How Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Activities Relate to Hotel Booking Intentions: Evidence from PLS-SEM and fsQCA
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background and Research Hypotheses
2.1. Stimulus–Organism–Response (S–O–R) Theory
2.2. ESG Management and Sustainable Development Goals in the Hotel Industry
2.3. Corporate Image and Consumer Trust
2.3.1. Corporate Image
2.3.2. Consumer Trust
2.4. Consumer Booking Intention
2.5. The Moderating Role of Environmental Awareness
3. Research Method
3.1. Measurement Items
3.2. Sample and Data Collection
3.3. Data Analysis
3.4. Common Method Bias
4. Results
4.1. Measurement Model Assessment
4.2. Structural Model Assessment
4.3. Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis
4.3.1. Data Calibration
4.3.2. Analysis of Necessary Conditions
4.3.3. Analysis of Sufficient Conditions
5. Discussion and Implications
5.1. Discussion
5.2. Theoretical Implications
5.3. Managerial Implications
6. Limitations and Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
| Variable | Measurement Item | Author | ||
| ESG Activities | Environmental (E) | ENV1 | Reduces carbon and greenhouse gas emissions. | Lee & Rhee (2023) [40]; Bae et al. (2023) [54]; Koh et al. (2022) [42] |
| ENV2 | Uses eco-friendly energy and materials. | |||
| ENV3 | Practices recycling and waste reduction. | |||
| ENV4 | Protects biodiversity and minimizes harmful chemicals. | |||
| Social (S) | SOC1 | Supports local community development. | ||
| SOC2 | Provides fair working conditions for employees. | |||
| SOC3 | Respects customer rights and privacy. | |||
| SOC4 | Promotes diversity and inclusion. | |||
| Governance (G) | GOV1 | Manages business ethically and transparently. | ||
| GOV2 | Complies with laws and regulations. | |||
| GOV3 | Discloses ESG information openly. | |||
| GOV4 | Has clear accountability in management. | |||
| Corporate Image (CI) | CI1 | Has a favorable image in the minds of customers. | Lien et al. (2015) [55]; Ryu et al. (2019) [47] | |
| CI2 | Is perceived as a reputable and trustworthy company. | |||
| CI3 | Is recognized as a socially responsible and reliable brand. | |||
| CI4 | Leaves a positive overall impression on customers. | |||
| Consumer Trust (CT) | CT1 | Believes that the company keeps its promises. | Ladhari & Michaud (2015) [51]; Górska-Warsewicz & Kulykovets (2020) [57] | |
| CT2 | Feels confident in the company’s reliability. | |||
| CT3 | Thinks the company acts in the best interest of its customers. | |||
| CT4 | Trusts the company to provide honest and transparent information. | |||
| Consumer Booking Intention (CBI) | CBI1 | Intends to book a stay at this hotel in the future. | Lien et al. (2015) [55]; Kim et al. (2017) [52]; Ling et al. (2023) [58] | |
| CBI2 | Is willing to choose this hotel over other alternatives. | |||
| CBI3 | Would recommend this hotel to others for booking. | |||
| CBI4 | Is likely to make an online reservation with this hotel soon. | |||
| Environmental Awareness (EAW) | EAW1 | I am concerned about environmental pollution. | Dunlap & Jones (2002) [20]; Laroche et al. (2002) [21]; Sharabati et al. (2023) [60] | |
| EAW2 | I believe that environmental pollution on Earth is a serious problem. | |||
| EAW3 | I think human activities are seriously destroying the environment. | |||
| EAW4 | I believe that when humans destroy nature, the consequences are often disastrous. | |||
| EAW5 | I think environmental pollution caused by single-use products is very serious. | |||
References
- Skogen, K.; Helland, H.; Kaltenborn, B. Concern about climate change, biodiversity loss, habitat degradation and landscape change: Embedded in different packages of environmental concern? J. Nat. Conserv. 2018, 44, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, W.; Jung, M. Effect of ESG activities and firm’s financial characteristics. Korean J. Financ. Stud. 2020, 49, 681–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- dos Santos, R.A.; Méxas, M.P.; Meirino, M.J.; Sampaio, M.C.; Costa, H.G. Criteria for assessing a sustainable hotel business. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 262, 121347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bianco, S.; Bernard, S.; Singal, M. The impact of sustainability certifications on performance and competitive action in hotels. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2023, 108, 103379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Casado-Díaz, A.B.; Sellers-Rubio, R.; Rodriguez-Sanchez, C.; Sancho-Esper, F. Predictors of willingness to pay a price premium for hotels’ water-saving initiatives. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2020, 37, 773–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, H.; Jo, Y.; Lee, S.; Park, J.; Cho, J.; Kim, H. ESG for Sustainability in Hospitality and Tourism: A Theoretical and Practical Review with a Future Research Agenda. J. Travel Res. 2025, 65, 00472875251363629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.Y.; Fan, W.S.; Tsai, M.C. The Mediating Role of Employee Perceived Value in the ESG–Sustainability Link: Evidence from Taiwan’s Green Hotel Industry. Tour. Hosp. 2025, 6, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Velaoras, K.; Menegaki, A.N.; Polyzos, S.; Gotzamani, K. The role of environmental certification in the hospitality industry: Assessing sustainability, consumer preferences, and the economic impact. Sustainability 2025, 17, 650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yarimoglu, E.; Gunay, T. The extended theory of planned behavior in Turkish customers’ intentions to visit green hotels. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 1097–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.; Kim, J.; Lee, J.C.; Park, J. Threat-induced sustainability: How COVID-19 has affected sustainable behavioral intention and sustainable hotel brand choice. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2024, 48, 501–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahman, I.; Chen, H.; Bernard, S. The incidence of environmental status signaling on three hospitality and tourism green products: A scenario-based quasi-experimental analysis. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2023, 46, 101076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, L.; Zaman, U. Sustainable consumer-brand relationship: The role of sustainable marketing in shaping room booking intentions in green hospitality services. Acta Psychol. 2025, 258, 105197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ding, X.; Tseng, C.J. Relationship between ESG strategies and financial performance of hotel industry in China: An empirical study. Nurture 2023, 17, 439–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, J.; Chiriko, A.Y.; Kim, S.S.; Moon, H.G.; Choi, H.; Han, H. ESG management of hotel brands: A management strategy for benefits and performance. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2025, 125, 103998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chung, K.; Nguyen, L.T.M.; Nguyen, D.T.T. Improving hotels’ operational efficiency through ESG investment: A risk management perspective. Serv. Sci. 2024, 16, 172–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Zhou, H.; Liu, Y.; Lu, R. Optimal environmental quality and price with consumer environmental awareness and retailer’s fairness concerns in supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 213, 1063–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, H.; Wang, W.; Tao, Y.; Shao, M.; Yu, C. Understand the Chinese Z generation consumers’ green hotel visit intention: An extended theory of planned behavior model. Heliyon 2024, 10, e25067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mugiarti, M.; Adawiyah, W.R.; Rahab, R. Green hotel visit intention and the role of ecological concern among young tourists in Indonesia: A planned behavior paradigm. Tour. Int. Interdiscip. J. 2022, 70, 243–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunlap, R.; Jones, R. Environmental Concern: Conceptual and Measurement Issues. In Handbook of Environmental Sociology; Dunlap, R., Michelson, W., Eds.; Greenwood Press: London, UK, 2002; pp. 482–542. [Google Scholar]
- Laroche, M.; Tomiuk, M.A.; Bergeron, J.; Barbaro-Forleo, G. Cultural differences in environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours of Canadian consumers. Can. J. Adm. Sci./Rev. Can. Des Sci. L’Adm 2002, 19, 267–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeong, E.; Jang, S.S. Restaurant experiences triggering positive electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) motivations. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2011, 30, 356–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, L.; Xu, Y.; Liu, G.; Wang, T.; Du, C. Understanding firm performance on green sustainable practices through managers’ ascribed responsibility and waste management: Green self-efficacy as moderator. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacoby, J. Stimulus-organism-response reconsidered: An evolutionary step in modeling (consumer) behavior. J. Consum. Psychol. 2002, 12, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Russell, J.A.; Mehrabian, A. Distinguishing anger and anxiety in terms of emotional response factors. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 1974, 42, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arora, R. Validation of an SOR model for situation, enduring, and response components of involvement. J. Mark. Res. 1982, 19, 505–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pandita, S.; Mishra, H.G.; Chib, S. Psychological impact of COVID-19 crises on students through the lens of Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) model. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2021, 120, 105783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hochreiter, V.; Benedetto, C.; Loesch, M. The stimulus-organism-response (SOR) paradigm as a guiding principle in environmental psychology: Comparison of its usage in consumer behavior and organizational culture and leadership theory. J. Entrep. Bus. Dev. 2022, 42, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asyraff, M.A.; Hanafiah, M.H.; Aminuddin, N.; Mahdzar, M. Adoption of the Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) model in hospitality and tourism research: Systematic literature review and future research directions. Asia-Pac. J. Innov. Hosp. Tour. 2023, 12, 19–48. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, M.J.; Lee, C.K.; Jung, T. Exploring consumer behavior in virtual reality tourism using an extended stimulus-organism-response model. J. Travel Res. 2020, 59, 69–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ngah, A.H.; Kim, H.D.; Md Hanafiah, R.; Jeevan, J.; Mohd Salleh, N.H.; Asri, N.M. Willingness to pay for halal transportation cost: The stimulus-organismresponse model. Int. J. E-Navig. Marit. Econ. 2019, 12, 11–21. [Google Scholar]
- Stergiou, D.P.; Airey, D. Understandings of tourism theory. Tour. Rev. 2018, 73, 156–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thirumoorthy, T.; Wong, K.M. Tourism. In Selected Theories in Social Science Research; Idris, A., Moghavvemi, S., Musa, G., Eds.; UM Press: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2015; pp. 23–31. [Google Scholar]
- Connelly, B.L.; Certo, S.T.; Ireland, R.D.; Reutzel, C.R. Signaling theory: A review and assessment. J. Manag. 2011, 37, 39–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, L.; Swanson, S.R. Perceived corporate social responsibility’s impact on the well-being and supportive green behaviors of hotel employees: The mediating role of the employee-corporate relationship. Tour. Manag. 2019, 72, 437–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fatma, M.; Khan, I. CSR, brand image and WOM: A multiple mediation analysis. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2024, 32, 2517–2534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, H.; Ma, S.; AlWadi, B.M.; Alam, F.; Zhang, Y. Exploring the nexus between corporate social responsibility and consumer green behavior: The interplay of corporate image, service quality, customer trust and satisfaction. Soc. Responsib. J. 2025, 21, 751–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balaji, M.S.; Jiang, Y.; Jha, S. Green hotel adoption: A personal choice or social pressure? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 31, 32873305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galbreath, J. The impact of strategic orientation on corporate social responsibility. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2010, 18, 23–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, H.J.; Rhee, T.H. How does corporate ESG management affect consumers’ brand choice? Sustainability 2023, 15, 6795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, J.; Kim, S.; Chiriko, A.Y.; Moon, H.G.; Choi, H.; Han, H. Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) in the hotel industry: A strategy for brand management, brand tribalism, and brand choice. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2024, 41, 1226–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koh, H.K.; Burnasheva, R.; Suh, Y.G. Perceived ESG (environmental, social, governance) and consumers’ responses: The mediating role of brand credibility, Brand Image, and perceived quality. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keller, K.L. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. J. Mark. 1993, 57, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nyadzayo, M.W.; Khajehzadeh, S. The antecedents of customer loyalty: A moderated mediation model of customer relationship management quality and brand image. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 30, 262–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molinillo, S.; Japutra, A.; Nguyen, B.; Chen, C.H.S. Responsible brands vs. active brands? An examination of brand personality on brand awareness, brand trust, and brand loyalty. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2017, 35, 166–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohammad, A.A.; Elshaer, I.A.; Azazz, A.M.; Kooli, C.; Algezawy, M.; Fayyad, S. The Influence of Social Commerce Dynamics on Sustainable Hotel Brand Image, Customer Engagement, and Booking Intentions. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryu, K.; Lehto, X.Y.; Gordon, S.E.; Fu, X. Effect of a brand story structure on narrative transportation and perceived brand image of luxury hotels. Tour. Manag. 2019, 71, 348–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lew, G.; Życzyński, N.; Olejarz, T.; Pomykała, M. The importance of CSR and ESG in shaping competitive and image advantage of enterprises. Eur. Res. Stud. J. 2024, 27, 308–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Everard, A.; Galletta, D.F. How presentation flaws affect perceived site quality, trust, and intention to purchase from an online store. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2005, 22, 56–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gefen, D. E-commerce: The role of familiarity and trust. Omega 2000, 28, 725–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ladhari, R.; Michaud, M. eWOM effects on hotel booking intentions, attitudes, trust, and website perceptions. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 46, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.Y.; Kim, J.U.; Park, S.C. The effects of perceived value, website trust and hotel trust on online hotel booking intention. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.; Jin, B.; Swinney, J.L. The role of etail quality, e-satisfaction and e-trust in online loyalty development process. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2009, 16, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bae, G.K.; Lee, S.M.; Luan, B.K. The impact of ESG on brand trust and word of mouth in food and beverage companies: Focusing on Jeju Island tourists. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lien, C.H.; Wen, M.J.; Huang, L.C.; Wu, K.L. Online hotel booking: The effects of brand image, price, trust and value on purchase intentions. Asia Pac. Manag. Rev. 2015, 20, 210–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dodds, W.B.; Monroe, K.B.; Grewal, D. Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. J. Mark. Res. 1991, 28, 307–319. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Górska-Warsewicz, H.; Kulykovets, O. Hotel brand loyalty—A systematic literature review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ling, S.; Zheng, C.; Cho, D. How brand knowledge affects purchase intentions in fresh food e-commerce platforms: The serial mediation effect of perceived value and brand trust. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sh Ahmad, F.; Rosli, N.T.; Quoquab, F. Environmental quality awareness, green trust, green self-efficacy and environmental attitude in influencing green purchase behaviour. Int. J. Ethics Syst. 2022, 38, 68–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharabati, A.A.A.; Al-Haddad, S.; Abu Naba, R.; Hijazat, D.; Alalwan, A.A.; Masa’deh, R.E. How consumers’ consciousness Moderates the corporate social responsibility effect on apparel industry brand image. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, J.; Luo, Z.; Cheng, X.; Li, L. Understanding the interplay of social commerce affordances and swift guanxi: An empirical study. Inf. Manag. 2019, 56, 213–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armstrong, J.S.; Overton, T.S. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Gen. Econ. Teach. 1977, 14, 396–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. J. Market. Theor. Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Matthews, L.M.; Matthews, R.L.; Marko, S. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. Int. J. Multivar. Data Anal. 2017, 1, 107–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woodside, A.G. Accurate case-outcome modeling in economics, psychology, and marketing. Psychol. Mark. 2019, 36, 1046–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, J.; Wang, Q.; Liu, D.; Pan, H.; Ran, H. Do environmental values drive artificial intelligence products green purchasing behavior? A value-attitude-behavior approach. Acta Psychol. 2025, 260, 105467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pappas, I.O.; Woodside, A.G. Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA): Guidelines for research practice in Information Systems and marketing. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021, 58, 102310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rasoolimanesh, S.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M.; Olya, H. The combined use of symmetric and asymmetric approaches: Partial least squares-structural equation modeling and fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 33, 1571–1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kock, N. Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. Int. J. e-Collab 2015, 11, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mackenzie, S.B.; Podsakoff, P.M.; Jarvis, C.B. The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 90, 710–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindell, M.K.; Whitney, D.J. Accounting for common method variance in crosssectional research designs. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 114–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagozzi, R.P. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: A comment. J. Market. Res. 1981, 18, 375–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dijkstra, T.K.; Henseler, J. Consistent partial least squares path modeling. MIS Q. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2015, 39, 297–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Sarstedt, M.; Pieper, T.M.; Ringle, C.M. The use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in strategic management research: A review of past practices and recommendations for future applications. Long. Range Plan. 2012, 45, 320–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christophersen, T.; Konradt, U. Development and validation of a formative and a reflective measure for the assessment of online store usability. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2012, 31, 839–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Falk, R.F.; Miller, N.B. A Primer for Soft Modeling; University of Akron Press: Akron, OH, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Ragin, C.C. Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Rihoux, B. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related systematic comparative methods: Recent advances and remaining challenges for social science research. Int. Sociol. 2006, 61, 679–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gligor, D.; Bozkurt, S. FsQCA versus regression: The context of customer engagement. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 52, 101929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiss, P.C. Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Acad. Manag. J. 2011, 54, 393–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, J.S. A study on the impact of consumers’ awareness of ESG activities in coffee shops on corporate image and long-term orientation. J. Logist. Inform. Serv. Sci. 2023, 10, 169–188. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, Y.; Cho, W. The effect of airline’s ESG management on corporate reputation, corporate image, and relationship continuance intention. Glob. Bus. Financ. Rev. (GBFR) 2024, 29, 146–159. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, H.J. Building Bridges Between ESG and Consumer Intentions: Unveiling the Trust Dynamics in Small and Medium Enterprises. Sustain. Dev. 2025, 33, 9042–9054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Chen, X. Can corporate ESG practices promote consumers’ purchase intention of green food? The mediating role of brand trust. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2025, 9, 1622653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdul Rahim, A.B.; Wang, L.; Rabeeu, A. Implicit or Explicit? Understanding Consumer Responses to ESG-Related Claims and ESG Disclosure in the Consumer-Packaged Goods Industry: An Emerging Economy Perspective. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2025, 32, 6031–6047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]


| Particulars | Variables | Frequency | Percent (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 275 | 53.089 |
| Female | 243 | 46.911 | |
| Age (in years) | Below 18 | 39 | 7.529 |
| 18–29 | 146 | 28.185 | |
| 30–39 | 163 | 31.467 | |
| 40–49 | 103 | 19.884 | |
| 50–59 | 40 | 7.722 | |
| Above 60 | 27 | 5.212 | |
| Education level | High school or lower | 92 | 17.761 |
| Associate degree | 176 | 33.977 | |
| Bachelor’s degree | 182 | 35.135 | |
| Master’s degree | 50 | 9.653 | |
| Doctoral degree | 18 | 3.475 | |
| Monthly income (RMB) | <5000 | 249 | 48.069 |
| 5000–10,000 | 149 | 28.764 | |
| 10,001–15,000 | 54 | 10.425 | |
| 15,001–20,000 | 37 | 7.143 | |
| 20,001–30,000 | 16 | 3.089 | |
| >30,000 | 13 | 2.510 | |
| Area of Employment | Student | 87 | 16.795 |
| Technical | 262 | 50.579 | |
| Edu. and Public Admin. | 34 | 6.564 | |
| Retail | 55 | 10.618 | |
| Other | 80 | 15.444 |
| Variable | Factor Loading | Cronbach’s α | CR | AVE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental (ENV) | ENV1 | 0.859 | 0.848 | 0.862 | 0.685 |
| ENV2 | 0.832 | ||||
| ENV3 | 0.851 | ||||
| ENV4 | 0.767 | ||||
| Social (SOC) | SOC1 | 0.839 | 0.853 | 0.855 | 0.694 |
| SOC2 | 0.814 | ||||
| SOC3 | 0.832 | ||||
| SOC4 | 0.847 | ||||
| Governance (GOV) | GOV1 | 0.879 | 0.859 | 0.878 | 0.702 |
| GOV2 | 0.819 | ||||
| GOV3 | 0.813 | ||||
| GOV4 | 0.837 | ||||
| Corporate Image (CI) | CI1 | 0.851 | 0.865 | 0.868 | 0.712 |
| CI2 | 0.866 | ||||
| CI3 | 0.842 | ||||
| CI4 | 0.816 | ||||
| Consumer Trust (CT) | CT1 | 0.826 | 0.842 | 0.845 | 0.679 |
| CT2 | 0.815 | ||||
| CT3 | 0.794 | ||||
| CT4 | 0.859 | ||||
| Consumer Booking Intention (CBI) | CBI1 | 0.848 | 0.845 | 0.849 | 0.683 |
| CBI2 | 0.832 | ||||
| CBI3 | 0.762 | ||||
| CBI4 | 0.861 | ||||
| Environmental Awareness (EAW) | EAW1 | 0.835 | 0.877 | 0.883 | 0.670 |
| EAW2 | 0.822 | ||||
| EAW3 | 0.838 | ||||
| EAW4 | 0.819 | ||||
| EAW5 | 0.777 | ||||
| ENV | SOC | GOV | CI | CT | CBI | EAW | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ENV | 0.828 | ||||||
| SOC | 0.212 | 0.833 | |||||
| GOV | 0.021 | 0.191 | 0.838 | ||||
| CI | 0.152 | 0.427 | 0.391 | 0.844 | |||
| CT | 0.310 | 0.426 | 0.235 | 0.498 | 0.824 | ||
| CBI | 0.127 | 0.315 | 0.181 | 0.371 | 0.387 | 0.827 | |
| EAW | 0.138 | 0.242 | 0.087 | 0.125 | 0.181 | 0.202 | 0.818 |
| ENV | SOC | GOV | CI | CT | CBI | EAW | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ENV | - | ||||||
| SOC | 0.246 | - | |||||
| GOV | 0.037 | 0.217 | - | ||||
| CI | 0.175 | 0.495 | 0.446 | - | |||
| CT | 0.359 | 0.503 | 0.268 | 0.581 | - | ||
| CBI | 0.142 | 0.372 | 0.208 | 0.429 | 0.457 | - | |
| EAW | 0.160 | 0.277 | 0.099 | 0.141 | 0.209 | 0.234 | - |
| Paths Specified | Standardized Coefficient | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|
| ENV→CI | 0.056 | H1a unsupported |
| SOC→CI | 0.345 *** | H1b supported |
| GOV→CI | 0.398 *** | H1c supported |
| ENV→CT | 0.202 *** | H2a supported |
| SOC→CT | 0.211 *** | H2b supported |
| GOV→CT | 0.047 | H2c unsupported |
| CI→CT | 0.334 *** | H3 supported |
| CI→CBI | 0.237 *** | H4 supported |
| CT→CBI | 0.268 *** | H5 supported |
| ENV * EAW→CI | 0.121 *** | H6a supported |
| SOC * EAW→CI | 0.034 | H6b unsupported |
| GOV * EAW→CI | −0.024 | H6c unsupported |
| ENV * EAW→CT | 0.070 | H7a unsupported |
| SOC * EAW→CT | 0.038 | H7b unsupported |
| GOV * EAW→CT | –0.009 | H7c unsupported |
| Conditions | High CBI | Low CBI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consistency | Coverage | Consistency | Coverage | |
| ENV | 0.617 | 0.611 | 0.497 | 0.444 |
| ~ENV | 0.439 | 0.492 | 0.565 | 0.571 |
| SOC | 0.704 | 0.637 | 0.507 | 0.414 |
| ~SOC | 0.352 | 0.442 | 0.555 | 0.628 |
| GOV | 0.581 | 0.637 | 0.432 | 0.427 |
| ~GOV | 0.477 | 0.482 | 0.633 | 0.576 |
| CI | 0.707 | 0.641 | 0.551 | 0.451 |
| ~CI | 0.395 | 0.494 | 0.562 | 0.636 |
| CT | 0.649 | 0.671 | 0.418 | 0.390 |
| ~CT | 0.410 | 0.439 | 0.647 | 0.625 |
| EAW | 0.626 | 0.624 | 0.502 | 0.451 |
| ~EAW | 0.449 | 0.501 | 0.581 | 0.583 |
| Conditions | S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | S5 | S6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental (ENV) | ● | ● | ⊗ | ● | ● | ● |
| Social (SOC) | ● | ● | ⊗ | ⊗ | ● | ● |
| Governance (GOV) | ● | ⊗ | ⊗ | ● | ● | |
| Corporate image (CI) | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||
| Consumer trust (CT) | ● | ● | ● | ⊗ | ● | ● |
| Environmental awareness (EAW) | ⊗ | ● | ⊗ | ● | ● | |
| Raw coverage | 0.116 | 0.153 | 0.059 | 0.051 | 0.230 | 0.277 |
| Unique coverage | 0.022 | 0.017 | 0.021 | 0.010 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Consistency | 0.878 | 0.853 | 0.920 | 0.939 | 0.844 | 0.844 |
| Solution coverage | 0.389 | |||||
| Solution consistency | 0.842 | |||||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Zhang, B.; Jung, S. How Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Activities Relate to Hotel Booking Intentions: Evidence from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. Sustainability 2026, 18, 325. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010325
Zhang B, Jung S. How Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Activities Relate to Hotel Booking Intentions: Evidence from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. Sustainability. 2026; 18(1):325. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010325
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhang, Baitong, and Sunho Jung. 2026. "How Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Activities Relate to Hotel Booking Intentions: Evidence from PLS-SEM and fsQCA" Sustainability 18, no. 1: 325. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010325
APA StyleZhang, B., & Jung, S. (2026). How Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Activities Relate to Hotel Booking Intentions: Evidence from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. Sustainability, 18(1), 325. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010325

