentive factors for property management enterprises to implement EIB and PEB. There is no significant correlation between social supervision and EIB or between social supervision and PEB. This shows that the current government and market pressure are the key factors affecting the ecological behavior of property management enterprises, while the impact of social supervision on the behavior of property management enterprises is relatively limited, which in turn indicates that social supervision is not an effective external stimulus currently. Both ecological investment behavior and professional ecological behavior require corresponding economic, technical and talent investment, and hence property management enterprises are very cautious. However, from the perspective of sustainable building operation, the investment of capital, technology, and talents in property management is essential. Therefore, promoting the implementation of ecological investment behavior and professional ecological behavior of property management enterprises are the key to realize the green transformation and development of property management industry. According to this research, the government’s economic regulation measures and social regulation measures are effective. Hence, the government should introduce more positive initiatives to promote the implementation of green property by giving economic incentives or starting demonstration projects. For example, the Shenzhen municipal government has issued a financial support and subsidy policy for green property management to encourage property projects within its jurisdiction to actively carry out green property management activities. By the end of May 2020, a total of 16 projects in Shenzhen have won the “Shenzhen municipal green property management evaluation mark”. On the other hand, from the perspective of market pressure, with the increasing scale of green buildings in the future, there will be more and more demand for green property management in the market. The newest version of the Green Building Assessment Standard puts forward clear requirements for property management. Property management enterprises should directly link economic benefits with the energy consumption of building energy consumption system and the use of water resources. The green operation awareness of operation and management workers could be improved by performance assessment. In this way, property management enterprises could actively improve their ability to serve green building operations, with an aim to gaining an advantage in market competition.

Third, scenario factors such as service cost, resource availability, subject factor, and owners’ willingness have moderating effects on the association between ecological behavior motivation and ecological behavior implementation, which provides some insights to governments and organizations. In addition to introducing supporting policies, the government and industry managers should implement corresponding countermeasures in the development environment of the property service industry. These countermeasures may include reducing the ecological investment cost of property management enterprises, providing more talents and technical support for the ecological development of the industry, promoting the development of green buildings and ecological communities, and strengthening the publicity of ecological concepts to enhance the participation intention of owners. These situational factors play an important role in the implementation of PMEEB.

Fourth, the behavior results such as enterprise and owners’ satisfaction exert an influence on ecological behavior motivation and ecological behavior implementation. Enterprise’s profit frequently works as a catalyst for PMEEM when investment in ecological aspects improves the enterprises’ public image attracts government’s awards and taxation reduction. Hence, the behavior result has a significant impact on both ecological behavior motivation and implantation. It has also been found that there is no significant correlation between owner satisfaction and EIB and between owner satisfaction and PEB. Property management enterprises pay more attention to whether the implementation of PMEEB can produce direct benefits. If they do not receive relevant economic or brand benefits, it will directly affect their next action. In this regard, in order to engender the enthusiasm of green property service enterprises, it is suggested to appropriately improve the charging standard of green property management according to the principle of “matching the charging with the service level”. The incremental cost factors such as the increase in labor cost, the purchase cost of new equipment, and the rise of management cost in the implementation of green property management should be fully considered. Remuneration systems or other forms of charging ways could be considered to reasonably determine the charging standard, remuneration amount, payment time, and settlement method of green property management. In addition, the bilateral interests of users and property service enterprises should be considered, and a dynamic compensation mechanism to compensate users and property service enterprises should be established, with an aim to ensuring the continuous operation of property service enterprises and to encouraging users to actively make payments.

6. Conclusions

By taking the influencing factors of property management ecological behavior as the research object, this paper analyzes the deep-seated causes affecting property management ecological behavior through combining qualitative analysis and quantitative analysis methods. First, the influencing factors of property management ecological behavior are identified based on the grounded theory, and the theoretical model of property management ecological behavior is constructed in combination with TPB. Then, based on the theoretical model, this paper puts forward the research hypothesis of the action mechanism of the influencing factors of property management ecological behavior, and conducts a mathematical analysis and demonstration. The differences in property management enterprises’ attitudes towards three kinds of ecological behaviors under different statuses are analyzed. These include the influence of external stimulus factors, result factors on PMEEB, and the moderating effect of scenario factors on PMEEB.

The results show that the influencing factors of property management ecological behavior are complex–both external and internal. The subjective norms derived from the external environment determine the generation of behavior motivation, while the behavior attitude derived from the behavior subject promotes the occurrence of ecological behavior. At the same time, the behavior and attitude of property service enterprises are determined by their own features, such as enterprise scale, enterprise nature, enterprise ability, enterprise values, and so on. Different enterprise features lead to various ecological behavior attitudes and abilities, and affect ecological behavior implementation. In addition, such situational factors as service cost, resource availability, and owners’ willingness cause property service enterprises to make different behavior choices. It has also been found that property service enterprises pay more attention to the results after the implementation of ecological behavior, including the issue as to whether the implementation of ecological behavior can bring benefits to enterprises and improve the satisfaction of owners. This paper further analyzes the relationship and action mechanism between these influencing factors and ecological guidance behavior (EGB), ecological investment behavior (EIB), and professional ecological behavior (PEB). The analysis indicates that ecological guidance behavior can be widely implemented by property management enterprises. Different enterprises will have different ecological investment behavior and professional ecological behavior according to different state factors and different situational factors.

In this research, the behavior science theory is adopted to study influencing factors and their act mechanism of PMEEB. This research is significant in identifying influencing factors of PMEEB comprehensively and systematically. The research findings improve our understanding of how to achieve property management enterprises’ green transformation and provide theoretical support to government policies. Besides economic incentive measures, demonstration projects, regulative norms, and market development could also contribute to property management enterprises’ ecological behaviors. Surely this research has its limitations. First, the surveyed property management firms operate mainly in eastern China, and those in other area of China have not been surveyed. Second, this research takes the property management enterprises which manage residential buildings, shopping malls, and office buildings as the object. Other types of properties such as schools, hospitals, and hotels are not included in this paper and deserve further exploration. The ecological behaviors of property management enterprises that work for different types of property may be influenced by different factors. Hence, the developed theoretical model may need further be tested when it applies to different types of property management enterprises in future studies. Other than that, the green transformation of property management enterprises becomes increasingly important against the background of expanding green buildings and the emphasized carbon peaking and carbon neutrality goals. Within the future context of more digital technology and carbon emission reduction technologies, property management enterprises’ ecological practices could be further studied.