Next Article in Journal
A Bibliometric Analysis of the Literature on Postgraduate Teaching
Next Article in Special Issue
The KAC-CSR Model in the Tourism Sector
Previous Article in Journal
Theoretical Analysis of Ultimate Main Span Length for Arch Bridge
Previous Article in Special Issue
Population Decline through Tourism Gentrification Caused by Accommodation in Kyoto City
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 24
10.3390/su142417050
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Responsible Management in the Hotel Industry: An Integrative Review and Future Research Directions

by
Yuan Liang
1,
Casey Watters
2,* and
Michał K. Lemański
1,3
1
Nottingham University Business School, Nottingham NG8 1BB, UK
2
Faculty of Law, Bond University, Robina, QLD 4226, Australia
3
Institute for Human Resource Management, WU Vienna, Welthandelsplatz 1, 1020 Wien, Austria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(24), 17050; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142417050
Submission received: 10 November 2022 / Revised: 5 December 2022 / Accepted: 9 December 2022 / Published: 19 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Development of Hotels and Tourism)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In this study, we map the fast-growing body of knowledge on responsible management in the hotel industry. We aimed to provide scholars with guidance on navigating the rich and diverse scholarship on this topic, and where to engage to develop it further. Using a mixed-method review approach encompassing quantitative and qualitative elements, we reviewed the last decade of publications in journals specializing in research on hotels. On this basis, we identify critical areas as well as potential gaps in research on responsible management in the hotel industry. By scrutinizing research contexts, methods, theoretical approaches, levels of analysis, and findings, we synthesize and profile current scholarship, identify established and emerging trends, and discuss implications for scholarship and management practice, with critical or even provocative observations to guide possible theoretical and empirical extensions as well as fruitful avenues for future research.

1. Introduction

While driving or adapting to technological development is crucial for competitiveness and even the survival of firms [1], another current trend is a transformation of management practices to embrace responsible business conduct. Within the hotel industry, many entities are gradually changing their strategies towards more responsible practices. Responsible practices are, however, largely heterogeneous with diverse forms within the organizations, so no one-size-fits-all perspective can portray them. Their motivations, organizational identities, and the ways they lead their businesses vary greatly and result in different business scales, capitalization of resources, and growth orientations. The most common responsible management practices implemented within hotels are an environment-friendly strategy, and ecosystem application [2,3,4]. Through these practices, hotels can reduce energy consumption and waste of material, consequently lowering the cost of operations [5] to improve hotel performance [6], and ameliorating brand reputation [7]. As such, sustainable development appears to be a by-product of rational business decisions, rather than a goal in itself. However, the introduction of responsible management practices in hotels is crucial for society, given the impact of hotel operations on the well-being and prosperity of local communities [8]. In addition, since the hotel is a place offering services to guests through guest rooms, catering, entertainment and other facilities and related services, it holds a potential to implement a great variety of responsible management practices in multiple areas. In other words, the hotel is an economic entity that uses space, equipment, places and certain consumer materials to meet the needs of guests’ accommodation, diet, entertainment, shopping and recreation, in order to obtain economic and social benefit, and at the same time make a positive impact on large numbers of people.
Research on responsible practices within the hotel industry has been gradually gaining popularity among scholars in recent years. However, as Khatter et al. [9] observed, there remain under-researched areas, and in general, despite an increased number of publications, this stream of research is still underdeveloped and remains fragmented [10]. To address this problem and help to fill in existing research gaps, this study aimed to critically review literature on responsible management in the hotel industry and “map the territory” to provide guidance for future research. Specifically, the threefold overarching research question this study aims to answer is:
How have responsible management practices been examined in the industry-specific literature, which areas of scholarship on this industry remain under-researched, and what are the criteria of responsibility examined in studies on management of hotels?
The paper is structured as follows. In the next section, the research design, collected materials and analytical techniques are presented, and in the following section, a critical summary and synthesis are offered. In the final section, implications are identified and discussed along with directions for future research.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Process of the Literature Review

There are numerous potentially useful approaches to reviewing literature. Given the objectives of our study and the scope of the envisioned review, we followed an approach similar to the work of Sinkovics and Reuber [11] and started with a keywords-based search, but limited it to the leading journals in this field of research. To ensure that no relevant studies were overlooked, the initial state of the review process was as inclusive as possible. Therefore, we started with a structured search using such keywords which would allow us to collect all possibly related papers. These keywords and further technical details are presented in the following. We were, however, aware that such a method may provide results including substantial material not relevant for our own study, and we subsequently used more qualitative analysis of the content of collected papers to judge on their relevance to the subject of our study and classify their themes. Such an approach to review literature is used to recognize, assess, and elaborate all extant research that is relevant to a particular research problem, subject area, or phenomenon of interests [12,13]. It has been used in recent studies [14] and found to be useful in assisting researchers in recognizing and categorizing research problems and scholarly trends, and in identifying limitations and gaps in knowledge. Specific procedures and techniques used at this stage in our study are detailed in the next section, while in the following we proceed with a more qualitative analysis.

2.2. Journal Selection

First, to identify the most relevant content to analyze, the top ten journals in “Tourism & Hospitality” were selected based on their citations in Google Scholar in June of 2021. This way, the most impactful works are included [15]. Papers in this category focus on the hospitality context, allowing the researchers to identify trends in the extant literature. In order to focus on the most relevant works and due to availability of resources for analysis, researchers selected the top ten journals in this ranking. The list of selected journals is provided below in alphabetical order:
  • Annals of Tourism Research
  • Cornell Hospitality Quarterly
  • Current Issues in Tourism
  • International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
  • International Journal of Hospitality Management
  • Journal of Destination Marketing & Management
  • Journal of Sustainable Tourism
  • Journal of Travel Research
  • Tourism Management
  • Tourism Management Perspective

2.3. Reviewing Process

At the beginning of the reviewing process, the time range was set from January 2011 to June 2021, in order to record the current status of scholarship and identify both mature and emerging streams of research as well as potential gaps. Although it was a ten-year study, the six-month extension to June of 2021 was made to account for delays in publication experienced by many journals in 2020 due to the global pandemic. Next, in order to receive a focused yet inclusive set of articles, the search was set on terms related to responsible management and variations of the term, as well as similar terms: corporate social responsibility, green hotel, environmental strategy, responsible practices/management, forms of the term sustainability (including sustainable, sustainability and sustainable development), morals and ethics, and their synonyms in the articles’ titles, abstracts, and keywords, all in the context of hotels.
The first search returned 8524 journal articles. Then, the following criteria were applied to find publications with evidence required to answer the set research questions. The excluded articles were (a) non-articles, such as editorial letters, book reviews, commentaries, etc.; (b) review papers, including systematic literature reviews and bibliometric methods; (c) articles that only mentioned responsible practice somewhere in the text, but after reading the abstract turned out to be not relevant; (d) findings of articles not covering responsible practices; and (e) articles that were not accessible. Application of these exclusion criteria reduced the set of articles to 964.
The second round of review began by removing duplicates and was followed immediately by a review of papers’ full texts to qualitatively assess and eliminate articles not relevant for the purpose of this study. At this stage, 191 articles remained, and these constitute the basis for analyses reported in the following sections. The whole process of reviewing is illustrated in Figure 1.
This final set of articles was then content-analyzed with NVivo (version 12), a popular software package often used in qualitative studies of textual data. In this step, articles were manually classified into various themes. These themes were coded to let researchers identify research context, domains of inquiry with keywords, theories used in the article, research methods, research findings, and the level of analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Annual Publications in the Top 10 Journals

Based on the selected articles, we demonstrate that articles concerning responsible practice maintain an upward trend, as a whole, from 2011 to 2021, as shown in Figure 2. This demonstrates increased attention among scholars on the topic of responsible practices within the hotel industry.
Meanwhile, we note the number of articles published in the ten selected hospitality and tourism journals, shown in Figure 3. The findings show that the International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management and International Journal of Hospitality Management publish nearly half the articles on sustainable practice in the hotel industry. Other journals, including Annals of Tourism Research, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Journal of Travel Research, and the Journal of Destination Marketing & Management remain comparatively low due to a broader scope of article topics across the tourism industries.

3.2. Research Region

Although there is a rising number of published articles on the topic, the research context primarily centers on Western (European and North American) countries, and few focus on Oceania and Africa, indicating that most prominent research on responsible management is dominated by developed countries. Meanwhile, Asia has become a popular region to explore responsible practices. An overview is shown in the following Figure 4.
At the same time, the most frequently mentioned countries or regions are ranked below, presented in Figure 5, implying that an increased number of studies gradually focus on the developing world, especially mainland China. Despite the fact that most studies center on developed areas, such as the USA, UK, and Spain, China has the second largest number of research studies of any country, likely in response to the country’s growing tourism industry.

3.3. Research Methods

The 191 articles are classified into six different categories reflecting the research methodology, as shown in Figure 6. The findings present that the studies are heavily skewed towards quantitative studies instead of qualitative or mix studies. The dominant methods are the use of questionnaires and secondary data, indicating a greater potential for application of qualitative or mixed methods on responsible management in future studies. The studies in the Chinese (34 studies) context present stronger intentions to conduct questionnaires to assess the topic related to responsible management, implying that the questionnaire is a domain research method regarding responsible management within the Chinese sector.
Meanwhile, the empirical research highly emphasizes the perspectives of guests and frontline employees, as shown in Figure 7, and thus it verifies the significant role guests and frontline employees play in the engagement of responsible management within the hotel sector.

3.4. Categories of the Unit of Analysis

In conducting an in-depth analysis of the literature concerning responsible practice within the hotel sector, this study categorizes 191 studies into two units of analysis (firm-level and individual level) and four main themes. The themes are divided by the impacts on major stakeholder groups and the primary purpose of the responsible practices explored in each article. The themes include influence on organizational performance; influence on responsible practices; influence on employees; and influence on guests (presented in Table 1).

3.4.1. Firm-Level Research

Half of the articles selected in this study undertook firm-level analyses, including articles discussing organizational performance and analyzing responsible practices and their development. These articles focused on investigating responsible practices through secondary data, questionnaires, and interviews with managerial employees.
The findings of these articles include that drivers of implementing responsible practice are connected with the managers’ code of ethics and values [16,17,18,19]; hotel characteristics [20,21]; cost-savings resulting from the implementation [20]; value enhancement/reputation/legitimacy [16,22,23,24,25]; the congruity with the organizational mission and values [26,27]; concerns and consciousness for the society or the environment [16,28,29,30]. Barriers to implementing responsible practice included concerns for costs and insufficient financial support [31], unclear benefits [20], and limited understanding of responsible practices [20,31].
Regarding responsible practices, while many hotels claim to engage in sustainable behaviors, few provide details on their specific practices [32], and even fewer demonstrate how the practices impact the business [17]. These few which do, are limited to communicating environmental aspects to reduce waste and energy efficiency, such as environmentally sustainable practices [9,28,33], towel reuse practices [34,35], food waste [36,37], water conservation [35,38,39,40], electricity consumption [41], and environmental management systems [17,42,43,44]. Meanwhile, some practices concerning human resource management are also explored in the workplace, including sexual harassment [39], workplace bullying [45], and diversity management [46]. The focus of this type of research is the cause of the impact of the negative behavior. Additionally, the related practices affected by the COVID-19 pandemic are also explored [47,48,49].
Articles in the responsible practices domain prioritize organizational performance [7,21]. This is another extensively studied theme in the hotel sector [21,50,51]. For example, Fraj, Matute, and Melero [52] discussed how hotels advocated their environmental strategy to effectively improve their performance. Other studies proved and found similar results. The research of Zaragoza-Sáez and others [53] verified that the implementation of social responsibility practices influenced hotel performance.
Theodoulidis et al.’s [6] study analyzed the relationship between corporate social responsibility (“CSR”) practices and corporate financial performance, and determined that in the hotel industry the relationship between CSR practices and a hotel’s financial performance is ambiguous. Other studies, however, reported different results. For example, one study [54] found a U-shaped impact of CSR practices on financial performance. At the same time, two significant conclusions were stated in this article: CSR had a positive financial impact through enhancing the relationship between a firm and stakeholders and that the impact of CSR was that it studied quality management considerations.
Organizational citizenship behavior is another topic concerning organizational performance. For example, Yoon, Jang, and Lee [55] conducted surveys of hotel employees in the USA to analyze the environmental management practices adopted and the effect on a hotel’s citizenship behavior and overall organizational trust. The results demonstrated that environmental management practices had direct impacts on organizational trust. Though the authors of this research reached their results by studying developed countries, other studies centered on developing countries reached similar findings. Pham et al. [56,57] also confirmed a direct relation with green human resource practices in Vietnam.
Additionally, several investigations have focused on the subject of hotel reputation. For example, Palacios-Florencio et al. [58] demonstrated that a higher level of CSR activities led to a more positive image of a hotel’s brand. The authors asserted that the more positive brand image a hotel had, the higher level of reputation it would develop. This assertion also confirmed observations made by Latif and his co-authors [59]. They verified that hotels promoting their CSR programs enhanced their reputation.

3.4.2. Individual-Level Research

Less than half the articles selected by this study performed individual-level analysis. Because the unit of analysis in this research is to make better sense of responsible practices based on individual-level analysis, each of these themes will be discussed separately.

3.5. Responsible Practice and Guests

The guest is the most commonly selected sample among marketing and management studies of the hotel sector. Among the articles, 51 articles use hotel guests as a sample, followed by travelers (5). Hotel researchers adopted questionnaires to conduct correlation analyses. Most studies considered responsible practices as a predictor variable. However, just 7 papers explored the reasons behind implementing responsible practices such as the image of the company [60] increasing awareness of environmental concerns [29,61] and the pro-environmental behavior or attitudes of hotel guests [40,62,63], as well as perceived potential risks of negative consequences [42].
Within this domain, previous research has established that responsible practices influence guests’ perceptions toward the hotel [64,65] including purchase intentions [42,66,67], customer loyalty [68,69,70], trust [58,71], identification [66,72], willingness to pay more [73,74,75], and willingness to establish a long-term relationship [76].
In spite of the growing interest in guests’ involvement in responsible practices, few articles explored this aspect [35,77]. For example, Han and Hyun [77] found the significant role of hotel customers’ responsible practices, especially for environmental behaviors (water conservation and towel reuse behavior). There is a rich area for the researcher to consider the positive impacts that stakeholders’ active participation has on the success of implementing the responsible practice.

3.6. Responsible Practice and Employees

Hotel responsible practice study related to employees’ perspectives is in a state of development. Among the studies selected in this research, only 20 had employees as a sample, with these fitting primarily within the management and marketing literature [78].
Our analysis uncovered a trend in the responsible practice and guests’ theme: most studies analyzed how responsible practice affects work-related performance, using perceptions toward responsible practice as a predictor. Extant literature stated that the consequences led by the application of responsible practices primarily focus on five aspects, including quality of work life, employee commitment, job satisfaction, work engagement, and meaningfulness of work. For example, Gürlek and Tuna [79] asserted that hotels improved employees’ engagement through CSR activities. Similarly, Zientara and their co-authors [80] found that job satisfaction increased with increased participation in CSR activities, resulting in an increased commitment among employees to the success of the hotel. Another study examining the increase in employee satisfaction [81] linked the increase in job satisfaction to an overall increase in the quality of work life. However, Glavas’s [82] findings stated that most studies supported a connection between CSR and work performance, especially for employees, instead of establishing or creating a corresponding framework on the phenomenon. Hence, such frameworks are essential to comprehend why, what, and how employees affect or are affected by the responsible practice.
Only four studies investigated the antecedents of responsible practice. In the first study, the antecedents included knowledge, awareness, and concern regarding environmental aspects and how they impacted hotel employees’ ecological intentions and behaviors [83]. In the second study, the employees’ code of conduct, and the hotel’s sharing environmental values embedded with employees’ ecological values were tested as antecedents of participation in pro-environment behaviors [84]. Moreover, managers’ personalities [85] and employees’ moral identity were tested with regard to how to implement related responsible practices [86].
The most frequently mentioned practices in the literature were those centered on human resources, especially addressing irresponsible behaviors that emerged in the workplace. For example, Koburtay et al. [87] examined gender [88] and how gender inequity influences employees’ evaluations toward female leaders, and Gamor et al. [89] tested the negative consequence caused by work–life conflict.
A summary is presented in the following Table 1.

4. Discussion, Implications, and Directions for Future Research

This paper examined responsible practice studies in the hotel sector in industry-specific publications ranging from 2011 to 2021. The review discussed the unit of analysis from selected articles, revealing achievements as well as unfulfilled potential in research on how the hotels as firms, individuals, i.e., guests, and employees, respond to the need for responsible practices. Guests are currently the most discussed stakeholder in the hotel literature. Empirical studies confirm that responsible practice brings significant benefits to organizations and multiple stakeholders, such as financial performance, job commitment, and favorable stakeholder behaviors [93,129,130,131,132,133].
The formulation of responsible practice is dynamic [134]; hence, it is difficult to capture how individuals conclude and are involved in responsible practice through quantitative approaches [135]. Because the understanding of responsible practice is defined through a cultural frame, it varies depending on the research context being analyzed. As observed in the two units of analysis, hotels in developed countries have been explored extensively, while literature on developing countries is still emerging in the hotel literature. Additionally, responsible practices are interrelated to multiple stakeholders, and can be viewed from the perspectives of these stakeholders. As such, organizations are admitting the need to incorporate responsible practices into business strategies. However, the mechanisms by which to effectively implement these strategies need to be further explored in the literature.
Although environmental regulation has an impact on the hotel industry [136], laws vary between countries and have not been the primary driver of increased environmental standards in hotels over the past decade. Instead, consumer impression of hotels is a primary driver of environmental sustainability with hotels concerned with marketing [137,138]. Pressure from stakeholders has been identified as one of the antecedents of environmentally sustainable innovation in the hotel sector [30]. Although regulation is one form of stakeholder pressure, it does not appear to foster environmental innovations in the industry [43]. Instead, the costs associated with compliance and reporting may detract from actual innovation [92].
Much of the literature focuses on sustainable development goals (SDG) [139,140,141,142,143] and ESG [144,145,146,147] which have served as a form of informal regulation for large hotel chains that rely on institutional investors. However, hotel image and marketing are greater concerns for independent hotels and smaller chains that are not seeking to attract institutional money, as these hotels face pressure from different stakeholders.
Immigrations laws impacting the hiring of foreign and immigrant workers has a significant impact on the hotel industry in developed countries and is an important part of the social aspect of sustainability and responsible management. In contrast to technical industries that are harmed by an outflow of skilled labor, often called “brain drain” [148,149,150], outbound immigration has a negligible impact on hotels in developing countries and was not a focus of the literature. Literature concentrating on immigration is predominately country-specific and often focuses on the protection of immigrant workers generally as opposed to standards within the hotel industry [151].
In sum, responsible practice has been studied from three perspectives based on the unit of analysis: as motivators to adopt or implement, as a specific practice to implement, and as consequences brought by these practices. Most studies still focus on the consequences as firms or individuals seek to incorporate sustainable practices to achieve positive outcomes. In studies on motivators, scholars have tended to focus on hotel-level variables, while ignoring sources of motivation for responsible practice at the employee level. Further, research attention focuses on the exploration of practices used in branding, rather than in operations. Finally, there is a dearth of research on implementation, and how implemented responsible practices actually work in the employee’s perspectives. These observations are presented in the following Figure 8.
What has emerged from our review is a substantial potential that hotels, as entities, and their managers and employees, as individuals, hold for making a positive impact on the environments in which they operate. Social and economic considerations in the hotel industry focus on three dimensions. The first dimension is to offer decent work conditions and a healthy working environment for employees and to protect their rights. The second dimension is to ensure equal opportunities accomplished by gender equality and reduced inequality, while the third dimension is to establish a close relationship with the local society through community involvement.
There are also three dimensions of responsible management practices in relation to the protection of the natural environment in a hotel’s immediate proximity as well as globally. The first dimension is to conserve resources through energy conservation and energy efficiency, while the second dimension is to reduce pollution and carbon dioxide emission, waste management, and innovation geared towards environmental protection at large. The third dimension is to conserve biodiversity, ecosystems and landscapes fulfilled by ecosystem conservation.
Whereas responsible practices were widely discussed in the scientific literature, it is still necessary to provide more empirical evidence of implementation in the hotel industry [92]. Our extant literature review shows little agreement on the perceptions toward responsible practices, and the process of implementing responsible practices. Knowledge about these areas remains elusive and the subject is largely underexplored. As employees in developing countries greatly value such practices as home–work balance and a safe and healthy environment, one question which merits empirical investigation is whether implementation of such practices is important only in the developing country context, or whether implementation of these practices would be equally valued by the employees in regions of higher income.
By reviewing the extant responsible practice literature, we demonstrate that most studies focus on the business environment, without accounting for the unique practices informed by specific cultural contexts. Thus, future studies should shed more light on the hotel industry in specific culture clusters, and the whole process of implementing responsible practices instead of exploring a single, specific practice. In addition, there are opportunities for study on sustainable practices and hotels in the zone of insolvency, establishment and compliance with mandatory disclosure regimes and exploring the use of blockchain technology to facilitate transparent sustainable practices.
As discussed in the literature, the motivation behind hotels adopting sustainable practices stem from the net benefits for hotels and, by extension, investors and other stakeholders. However, discussion on sustainability should a hotel become insolvent is lacking in the literature. In addition to the cost-saving measures associated with many sustainable practices, environmental liabilities, and the relationship between national and local regulation at the point of insolvency [152] provide an opportunity for future research.
Many studies rely on voluntary disclosure [9] to examine the benefits of disclosing ethical practices [153]. The impact of mandatory disclosure, an essential topic in corporate law literature [154,155], is not sufficiently addressed in sustainability research related to the hotel industry. The limited literature in these areas can be at least partially explained by a lack of standardized regulations including challenges from regulators failing to keep pace with technological developments [156]. Therefore, in addition to formal laws, future research should consider the role of normative documents that have a legal effect in some jurisdictions [157,158]. These bridge the gap between official standards of conduct, in the form of law, and informal standards informed by cultural norms [159].
Earlier literature examines the impact of internet technology on the efficiency of hotels [160], but the literature has not kept pace with technological developments to shed light on the impact of digitalization on sustainability strategies. Given the profound changes in some consumer behaviors [1], and opportunities from the usage of social media in firms [161], responsible management practices in the digital economy appear to be a most important research area to explore.
Additionally, the use of blockchain technology in the hotel sector is largely unexamined. In engineering and computer science there is a significant body of emerging research examining the use of blockchain technology to optimize the management of resources [162,163]. As blockchain holds great promise in this area [164], this provides an opportunity for other fields examining sustainability and could be applied to the hotel sector. Along with the tracking of sustainable practices, transparent and decentralized blockchains also provide a promising avenue for disclosure as they can be easily viewed and are free of a central point of manipulation [165].
Additionally, extant literature reviews of responsible practices have mainly taken a broad perspective and a specific domain angle on differences between hotel type. They have mostly concentrated on the well-established hotels, ignoring new and smaller businesses. It is time to draw attention to the more specific aspects to examine how responsible practices can be established through the development of local hotels. Thus, we can better understand the details that constitute this dynamic phenomenon and advance scientific knowledge for practical application.
There is also a need for deeper insights to add the missing yet crucial model of implementing responsible practices in hotels with various types of ownership (local or international, family-owned or public), and various cultural contexts, and study practices at various stages after adoption, not only upon their introduction by management. Success factors often differ for firms with different types of ownership [166], while the dynamic pattern of implementing responsible practices instead of a fix-implementing framework is new and challenging. However, we believe that both are operationalizable and viable to explore. Meanwhile, as the majority of studies pay attention to the single level of analysis on the implementation of responsible practices, we call for research to consider interrelation effects between the implementation envisioned by hotel management and actual implementation by employees.
Given that the literature has predominately employed a well-established sample to examine the responsible practices by motivations and consequences, a major opportunity lies in researching and theorizing responsible practice by taking a dynamic perspective. Figure 8 summarizes existing responsible practice studies and gaps. For this research purpose, instead of implementing responsible practice, we refer to it as the mechanism of implementing responsible practices.
Since practices developed for a more responsible business conduct are worth sharing beyond the hotel in which they were developed, for example, to business units in other countries, they need to be contextualized to work effectively in a given cultural context [167]. Cultural context is also shaped by the challenges to the natural environment and social problems at the hotel’s location. Therefore, transfer of practices from business units of a hotel corporation grows in importance, and despite challenges to such transfers, especially between units located in more- and less-developed markets [168], deserves more systematic analysis by researchers in hotel management. In a related vein, empirical evidence is needed to establish whether such diffusion can be negatively perceived when responsible management practices are copied without recognition of the employee who introduced these. In other words, whether “plagiarism” of organizational practices [169] is accepted when it comes to diffusion of practices for what is perceived as common good is a question open for empirical investigation
Finally, since a vast majority of studies focus on the reasons and consequences of adopting or implementing responsible practices, there is a scarcity of research explaining what happens after a practice was adopted, and how well a practice is performing. The literature offers only a narrow understanding about the practical knowledge of responsible practices within the hotels. By analogy, intentions to implement responsible management practices remain unexplored as well. Considering the large number of schools and colleges specialized in educating personnel for the hotel industry on one hand, and a considerable body of literature existing already on students’ intentions related to responsible management [170] on the other hand, we see it is necessary to develop research on hotel industry-specific education for responsible management. Therefore, we recommend future research to analyze the process of forming responsible practices within the hotel sector, starting already from hotel management schools and colleges.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: all authors; methodology: Y.L. & M.K.L.; investigation: Y.L.; resources: Y.L. and C.W.; data curation: Y.L.; writing—original draft preparation: all authors; writing—review and editing: all authors; visualization: Y.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Alim J. Beveridge, Pingping Fu-Koll, Lei Li, Abby Zhou, and Steven Zhou, for helpful comments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Giza, W.; Wilk, B. Revolution 4.0 and its implications for consumer behaviour. Entrep. Bus. Econ. Rev. 2021, 9, 195–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Balaji, M.; Jiang, Y.; Jha, S. Green hotel adoption: A personal choice or social pressure? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 31, 3287–3305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Buhalis, D.; Leung, R. Smart hospitality—Interconnectivity and interoperability towards an ecosystem. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 71, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gil-Soto, E.; Armas-Cruz, Y.; Morini-Marrero, S.; Ramos-Henríquez, J.M. Hotel guests’ perceptions of environmental friendly practices in social media. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 78, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Yusof, Y.; Awang, Z.; Jusoff, K.; Ibrahim, Y. The influence of green practices by non-green hotels on customer satisfaction and loyalty in hotel and tourism industry. Int. J. Green Econ. 2017, 11, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Theodoulidis, B.; Diaz, D.; Crotto, F.; Rancati, E. Exploring corporate social responsibility and financial performance through stakeholder theory in the tourism industries. Tour. Manag. 2017, 62, 173–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. González-Rodríguez, M.R.; Martín-Samper, R.C.; Köseoglu, M.A.; Okumus, F. Hotels’ corporate social responsibility practices, organizational culture, firm reputation, and performance. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 398–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mathew, P.V.; Sreejesh, S. Impact of responsible tourism on destination sustainability and quality of life of community in tourism destinations. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2017, 31, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Khatter, A.; McGrath, M.; Pyke, J.; White, L.; Lockstone-Binney, L. Analysis of hotels’ environmentally sustainable policies and practices: Sustainability and corporate social responsibility in hospitality and tourism. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 31, 2394–2410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Moyeen, A.; Kamal, S.; Yousuf, M.A. A content analysis of CSR research in hotel industry, 2006–2017. In Responsibility and Governance; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 163–179. [Google Scholar]
  11. Sinkovics, N.; Reuber, A.R. Beyond disciplinary silos: A systematic analysis of the migrant entrepreneurship literature. J. World Bus. 2021, 56, 101223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Aguilar, E.C. Rural entrepreneurial ecosystems: A systematic literature review for advancing conceptualisation. Entrep. Bus. Econ. Rev. 2021, 9, 101–114. [Google Scholar]
  13. Crossan, M.M.; Apaydin, M. A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. J. Manag. Stud. 2010, 47, 1154–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Saracevic, S.; Schlegelmilch, B.B. The impact of social norms on pro-environmental behavior: A systematic literature review of the role of culture and self-construal. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5156. [Google Scholar]
  15. GoogleScholar. GS Metrics. 2021. Available online: https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=bus_tourismhospitality (accessed on 13 April 2021).
  16. Abaeian, V.; Khong, K.W.; Yeoh, K.K.; McCabe, S. Motivations of undertaking CSR initiatives by independent hotels: A holistic approach. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 31, 2468–2487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Abdel-Maksoud, A.; Kamel, H.; Elbanna, S. Investigating relationships between stakeholders’ pressure, eco-control systems and hotel performance. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 59, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Quintana-García, C.; Marchante-Lara, M.; Benavides-Chicón, C.G. Social responsibility and total quality in the hospitality industry: Does gender matter? J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 722–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Santos-Vijande, M.L.; López-Sánchez, J.Á.; Pascual-Fernandez, P. Co-creation with clients of hotel services: The moderating role of top management support. Curr. Issues Tour. 2018, 21, 301–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mak, A.H.; Chang, R.C. The driving and restraining forces for environmental strategy adoption in the hotel industry: A force field analysis approach. Tour. Manag. 2019, 73, 48–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chen, T. (Ed.) Innovation of Higher Education in Hotel Management Based on International Perspective. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Arts, Design and Contemporary Education (ICADCE 2019); Atlantis Press: Paris, France, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hsiao, T.-Y.; Chuang, C.-M.; Huang, L. The contents, determinants, and strategic procedure for implementing suitable green activities in star hotels. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 69, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lin, C.-P.; Wu, C.-M.E.; Tsai, J.-H. Why hotels give to charity: Interdependent giving motives. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 86, 102430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ouyang, Z.; Wei, W.; Chi, C.G. Environment management in the hotel industry: Does institutional environment matter? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 77, 353–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rech, Y.; Paget, E.; Dimanche, F. Uncertain tourism: Evolution of a French winter sports resort and network dynamics. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2019, 12, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Del Rosario, R.-S.M.; René, D.-P. Eco-innovation and organizational culture in the hotel industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 65, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Foroudi, P. Influence of brand signature, brand awareness, brand attitude, brand reputation on hotel industry’s brand performance. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 76, 271–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Teng, C.-C.; Lu, A.C.C.; Huang, T.-T. Drivers of consumers’ behavioral intention toward green hotels. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 30, 1134–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Untaru, E.-N.; Ispas, A.; Candrea, A.N.; Luca, M.; Epuran, G. Predictors of individuals’ intention to conserve water in a lodging context: The application of an extended theory of reasoned action. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 59, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wang, Y.; Font, X.; Liu, J. Antecedents, mediation effects and outcomes of hotel eco-innovation practice. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 85, 102345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gázquez-Abad, J.C.; Huertas-García, R.; Vázquez-Gómez, M.D.; Casas Romeo, A. Drivers of sustainability strategies in Spain’s wine tourism industry. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2015, 56, 106–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. De Grosbois, D. Corporate social responsibility reporting by the global hotel industry: Commitment, initiatives and performance. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 31, 896–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kularatne, T.; Wilson, C.; Månsson, J.; Hoang, V.; Lee, B. Do environmentally sustainable practices make hotels more efficient? A study of major hotels in Sri Lanka. Tour. Manag. 2019, 71, 213–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Dimara, E.; Manganari, E.; Skuras, D. Don’t change my towels please: Factors influencing participation in towel reuse programs. Tour. Manag. 2017, 59, 425–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Han, H.; Hyun, S.S. Eliciting customer green decisions related to water saving at hotels: Impact of customer characteristics. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 1437–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Dolnicar, S.; Juvan, E.; Grün, B. Reducing the plate waste of families at hotel buffets–a quasi-experimental field study. Tour. Manag. 2020, 80, 104103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Okumus, B.; Taheri, B.; Giritlioglu, I.; Gannon, M.J. Tackling food waste in all-inclusive resort hotels. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 88, 102543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gabarda-Mallorquí, A.; Garcia, X.; Ribas, A. Mass tourism and water efficiency in the hotel industry: A case study. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 61, 82–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rico, A.; Olcina, J.; Baños, C.; Garcia, X.; Sauri, D. Declining water consumption in the hotel industry of mass tourism resorts: Contrasting evidence for Benidorm, Spain. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 770–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rodriguez–Sanchez, C.; Sancho-Esper, F.; Casado-Diaz, A.B.; Sellers-Rubio, R. Understanding in-room water conservation behavior: The role of personal normative motives and hedonic motives in a mass tourism destination. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2020, 18, 100496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dolnicar, S.; Knezevic Cvelbar, L.; Grün, B. Do pro-environmental appeals trigger pro-environmental behavior in hotel guests? J. Travel Res. 2017, 56, 988–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Peng, N.; Chen, A. Luxury hotels going green–the antecedents and consequences of consumer hesitation. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 1374–1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Razumova, M.; Ibáñez, J.L.; Palmer, J.R.-M. Drivers of environmental innovation in Majorcan hotels. J. Sustain. Tour. 2015, 23, 1529–1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sourvinou, A.; Filimonau, V. Planning for an environmental management programme in a luxury hotel and its perceived impact on staff: An exploratory case study. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 649–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Ariza-Montes, A.; Arjona-Fuentes, J.M.; Law, R.; Han, H. Incidence of workplace bullying among hospitality employees. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 29, 1116–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Manoharan, A.; Gross, M.J.; Sardeshmukh, S.R. Identity-conscious vs identity-blind: Hotel managers’ use of formal and informal diversity management practices. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 41, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Jiang, Y.; Wen, J. Effects of COVID-19 on hotel marketing and management: A perspective article. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 32, 2563–2573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lee, Y. 5 Charts Show Which Travel Sectors Were Worst Hit by the Coronavirus; CNBC: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  49. Zhang, J.; Xie, C.; Wang, J.; Morrison, A.M.; Coca-Stefaniak, J.A. Responding to a major global crisis: The effects of hotel safety leadership on employee safety behavior during COVID-19. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 32, 3365–3389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Cavero-Rubio, J.A.; Amorós-Martínez, A. Environmental certification and Spanish hotels’ performance in the 2008 financial crisis. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 771–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Choi, S.; Lee, S. Revisiting the financial performance–corporate social performance link. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 30, 2586–2602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Fraj, E.; Matute, J.; Melero, I. Environmental strategies and organizational competitiveness in the hotel industry: The role of learning and innovation as determinants of environmental success. Tour. Manag. 2015, 46, 30–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zaragoza-Sáez, P.C.; Claver-Cortés, E.; Marco-Lajara, B.; Úbeda-García, M. Corporate social responsibility and strategic knowledge management as mediators between sustainable intangible capital and hotel performance. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Franco, S.; Caroli, M.G.; Cappa, F.; Del Chiappa, G. Are you good enough? CSR, quality management and corporate financial performance in the hospitality industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 88, 102395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Yoon, D.; Jang, J.; Lee, J.J. Environmental management strategy and organizational citizenship behaviors in the hotel industry. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 28, 1577–1597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Pham, N.T.; Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J.; Vo-Thanh, T.; Huynh, T.L.D.; Santos, C. Greening hotels: Does motivating hotel employees promote in-role green performance? The role of culture. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Pham, N.T.; Thanh, T.V.; Tučková, Z.; Thuy, V.T.N. The role of green human resource management in driving hotel’s environmental performance: Interaction and mediation analysis. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 88, 102392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Palacios-Florencio, B.; Garcia del Junco, J.; Castellanos-Verdugo, M.; Rosa-Díaz, I.M. Trust as mediator of corporate social responsibility, image and loyalty in the hotel sector. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 1273–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Latif, K.F.; Pérez, A.; Sahibzada, U.F. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and customer loyalty in the hotel industry: A cross-country study. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 89, 102565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Martínez, P. Customer loyalty: Exploring its antecedents from a green marketing perspective. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 27, 896–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Han, H.; Hsu, L.-T.J.; Lee, J.-S.; Sheu, C. Are lodging customers ready to go green? An examination of attitudes, demographics, and eco-friendly intentions. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2011, 30, 345–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Han, H. Travelers’ pro-environmental behavior in a green lodging context: Converging value-belief-norm theory and the theory of planned behavior. Tour. Manag. 2015, 47, 164–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Han, H.; Yoon, H.J. Hotel customers’ environmentally responsible behavioral intention: Impact of key constructs on decision in green consumerism. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 45, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hanks, L.; Zhang, L.; Line, N.; McGinley, S. When less is more: Sustainability messaging, destination type, and processing fluency. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 58, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Saad, S.K.; Elshaer, I.A. Justice and trust’s role in employees’ resilience and business’ continuity: Evidence from Egypt. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 35, 100712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Akbari, M.; Nazarian, A.; Foroudi, P.; Seyyed Amiri, N.; Ezatabadipoor, E. How corporate social responsibility contributes to strengthening brand loyalty, hotel positioning and intention to revisit? Curr. Issues Tour. 2021, 24, 1897–1917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Yadav, R.; Dokania, A.K.; Pathak, G.S. The influence of green marketing functions in building corporate image: Evidences from hospitality industry in a developing nation. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 28, 2178–2196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Assaker, G. The effects of hotel green business practices on consumers’ loyalty intentions: An expanded multidimensional service model in the upscale segment. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 32, 3787–3807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Olya, H.; Altinay, L.; Farmaki, A.; Kenebayeva, A.; Gursoy, D. Hotels’ sustainability practices and guests’ familiarity, attitudes and behaviours. J. Sustain. Tour. 2021, 29, 1063–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Su, L.; Swanson, S.R.; Chen, X. Social responsibility and reputation influences on the intentions of Chinese Huitang Village tourists: Mediating effects of satisfaction with lodging providers. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 27, 1750–1771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Choi, H.; Jang, J.; Kandampully, J. Application of the extended VBN theory to understand consumers’ decisions about green hotels. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 51, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Su, L.; Swanson, S.R.; Hsu, M.; Chen, X. How does perceived corporate social responsibility contribute to green consumer behavior of Chinese tourists: A hotel context. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 29, 3157–3176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. González-Rodríguez, M.R.; Díaz-Fernández, M.C.; Font, X. Factors influencing willingness of customers of environmentally friendly hotels to pay a price premium. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 32, 60–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Merli, R.; Preziosi, M.; Acampora, A.; Lucchetti, M.; Ali, F. The impact of green practices in coastal tourism: An empirical investigation on an eco-labelled beach club. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 77, 471–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Xu, A.J.; Loi, R.; Chow, C.W. Can taking charge at work help hospitality frontline employees enrich their family life? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 89, 102594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kim, M.; Yin, X.; Lee, G. The effect of CSR on corporate image, customer citizenship behaviors, and customers’ long-term relationship orientation. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 88, 102520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Han, H.; Hyun, S.S. What influences water conservation and towel reuse practices of hotel guests? Tour. Manag. 2018, 64, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Akhouri, A.; Chaudhary, R. Employee perspective on CSR: A review of the literature and research agenda. J. Glob. Responsib. 2019, 10, 355–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Gürlek, M.; Tuna, M. Corporate social responsibility and work engagement: Evidence from the hotel industry. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2019, 31, 195–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zientara, P.; Kujawski, L.; Bohdanowicz-Godfrey, P. Corporate social responsibility and employee attitudes: Evidence from a study of Polish hotel employees. J. Sustain. Tour. 2015, 23, 859–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kim, H.L.; Woo, E.; Uysal, M.; Kwon, N. The effects of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on employee well-being in the hospitality industry. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 30, 1584–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Glavas, A. Corporate social responsibility and organizational psychology: An integrative review. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Chan, E.S.; Hon, A.H.; Chan, W.; Okumus, F. What drives employees’ intentions to implement green practices in hotels? The role of knowledge, awareness, concern and ecological behaviour. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 40, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Peng, X.; Lee, S. Self-discipline or self-interest? The antecedents of hotel employees’ pro-environmental behaviours. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 1457–1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Tang, T.-W. Making innovation happen through building social capital and scanning environment. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 56, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Farmaki, A.; Stergiou, D.P. Corporate social responsibility and employee moral identity: A practice-based approach. Curr. Issues Tour. 2021, 24, 2554–2572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Koburtay, T.; Syed, J.; Haloub, R. Congruity between the female gender role and the leader role: A literature review. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 831–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Sánchez-Fernández, M.D.; Vaca-Acosta, R.M.; Vargas-Sánchez, A. Socially Responsible Practices in Hotels: A Gender Perspective. In Corporate Social Responsibility in the Hospitality and Tourism Industry; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2016; pp. 28–45. [Google Scholar]
  89. Gamor, E.; Amissah, E.F.; Boakye, K.A.A. Work–family conflict among hotel employees in Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis, Ghana. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2014, 12, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Ghaderi, Z.; Mirzapour, M.; Henderson, J.C.; Richardson, S. Corporate social responsibility and hotel performance: A view from Tehran, Iran. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2019, 29, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Luu, T.T. CSR and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment in hotel industry: The moderating roles of corporate entrepreneurship and employee attachment style. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 29, 2867–2900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Singjai, K.; Winata, L.; Kummer, T.-F. Green initiatives and their competitive advantage for the hotel industry in developing countries. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 75, 131–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Uyar, A.; Kilic, M.; Koseoglu, M.A.; Kuzey, C.; Karaman, A.S. The link among board characteristics, corporate social responsibility performance, and financial performance: Evidence from the hospitality and tourism industry. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 35, 100714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Yasir, M.; Majid, A.; Yasir, M.; Qudratullah, H.; Ullah, R.; Khattak, A. Participation of hotel managers in CSR activities in developing countries: A defining role of CSR orientation, CSR competencies, and CSR commitment. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2021, 28, 239–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Chen, M.-H.; Lin, C.-P. The impact of corporate charitable giving on hospitality firm performance: Doing well by doing good? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 47, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Choi, H.-M.; Kim, W.G.; Kim, Y.J.; Agmapisarn, C. Hotel environmental management initiative (HEMI) scale development. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 77, 562–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Han, H.; Lee, J.-S.; Trang, H.L.T.; Kim, W. Water conservation and waste reduction management for increasing guest loyalty and green hotel practices. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 75, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. He, J.; Zhang, H.; Morrison, A.M. The impacts of corporate social responsibility on organization citizenship behavior and task performance in hospitality: A sequential mediation model. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 31, 2582–2598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Sellers-Rubio, R.; Casado-Díaz, A.B. Analyzing hotel efficiency from a regional perspective: The role of environmental determinants. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 75, 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Su, C.-H.J.; Chen, C.-D. Does sustainability index matter to the hospitality industry? Tour. Manag. 2020, 81, 104158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Zhang, D.; Xie, J. Uncovering the effect of environmental performance on hotels’ financial performance: A global outlook. Curr. Issues Tour. 2021, 24, 2849–2854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Wu, X.; Sturman, M.C.; Wang, C. The motivational effects of pay fairness: A longitudinal study in Chinese star-level hotels. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2013, 54, 185–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Kim, H.L.; Rhou, Y.; Uysal, M.; Kwon, N. An examination of the links between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and its internal consequences. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 61, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Kim, H.J.; Park, J.; Wen, J. General managers’ environmental commitment and environmental involvement of lodging companies: The mediating role of environmental management capabilities. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 27, 1499–1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Chan, W. Energy benchmarking in support of low carbon hotels: Developments, challenges, and approaches in China. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 31, 1130–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Chan, E.S.; Okumus, F.; Chan, W. What hinders hotels’ adoption of environmental technologies: A quantitative study. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 84, 102324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Chan, W.W.; Li, D.; Mak, B.; Liu, L. Evaluating the application of solar energy for hot water provision: An action research of independent hotel. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 33, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Chan, W.; Lee, S.-C.; Hon, A.; Liu, L.; Li, D.; Zhu, N. Management learning from air purifier tests in hotels: Experiment and action research. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 44, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Mak, B.L.; Chan, W.W.; Li, D.; Liu, L.; Wong, K.F. Power consumption modeling and energy saving practices of hotel chillers. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 33, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Cobos, L.M.; Mejia, C.; Ozturk, A.B.; Wang, Y. A technology adoption and implementation process in an independent hotel chain. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 57, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Gröschl, S. Presumed incapable: Exploring the validity of negative judgments about persons with disabilities and their employability in hotel operations. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2013, 54, 114–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Jia, X.; Liao, S.; Van der Heijden, B.I.; Guo, Z. The effect of socially responsible human resource management (SRHRM) on frontline employees’ knowledge sharing. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 31, 3646–3663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Lee, Y.-K.; Choi, J.; Bo-young, M. Codes of ethics, corporate philanthropy, and employee responses. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 39, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Li, Y.; Chen, M.; Lyu, Y.; Qiu, C. Sexual harassment and proactive customer service performance: The roles of job engagement and sensitivity to interpersonal mistreatment. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 54, 116–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Pham, N.T.; Tučková, Z.; Jabbour, C.J.C. Greening the hospitality industry: How do green human resource management practices influence organizational citizenship behavior in hotels? A mixed-methods study. Tour. Manag. 2019, 72, 386–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Wang, C.; Hu, R.; Zhang, T.C. Corporate social responsibility in international hotel chains and its effects on local employees: Scale development and empirical testing in China. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 90, 102598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Zhang, J.; Xie, C.; Morrison, A.M. The effect of corporate social responsibility on hotel employee safety behavior during COVID-19: The moderation of belief restoration and negative emotions. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021, 46, 233–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Kim, H.; Rhou, Y.; Topcuoglu, E.; Kim, Y.G. Why hotel employees care about Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Using need satisfaction theory. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 87, 102505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Kim, J.S.; Milliman, J.; Lucas, A. Effects of CSR on employee retention via identification and quality-of-work-life. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 32, 1163–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Kim, Y.; Kim, M.; Mattila, A.S. Corporate social responsibility and equity-holder risk in the hospitality industry. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2017, 58, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Lin, M.; Ling, Q.; Luo, Z.; Wu, X. Why does empowering leadership occur and matter? A multilevel study of Chinese hotels. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2019, 32, 100556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Martínez García de Leaniz, P.; Herrero Crespo, Á.; Gómez López, R. Customer responses to environmentally certified hotels: The moderating effect of environmental consciousness on the formation of behavioral intentions. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 1160–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Kim, A.; Kim, Y.; Han, K.; Jackson, S.E.; Ployhart, R.E. Multilevel influences on voluntary workplace green behavior: Individual differences, leader behavior, and coworker advocacy. J. Manag. 2017, 43, 1335–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Mombeuil, C.; Fotiadis, A.K. Assessing the effect of customer perceptions of corporate social responsibility on customer trust within a low cultural trust context. Soc. Responsib. J. 2017, 13, 698–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Cheng, T.; Zhang, P.; Guo, Y. Does a leader’s “partiality” affect employees’ proactivity in the hospitality industry? A cross-level analysis. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 90, 102609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Li, Z.; Zhang, S.; Liu, X.; Kozak, M.; Wen, J. Seeing the invisible hand: Underlying effects of COVID-19 on tourists’ behavioral patterns. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2020, 18, 100502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Lee, S.H. Effects of biophilic design on consumer responses in the lodging industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 83, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Kim, J.S.; Song, H.; Lee, C.-K.; Lee, J.Y. The impact of four CSR dimensions on a gaming company’s image and customers’ revisit intentions. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 61, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Dimitriou, C.K.; Schwepker, C.H. Enhancing the lodging experience through ethical leadership. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 31, 669–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Youn, H.; Lee, K.; Lee, S. Effects of corporate social responsibility on employees in the casino industry. Tour. Manag. 2018, 68, 328–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Kim, W.G.; McGinley, S.; Choi, H.-M.; Agmapisarn, C. Hotels’ environmental leadership and employees’ organizational citizenship behavior. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 87, 102375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Teng, C.-C.; Lu, A.C.C.; Huang, Z.-Y.; Fang, C.-H. Ethical work climate, organizational identification, leader-member-exchange (LMX) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB): A study of three star hotels in Taiwan. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 32, 212–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Zientara, P.; Zamojska, A. Green organizational climates and employee pro-environmental behaviour in the hotel industry. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 1142–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry (European Commission). Responsible Entrepreneurship: A Collection of Good Practice Cases among Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises across Europe; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  135. Coles, T.; Fenclova, E.; Dinan, C. Tourism and corporate social responsibility: A critical review and research agenda. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2013, 6, 122–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  136. Jones, P.; Hillier, D.; Comfort, D. Sustainability in the global hotel industry. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 26, 5–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  137. Leonidou, L.C.; Leonidou, C.N.; Fotiadis, T.A.; Zeriti, A. Resources and capabilities as drivers of hotel environmental marketing strategy: Implications for competitive advantage and performance. Tour. Manag. 2013, 35, 94–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Huang, X.-X.; Hu, Z.-P.; Liu, C.-S.; Yu, D.-J.; Yu, L.-F. The relationships between regulatory and customer pressure, green organizational responses, and green innovation performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 3423–3433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Bacari, C.; Séraphin, H.; Gowreesunkar, V.G. Sustainable development goals and the hotel sector: Case examples and implications. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 2021, 13, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Rubio-Mozos, E.; García-Muiña, F.E.; Fuentes-Moraleda, L. Application of ecosophical perspective to advance to the SDGs: Theoretical approach on values for sustainability in a 4S hotel company. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Rubio-Mozos, E.; García-Muiña, F.E.; Fuentes-Moraleda, L. Sustainable strategic management model for hotel companies: A multi-stakeholder proposal to “walk the talk” toward SDGS. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Abdou, A.H.; Hassan, T.H.; El Dief, M.M. A description of green hotel practices and their role in achieving sustainable development. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Jones, P.; Comfort, D. Sustainable development goals and the world’s leading hotel groups. Athens J. Tour. 2019, 6, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Sembajwe, G.; Spaeth, K.; Dropkin, J. The Clean Hotel Room: A Public Health Imperative. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2020, 44, 547–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Bodhanwala, S.; Bodhanwala, R. Exploring relationship between sustainability and firm performance in travel and tourism industry: A global evidence. Soc. Responsib. J. 2021, 18, 1251–1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Ge, X. Exploring Factors of Corporate Social Responsibility in Luxury Hotels: The Case of Marriott Hotel. Bachelor’s Thesis, Wenzhou-Kean University, Wenzhou, China, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  147. Lau, C.; Tang, I.L.F.; Chan, W. Waterfront Hotels’ Chillers: Energy Benchmarking and ESG Reporting. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Ferracioli, L. Immigration, self-determination, and the brain drain. Rev. Int. Stud. 2015, 41, 99–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Theodoropoulos, D.; Kyridis, A.; Zagkos, C.; Konstantinidou, Z. Brain Drain Phenomenon in Greece: Young Greek scientists on their Way to Immigration, in an era of “crisis”. Attitudes, Opinions and Beliefs towards the Prospect of Migration. J. Educ. Hum. Dev. 2014, 3, 229–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Reynolds, R.R. An African brain drain: Igbo decisions to immigrate to the US. Rev. Afr. Political Econ. 2002, 29, 273–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Sönmez, S.; Apostolopoulos, Y.; Lemke, M.K.; Hsieh, Y.-C.J. Understanding the effects of COVID-19 on the health and safety of immigrant hospitality workers in the United States. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 35, 100717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Watters, C. Empowering States to Set the Priority of Environmental Claims in Bankruptcy. J. Land Use Environ. Law 2015, 31, 55–68. [Google Scholar]
  153. Serra-Cantallops, A.; Peña-Miranda, D.D.; Ramón-Cardona, J.; Martorell-Cunill, O. Progress in research on CSR and the hotel industry (2006–2015). Cornell Hosp. Q. 2018, 59, 15–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  154. Wan, W.Y.; Watters, C.; McCormack, G. Schemes of arrangement in Singapore: Empirical and comparative analyses. Am. Bankruptcy Law J. 2020, 94, 463. [Google Scholar]
  155. Wan, W.; Watters, C. Mandatory disclosure in corporate debt restructuring via schemes of arrangement: A comparative approach. Int. Insolv. Rev. 2021, 30, S111–S131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Palliyaarachchi, R. The rise of Uber and Airbnb: The future of consumer protection and the sharing economy. Compet. Consum. Law J. 2020, 28, 1–25. [Google Scholar]
  157. Kenneth-Southworth, E.; Watters, C.; Gu, C. Entrepreneurship in China: A review of the role of normative documents in China’s legal framework for encouraging entrepreneurship. Entrep. Bus. Econ. Rev. 2018, 6, 71–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Watters, C.G.; Feng, X.; Tang, Z. China overhauls work permit system for foreigners. Ind. Law J. 2018, 47, 263–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Zhang, G.; Chen, X.; Law, R.; Zhang, M. Sustainability of heritage tourism: A structural perspective from cultural identity and consumption intention. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Cantallops, A.S.; Cardona, J.R.; Matarredonda, M.G. The impact of search engines on the hotel distribution value chain. Redmarka Rev. Acad. Mark. Apl. 2013, 19–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  161. Bartosik-Purgat, M.; Michał, S.; Michał, L. The Effects of Social Media Tools’ Usage in International Marketing Communication–Corporation Perspective. In Competition, Strategy, and Innovation; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; pp. 151–171. [Google Scholar]
  162. Schletz, M.; Cardoso, A.; Prata Dias, G.; Salomo, S. How can blockchain technology accelerate energy efficiency interventions? A use case comparison. Energies 2020, 13, 5869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Bao, J.; He, D.; Luo, M.; Choo, K.-K.R. A survey of blockchain applications in the energy sector. IEEE Syst. J. 2020, 15, 3370–3381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Upadhyay, A.; Mukhuty, S.; Kumar, V.; Kazancoglu, Y. Blockchain technology and the circular economy: Implications for sustainability and social responsibility. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 293, 126130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Sulkowski, A. Blockchain, business supply chains, sustainability, and law: The future of governance, legal frameworks, and lawyers. Del. J. Corp. L 2018, 43, 303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Zajkowski, R.; Safin, K.; Stańczyk, E. The success factors of family and non-family firms: Similarities and differences. Entrep. Bus. Econ. Rev. 2022, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Lamb, P.; Hsu, S.-W.; Lemanski, M. A threshold concept and capability approach to the cross-cultural contextualization of western management education. J. Manag. Educ. 2020, 44, 101–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Lemański, M.K. Reverse transfer of HRM practices from emerging market subsidiaries: Organizational and country-level influences. In Multinational Enterprises, Markets and Institutional Diversity; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2014; Volume 9, pp. 399–415. [Google Scholar]
  169. Arp, F.; Lemański, M.K. Intra-corporate plagiarism? Conceptualising antecedents and consequences of negatively perceived mobility of ideas. J. Glob. Mobil 2016, 4, 257–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Alvarez-Risco, A.; Mlodzianowska, S.; Zamora-Ramos, U.; Del-Aguila-Arcentales, S. Green entrepreneurship intention in university students: The case of Peru. Entrep. Bus. Econ. Rev. 2021, 9, 85–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 17050 g001 550
Figure 1. Process of Reviewing the Literature.
Figure 1. Process of Reviewing the Literature.
Sustainability 14 17050 g001
Sustainability 14 17050 g002 550
Figure 2. Number of Articles on Responsible Practices by Year.
Figure 2. Number of Articles on Responsible Practices by Year.
Sustainability 14 17050 g002
Sustainability 14 17050 g003 550
Figure 3. Percentage of Articles Published in Ten Journals.
Figure 3. Percentage of Articles Published in Ten Journals.
Sustainability 14 17050 g003
Sustainability 14 17050 g004 550
Figure 4. Regional Context among Published Articles.
Figure 4. Regional Context among Published Articles.
Sustainability 14 17050 g004
Sustainability 14 17050 g005 550
Figure 5. List of Frequently Selected Countries or Regions.
Figure 5. List of Frequently Selected Countries or Regions.
Sustainability 14 17050 g005
Sustainability 14 17050 g006 550
Figure 6. Research Methods.
Figure 6. Research Methods.
Sustainability 14 17050 g006
Sustainability 14 17050 g007 550
Figure 7. Sample Type.
Figure 7. Sample Type.
Sustainability 14 17050 g007
Sustainability 14 17050 g008 550
Figure 8. Research Gaps of Responsible Practice’s Literature within the Hotel Sector (No. Yellow = numerous studies, b. Blue = limited number of studies).
Figure 8. Research Gaps of Responsible Practice’s Literature within the Hotel Sector (No. Yellow = numerous studies, b. Blue = limited number of studies).
Sustainability 14 17050 g008
Table
Table 1. Themes with illustrative references.
Table 1. Themes with illustrative references.
Unit of AnalysisThemesCitation of Articles
Firm-level researchorganizational performancee.g., [6,7,21,53,54,55,57,58,59,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104]
responsible practicese.g., [9,17,28,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,42,43,44,77,105,106,107,108,109]
Individual-level researchinfluence on employeese.g., [37,46,79,80,81,87,89,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121]
influence on guestse.g., [29,40,42,60,63,64,65,66,67,69,70,122,123,124,125,126,127,128]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liang, Y.; Watters, C.; Lemański, M.K. Responsible Management in the Hotel Industry: An Integrative Review and Future Research Directions. Sustainability 2022, 14, 17050. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142417050

AMA Style

Liang Y, Watters C, Lemański MK. Responsible Management in the Hotel Industry: An Integrative Review and Future Research Directions. Sustainability. 2022; 14(24):17050. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142417050

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liang, Yuan, Casey Watters, and Michał K. Lemański. 2022. "Responsible Management in the Hotel Industry: An Integrative Review and Future Research Directions" Sustainability 14, no. 24: 17050. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142417050

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop