Next Article in Journal
When the Going Gets Tough, Leaders Use Metaphors and Storytelling: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study on Communication in the Context of COVID-19 and Ukraine Crises
Previous Article in Journal
Is Customer Satisfaction Achieved Only with Good Hotel Facilities? A Moderated Mediation Model
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Administrative Sciences
Volume 13
Issue 4
10.3390/admsci13040109
admsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Green Human Resource Management and Brand Citizenship Behavior in the Hotel Industry: Mediation of Organizational Pride and Individual Green Values as a Moderator

by
Ibrahim A. Elshaer
1,2,*,
Alaa M. S. Azazz
3,4,*,
Chokri Kooli
5 and
Sameh Fayyad
2
1
Department of Management, College of Business Administration, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsaa 380, Saudi Arabia
2
Hotel Studies Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Suez Canal University, Ismailia 41522, Egypt
3
Department of Tourism and Hospitality, Arts College, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsaa 380, Saudi Arabia
4
Tourism Studies Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Suez Canal University, Ismailia 41522, Egypt
5
The Telfer School of Management, The University of Ottawa, 75 Laurier Avenue East, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13(4), 109; https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13040109
Submission received: 16 March 2023 / Revised: 5 April 2023 / Accepted: 6 April 2023 / Published: 8 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Green Human Resource Management: Challenges and a Path Forward)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In recent years, there has been growing awareness of the need for sustainability in the hospitality industry. The hotel industry, in particular, has been identified as a significant contributor to environmental degradation. To address this issue, hotel managers have begun to adopt green human resource management (GHRM) practices to promote sustainable behavior among employees. This research paper explores the relationship between GHRM practices, brand citizenship behavior (BCBs), organizational pride, and individual green values in the hotel industry. The study examines how GHRM practices influence BCB through the mediation of organizational pride and the moderation of individual green values. A survey was conducted with 328 employees from five-star hotels and the obtained data were analyzed using PLS-SEM. The results indicate that GHRM practices positively affect BCB and that this relationship is partially mediated by organizational pride. Furthermore, individual green values were found to moderate the relationship between GHRM practices and BCB, indicating that employees with stronger green values are more likely to exhibit BCB. These findings contribute to the literature on GHRM and BCB and offer insights for hotel managers on how to enhance their sustainability efforts through effective GHRM practices.

1. Introduction

In the current climate of hotel firms’ rapid growth, increasing competition, and choppy market conditions, hotel businesses are investing more than ever in building solid brands (Eriksson et al. 2022). Due to the “intangibility, inseparability, and heterogeneity” of services, hotel brands differ from other product brands (Xie et al. 2014). As a result, a strong brand is a vital performance driver for any hospitality service firm because it distinguishes its service offerings from its competitors, building guest trust and lowering apparent financial, social, and safety-related risks (Simões and Dibb 2001). Thus, the service delivery conduct of frontline guest-contact staff significantly influences guests’ perceptions of a hotel service brand (Hartline et al. 2000). Therefore, it is not sufficient for service people to merely act in a manner that fulfills the brand’s promise to develop a strong brand for the company; instead, they are urged to go above and beyond their formal in-role performance to meet the expectations of the brand and customers (Pornpitakpan et al. 2017). Here, hotels can resort to employees’ brand citizenship behaviors (BCBs) to use their extra-role behaviors to defend, promote, and enhance the brand. Through BCB, hotel employees, for example, can help solid brand-establishing efforts by discretionary positive word of mouth (extra role) as corporate representatives to friends, family, clients, potential clients, and other stakeholders (Löhndorf and Diamantopoulos 2014). Previous research has indicated that the factors that push employees toward brand citizenship behavior, specifically affective and cognitive functions via which brand-supportive behaviors are developed, have yet to receive adequate attention (Burmann and Zeplin 2005; Chang et al. 2012; Helm et al. 2016).
Many scholars have focused on organizational pride (OP) as an essential antecedent to encourage employees to go the extra mile (Tracy and Robins 2007) to demonstrate a passion for their brand and become brand champions (Chiang et al. 2013); thus, OP is expected to motivate hotel employees to display BCB. However, this concept has received little attention from business and marketing studies, and most claims concerning pride are based on intuition, underlining the demand for empirical proof on pride in business contexts (Gouthier and Rhein 2011).
In the same vein, employees will only feel proud of their companies when they believe they support community development, improve people’s health, and safeguard the environment and natural resources (Al Kerdawy 2019). According to Jia et al. (2018), employees also feel pride when engaging in their firm’s green practices, such as recycling actions, saving energy, and utilizing green products. Accordingly, Gilal et al. (2019) concluded that green human resource management (GHRM) practices are critical to generating organizational pride, as well as motivating employees to show brand citizenship behaviors (Elshaer et al. 2023a).
Agreeing with the “supplies–values fit” (SVF) theory, prior research underlines that the function of a fit between employees and their brands, in terms of beliefs or values, is paramount in facilitating brand-supportive behaviors (Hurrell and Scholarios 2014). Thus, we argue that individual green values of employees that are congruous with GHRM principles will play a crucial role in boosting and supporting employees’ BCBs and perceived organizational pride (Yasin et al. 2023).
Although several studies have examined how GHRM practices affect employees’ attitudes and behaviors (Singh et al. 2020; Ren and Hussain 2022; Freire and Pieta 2022), the majority of these studies have concentrated on the direct correlation between GHRM and outcomes rather than the psychological mechanisms by which GHRM practices affect employee attitudes and behaviors (Hameed et al. 2019). Moreover, very little research has been conducted to document the linkage between positive emotions like pride and green behavior (Schneider et al. 2017; Kotabe et al. 2019; Mukherjee and Chandra 2022). Therefore, various mediating variables still need to be explored to better understand the underlying mechanisms of GHRM. Consequently, this study seeks to address some of the above gaps by exploring the relationship between GHRM and employees’ BCBs, taking into account the mediating effect of organizational pride (OP) and the moderating interactions of individual green values (IGVs).

2. Theoretical Foundations and Hypotheses Formulation

2.1. Green Human Resources Management (GHRM) and Brand Citizenship Behavior (BCBs)

Recent research has highlighted GHRM as an emerging concept being investigated for its effects on employee behavior and perceptions in the workplace (Dumont et al. 2017; Cao et al. 2023). The past period has also noticed a proliferation of GHRM research in a hospitality and tourism industry context, with a growing number of hotels adopting initiatives for new GHRM approaches to promote green individual and organizational performance (Úbeda-García et al. 2022). Previous studies contend that hotels work to benefit from GHRM practices such as selecting and hiring new staff with green awareness, values, and knowledge; preparing training to develop and reinforce staff members’ green competencies and skills; conducting green performance assessments with specific criteria for evaluating green work behaviors and performance; and rewarding staff based on the successful accomplishment of green organizational goals (Renwick et al. 2013; El Baroudi et al. 2023), in order to improve organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) toward the environment (Elshaer et al. 2023a), promote in-role green work behaviors (Karatepe et al. 2022; Pham et al. 2020), develop a circular economy (Jabbour et al. 2019), improve social reputation (Pan et al. 2022), and promote innovative performance, green values, and job satisfaction (Elshaer et al. 2022b). However, few studies address whether GHRM motivates employees’ discretionary extra-role behaviors, such as BCB, in the organization, or its effect on some self-worth and self-esteem behaviors, such as organizational pride.
Employing the concept of OCB, Burmann et al. (2009) identified BCB as “the intention of each employee to voluntarily exhibit certain generic (brand- and sector-independent) behavioral characteristics outside of the formally defined role expectation system, which strengthen the identity of the brand.” Thus, both concepts (OCB and BCB) go beyond in-role duties and are non-enforceable; nevertheless, BCB concentrates on behaviors that enhance the positive corporate brand’s external perception, whilst OCB typically focuses on intraorganizational aspects (Burmann and Zeplin 2005). In this context, according to the BCB concept, employees can play an influential role as brand ambassadors in building a solid brand within the hospitality industry (Van Nguyen et al. 2019; Hoang 2022). Scholars have investigated many antecedents of employee BCB, such as brand commitment (Piehler 2018), perceived organizational support (Xie et al. 2014), brand-psychological ownership, and brand-centered human resource management (HRM) (Chang et al. 2012). Perceived brand-centered HRM refers to employees’ beliefs regarding HRM practices, including hiring, selecting, training, appraising performance, rewarding, and developing initiatives that could help them internalize the brand identity (Aurand et al. 2005). Accordingly, implementation of the ethical, social, and environmental symbols incorporated in GHRM assists the organization in improving its social reputation and word of mouth (WOM) and drives employees to take the initiative to reinforce their connection with the organization through their extra role (BCB); organizational identity also improves in this operation (Úbeda-García et al. 2021; Cao et al. 2023). These practices ensure positive employee attitudes and behaviors toward the brand (Chang et al. 2012), such as the desire to interact with customers in a way that benefits the hotel brand and clarifies any misunderstandings that customers may have about it (Hoang 2022). Here, this is based on the notion that social exchange theory (SET) supports a win-win situation by mutualizing resources between the employee and the organization (Cropanzano et al. 2003). Thus, employees boost their confidence in the organization when there is a beneficial exchange of resources between them and the organization (Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005), potentially enhancing positive discretionary behaviors (BCBs). Depending on these arguments, we can propose the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
GHRM is positively associated with BCB.

2.2. Green Human Resources Management (GHRM) and Organizational Pride (OP)

Previous studies have recommended that more investigations are needed to determine the role of CSR and eco-friendly related practices in controlling organizational pride (Latan et al. 2018; Shahzadi et al. 2019; Farooq and Salam 2020; Elshaer et al. 2023b, 2022a). Specifically in the hospitality business, where most previous empirical studies have only concentrated on the macro-level impact (i.e., firm level) of GHRM, especially intra-organizationally, whereas the micro-level (i.e., individual level) effect of GHRM, especially extra-organizationally, is still relatively less investigated (Hur et al. 2018; Chen et al. 2019; Farooq and Salam 2020). Organizational pride refers to an employee’s sense of perceived happiness and satisfaction of being a member of his organization (Boezeman and Ellemers 2014; Gouthier and Rhein 2011). According to Kraemer and Gouthier (2014), OP is also the creation of a favorable, encouraging work environment, which necessitates a high level of social identification with the business. According to appraisal theories, an employee’s feeling of pride is frequently associated with the perceived value of his deeds carried out in the workplace (e.g., honored as the year’s top employee) (Gouthier and Rhein 2011). Employees, on the other hand, feel a sense of OP when they are emotionally connected to their company and proud of its accomplishments (i.e., GHRM practices) (Boezeman and Ellemers 2014; Tang et al. 2020).
In the same line of appraisal theories, according to social identity theory, people believe that strengthening their connection to a group allows them to share its positive, admirable traits (i.e., GHRM practices) leading to a rise in their sense of self-worth and self-esteem (i.e., organizational pride) (Hewstone et al. 2002). Thus, positive perceptions about a corporation shaped by its CSR activities boost employees’ pride (John et al. 2017) and intention to support its brand reputation (Ellemers et al. 2004; Hur et al. 2018). Employees are increasingly likely to experience pride when they realize that customers opt for their green brand, making them feel proud to contribute to pro-environmental and pro-social endeavors (Maior et al. 2022). Moreover, our study argues that GHRM is correlated (i.e., as an antecedent) to organizational pride (Kuo et al. 2016; Kim et al. 2020). Based on this discussion, the below hypothesis was proposed:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
GHRM is positively associated with OP.

2.3. Organizational Pride (OP) and Brand Citizenship Behavior (BCBs)

According to SET, organizational pride is a primary intrinsic motivator for positive employee behaviors (Katzenbach 2003). Organizational pride makes employees feel highly appreciative of and attached to their employer, encouraging them to conduct pro-organizational initiatives (BCBs) (Kraemer and Gouthier 2014). Generally, as a valuable psychological resource, organizational pride encourages employees to demonstrate both general organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Sabrina Helm 2013) as well as environmental behavior (Hameed et al. 2019). In the green context, in particular, some studies assert that OP boosts pro-social behaviors (Katzenbach 2003; Wubben et al. 2012). Therefore, Helm et al. (2016) argued that organizational pride resulting from green practices (i.e., GHRM practices), could broaden the tendency of the OCB concept and positively associate with BCB. These arguments direct to the below hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
OP is positively associated with BCB.
Employing the social identity theory (SIT) and the social exchange theory (SET) and integrating prior evidence, as well as relying on the justifications cited beforehand of the suggested three direct hypotheses between the study’s variables, we presented the following hypothesis for the mediation relationship:
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
OP mediates the association between GHRM and BCB.

2.4. Individual Green Values (IGVs) as a Moderator

The congruity between employees and their brands is paramount to creating a solid brand (Hurrell and Scholarios 2014). Congruity in terms of values or beliefs between employees and their brands facilitates appropriate brand-supportive behaviors (Helm et al. 2016) and places more energy, dedication, voluntary behaviors (BCBs), and passion (organizational pride) into their work (Raza et al. 2021). According to SIT, when a company adopts GHRM practices, employees with higher IGV levels are more compatible and consistent with their company (Cao et al. 2023). Therefore, varying IGV levels among employees could potentially be a factor in variations in GHRM results (Gilal et al. 2019). IGVs, as the name implies, represent the views of the organization’s employees on environmental sustainability (Raza and Khan 2022). Studies have indicated that employees with green values and beliefs feel organizational pride when carrying out green duties (Anwar et al. 2020; Hooi et al. 2022). Furthermore, Gilal et al. (2019) indicated that IGVs positively moderate the positive influence of GHRM practices on environmental passion (pride). Similarly, IGVs improve employees’ willingness to contribute to in-role and extra-role behaviors to support their organization (i.e., BCB) (Pham et al. 2019; Boiral, 2009).
Based on the supply-value-fit theory (Edwards 1996), providing green values from the firm (e.g., GHRM practices) is deemed the best congruent for individuals with high green values levels (Islam et al. 2021). Accordingly, the current study proposes that IGVs reflect employees’ green ethical level, and if employees have a higher level of IGVs, their green OP will be more significant because of GHRM practices, and their BCBs will also be more significant due to the impact of green organizational pride. Thus, this study suggests the following two hypotheses, as illustrated in Figure 1:
Hypothesis 5 (H5):
IGVs moderate the influence of GHRM on OP, such that the relationship will be stronger when IGVs are high.
Hypothesis 6 (H6):
IGVs moderate the influence of OP on BCB, such that the relationship will be stronger when IGVs are high.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Participants and Process of Data Collection

The researchers gathered data for the study by conducting a questionnaire survey of guest-contact staff at hotels in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt. This city was chosen because it has several high-ranking five-star hotels. Only employees with a minimum of three years of experience were allowed to participate in the survey, as they were considered to have enough knowledge and expertise to answer the research questions. Data were collected during January 2023 using convenience sampling and drop-and-collect methods. According to Bornstein et al. (2013), convenience sampling is the most frequently used non-probability sampling method in developmental science because it is cost effective, time efficient, and easy to conduct. The survey was separated into two stages. In the first survey stage, employees were instructed to provide the required information for GHRM practice, BCB variables, and demographic data. A month later, in the same Sharm El-Sheikh hotels, employees finished the organizational pride (OP) and individual green values (IGVs) variables questionnaire. In both surveys, 500 questionnaire records were distributed. After removing the unqualified forms, 328 responses were considered, with an efficient recovery rate of 65.6%. The study sample incorporated 253 males (77.1%) and 75 females (22.9%). The participants’ age spectrum ranged mainly from 24 to 58 years old. All targeted participants were non-managerial positions where the largest proportion (41%) were front desk receptionists, followed by 25% who worked in room service, 20% in housekeeping, and 14% in the spa department.

3.2. Measures

The questionnaire items for all variables were obtained from the existing literature and employed in the study. A five-point Likert scale was utilized to assess all variables. The GHRM practices were operationalized by six items based on the suggestion of Kim et al. (2019). The BCB variable was measured by a seven-item scale recommended by Van Nguyen et al. (2019). For the OP, four items were adopted from Ng et al. (2019). Finally, the measurement items for the IGVs were adopted from Chou (2014). To render the survey questions clearer and easier to understand, they were transcribed and edited. The poll was tested by a total of 16 people, including eight academics and eight practitioners in the relevant sector, to confirm its validity. The survey’s content was not altered throughout this procedure and thus remained unchanged.

3.3. Data Analysis Methods

“Structural equation modelling” (SEM) was employed using “partial least squares” (PLS) with SmartPLS 4.0 to test the proposed model. PLS is appropriate and practical when the study’s primary goal is to predict one or more dependent variables rather than to verify a previously established theoretical model (Hair et al. 2017). PLS-SEM is a suitable method for this study because it explores relationships between the GHRM and BCB variables with the mediating role of the OP and moderating role of the IGV variable. Moreover, the PLS method is effective across a wider variety of sample sizes and is a more sophisticated model with fewer data restrictions, as well as being an effective technique (Hair et al. 2011). Using PLS-SEM also allows for the inclusion of more reflective items per factor compared to other statistical methods. According to Leguina (2015), the PLS-SEM method uses two steps: measurement modeling and structural modeling.

4. The Study Results

4.1. Measurement Model Assessment (Outer Model)

The measure measurement model tests the convergent validity (CV) and discriminant validity (DV) to investigate data quality. The CV evaluates the association between indicators by using Cronbach’s alpha (higher than 0.50) (Leontitsis and Pagge 2007), composite reliability (CR) (higher than 0.60) (Fornell and Larcker 1981), average variance extracted (AVE) (higher than 0.50) (Hair et al. 2011), and factor loading (higher than 0.50) (Afthanorhan 2013) as evaluation criteria. Furthermore, DV claims that the observed values must be capable of being discriminated against when applying different methods to measure other constructs. According to Fornell and Larcker (1981) when the A V E of the construct is higher than the correlation between that construct and others in the model, the construct meets the statistical requirement for discriminant validity. On the other hand, due to the numerous complaints that were leveled against Fornell and Lacker’s criterion, several researchers evaluated the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlation to determine discriminant validity (Sarstedt and Cheah 2019). The threshold value of HTMT is 0.9, according to Gold et al. (2001).
The CV indicators in Table 1 show that all of the advised minimum and/or maximum levels were satisfactory, indicating that the proposed outer model is appropriate. In terms of dimensions for DV, both the A V E , HTMT, Fornell and Larcker values, as shown in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 met the recommended thresholds, indicating that the scale has adequate discriminant validity.

4.2. Hypotheses Testing (Inner Model Assessment)

In order to prevent the impact of variables on the model’s contribution, the study examines collinearity concerns using the variance inflation factor (VIF) to determine whether or not there is a problem with collinearity between variables. Following the guidance of Hair et al. (2011), VIF values which range below five do not necessitate fixing multicollinearity. The regression model’s explanatory precision has also been evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R2) and Stone-Geisser’s Q2. In behavior studies, an R2 result of 0.20 is regarded as a high benchmark Hair et al. (2011). Similarly, Q2 values surpassed the suggested threshold value of 0.0 (Hair et al. 2014). Table 5 displays the VIF, R2, and Q2 results.
PLS, in contrast to covariance-based SEM (CBSEM), does not offer a variety of statistical measures for model validation, such as X2 and other model fit measurements (Henseler and Sarstedt 2013). “The GoF represents an operational solution to this problem as it may be meant as an index for validating” (Tenenhaus et al. 2005). The following is the GoF calculation method, according to Mital et al. (2018) and Tenenhaus et al. (2005):
Gof = A V E a v y × R 2 a v y
According to Tenenhaus et al. (2005), GoF small = 0.1, GoF medium = 0.25, and GoF high = 0.36. The GoF value of the suggested model is 0.535, which indicates that our model has a considerable GoF index. Additionally, the study assesses the model’s fit by comparing the variances in observed correlations using the “Standardized Root Mean Square Residual” (SRMR). SRMR < 0.08 denotes a good enough model fit (Hu and Bentler 1998). The suggested model’s SRMR value, which is 0.078, indicates a good model fit.
Once the accuracy of the outer and the inner model was confirmed, we could further investigate the suggested hypotheses of the study. Smart PLS4 was utilized to perform a 5,000 bootstrapping repetition to calculate the regression weights (β), t-statistics, and significance p level of the direct, indirect, and moderating effects. We assessed a total of six hypotheses, consisting of three direct hypotheses, and one with mediating and two with moderating effects, as presented in Table 6.
Based on the results presented in Figure 2 and Table 6, the GHRM had a significant and positive impact (p < 0.000) on BCB (β = 0.415, t = 6.110, p < 0.000) and OP (β = 0.270, t = 3.780, p < 0.000), providing support for H1 and H2. The findings also indicate that OP significantly and positively influenced BCB at β = 0.293, t = 3.899, p < 0.000, confirming H4. Moreover, the variables of OP mediated the relationship between GHRM and BCB at β = 0.079, t = 2.919, p < 0.004, indicating that H5 could be accepted.
The assessment of the moderating effects revealed that IGVs have a significant impact on the relationship being tested, as illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4. Specifically, the SmartPLS analysis showed that the IGV strengthens the significant influence of GHRM on OP (β = 0.206, t = 2.293, and p = 0.022), indicating support for H5. Similarly, the IGV strengthens the significant influence of OP on BCB (β = 0.191, t = 4.001, and p = 0.000), supporting H6.

5. Discussion

Recent studies have begun to concentrate on GHRM outcomes that are non-green (Amjad et al. 2021). Despite this, the hospitality and tourism studies still lack proof of the possible green and non-green favorable results of GHRM practices among hotel staff (Nisar et al. 2021; Aboramadan and Karatepe 2021). Furthermore, the majority of academic empirical works on GHRM have been achieved in Western contexts and manufacturing industries (Cabral and Jabbour 2020). To respond to this, this study utilizes data gathered in hotels at Sharm El-Sheikh in Egypt (as one of the African developing countries) to examine the interrelationships of GHRM, two non-green variables (i.e., BCB and OP), and one green variable (i.e., IGV). Accordingly, the findings of our empirical study achieved their purposes and objectives by contributing to the current literature on GHRM and theoretical development through the proposed model. The results revealed that GHRM practices positively impact BCB (H1). Here, mainly according to the job demands-resources (JD-R) theory (Bakker and Demerouti 2017), employees are enthusiastic, goal-oriented, and effectively do work-related duties and extra-role activities when they have positive emotions about their jobs (Ozturk et al. 2021). Moreover, Nisar et al. (2021) indicated that an employee with green knowledge, skills, and abilities effectively completes his task duties and extra-mile behavior. Thus, we argue that GHRM practices have a critical role in supporting BCBs.
GHRM practices not only activate pro-environmental behaviors but can also stimulate non-green positive attitudinal and behavioral consequences (Shafaei et al. 2020). In line with this, our study proved that the GHRM practices positively affected OP (H2). In this context, few empirical studies have explored how GHRM influences hotel employees’ non-green positive workplace attitudes and behaviors outcomes (Aboramadan and Karatepe 2021), such as OP. Specifically, pride as a positive shape of self-conscious emotions has been overlooked or has not received much attention in environmental literature (Kotabe et al. 2019; Mukherjee and Chandra 2022). Within this petite knowledge, this result is consistent with the argument that valuable organizational characteristics can be considered a source of OP for individual employees (Pham et al. 2021), and GHRM practices can thus be an essential source of OP. Additionally, few research studies approved a reasonably strong linkage between positive emotions, such as OP and green behavior (Onwezen et al. 2014; Bissing-Olson et al. 2016). On the same statistical path, the study results found that OP positively affects BCB (H3). Here, Tyler and Blader (2003) argued that OP would predict employees’ psychological attachment to their organization and, thus, extra-role behaviors (BCBs).
The study aimed to test whether OP mediates the relationship between GHRM and BCB (H4). The study’s results, which supported the previous three hypotheses, showed that OP was indeed a mediator between GHRM and BCB. In the context of this result, Du et al. (2010) indicated that employees feel pride in their organization when they receive CSR messages (or realize its GHRM practices). Organizations often adopt GHRM practices to generate employees’ positive emotions (e.g., OP) in order to improve brand reputation (Chang et al. 2016) through BCBs.
Finally, our PLS-SEM results confirmed the moderation impacts of IGVs on the links between GHRM and OP (H5) as well as those between OP and BCB (H6). In general, the congruity between organizational and individual values significantly positively affects employees’ work-related attitudes and behaviors (Islam et al. 2021). IGVs have been found to strengthen the connection between GHRM practices and employees’ environmental passion (Gilal et al. 2019) (e.g., OP) and OCB in general (Dumont et al. 2017), specifically BCBs. Finally, in sum, managers of green hotel brands can communicate “green pride” stemming from GHRM practices that are congruent with employees’ green values as a way to motivate employees to participate in BCB behaviors (Maior et al. 2022).

6. Conclusions

This research paper explored the relationship between green human resource management (GHRM) practices, brand citizenship behavior (BCBs), organizational pride, and individual green values in the hotel industry. The study found that GHRM practices have a positive impact on BCB, and this relationship is partially mediated by organizational pride. Additionally, the study showed that individual green values (IGVs) play a moderating role in the relationship between GHRM practices and BCB.
The findings of this study have several theoretical implications for the fields of human resource management and sustainability. First, the study contributes to the growing body of literature on GHRM practices by providing empirical evidence of the positive impact of GHRM practices on brand citizenship behavior (BCB) in the hotel industry. This study extends the current literature by highlighting the importance of OP and IGVs as moderators in the relationship between GHRM practices and BCB. Second, this study contributes to the literature on sustainable behavior by emphasizing the role of OP and IGVs in promoting sustainable behavior. The findings suggest that OP and IGVs are important factors in determining the extent to which employees engage in sustainable behavior. This study provides a theoretical foundation for future research to investigate the role of OP and IGVs in promoting sustainable behavior in other industries and contexts.
The practical implications of this study are relevant for hotel managers seeking to enhance their brand’s reputation for sustainability and promote sustainable behavior among employees. First, the study suggests that the adoption of GHRM practices can promote sustainable behavior among employees and enhance their commitment to the organization. Hotel managers can use GHRM practices such as training, communication, and performance management to promote sustainable behavior and enhance the organization’s sustainability performance. Second, the study highlights the importance of OP in promoting sustainable behavior. Hotel managers can promote OP by providing opportunities for employees to participate in sustainability initiatives, recognizing and rewarding sustainable behavior, and communicating the organization’s sustainability goals and achievements to employees. Thirdly, the study emphasizes the importance of IGVs in promoting sustainable behavior. Hotel managers can promote IGVs by hiring employees who share the organization’s sustainability values, providing training and development opportunities, and creating a supportive work environment that encourages sustainable behavior.
Future research could investigate the impact of GHRM practices on employee well-being and job satisfaction, as well as the relationship between sustainable behavior and financial performance. In addition, future studies could examine the influence of external factors, such as government regulations and industry norms, on the adoption of GHRM practices in the hotel industry. Furthermore, the study focused on the hotel industry, and it would be interesting to see if the findings can be applied to other industries as well. Future research could explore the applicability of these findings in other sectors and industries, such as the manufacturing and service industries using a different methodology in the collecting and/or analysis of the data. Finally, the study used a cross-sectional survey design, which limits the ability to make causal inferences. Future research could employ longitudinal or experimental designs to establish causal relationships between GHRM practices, BCB, OP, and individual green values.

Author Contributions

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

Funding

This work was supported by the Deanship of Scientific Research, Vice Presidency for Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia [Grant No. 3220].

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the deanship of the scientific research ethical committee, King Faisal University (project number: 3220, date of approval: 25 April 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

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

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aboramadan, Mohammed, and Osman M. Karatepe. 2021. Green human resource management, perceived green organizational support and their effects on hotel employees’ behavioral outcomes. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 33: 3199–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Afthanorhan, Wan. 2013. A Comparison of Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) and Covariance Based Structural Equation Modeling (CB-SEM) for Confirmatory Factor Analysis. International Journal of Engineering Science and Innovative Technology 2: 198–205. [Google Scholar]
  3. Al Kerdawy, Mostafa Mohamed Ahmed. 2019. The Role of Corporate Support for Employee Volunteering in Strengthening the Impact of Green Human Resource Management Practices on Corporate Social Responsibility in the Egyptian Firms. European Management Review 16: 1079–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Amjad, Fiza, Waseem Abbas, Muhammad Zia-Ur-Rehman, Sajjad Ahmad Baig, Muhammad Hashim, Ayesha Khan, and Hakeem-Ur Rehman. 2021. Effect of green human resource management practices on organizational sustainability: The mediating role of environmental and employee performance. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 28: 28191–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Anwar, Nosheen, Nik Hasnaa Nik Mahmood, Mohd Yusoff Yusliza, T. Ramayah, Juhari Noor Faezah, and Waqas Khalid. 2020. Green Human Resource Management for organisational citizenship behavior towards the environment and environmental performance on a university campus. Journal of Cleaner Production 256: 120401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Aurand, Timothy W., Linda Gorchels, and Terrence R. Bishop. 2005. Human resource management’s role in internal branding: An opportunity for cross-functional brand message synergy. Journal of Product & Brand Management 14: 163–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bakker, Arnold B., and Eva Demerouti. 2017. Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 22: 273–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bissing-Olson, Megan J., Kelly S. Fielding, and Aarti Iyer. 2016. Experiences of pride, not guilt, predict pro-environmental behavior when pro-environmental descriptive norms are more positive. Journal of Environmental Psychology 45: 145–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Boezeman, Edwin J., and Naomi Ellemers. 2014. Volunteer leadership: The role of pride and respect in organizational identification and leadership satisfaction. Leadership 10: 160–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Boiral, Olivier. 2009. Greening the Corporation through Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics 87: 221–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bornstein, Marc H., Justin Jager, and Diane L. Putnick. 2013. Sampling in developmental science: Situations, shortcomings, solutions, and standards. Developmental Review 33: 357–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Burmann, Christoph, and Sabrina Zeplin. 2005. Building brand commitment: A behavioral approach to internal brand management. Journal of Brand Management 12: 279–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Burmann, Christoph, Sabrina Zeplin, and Nicola Riley. 2009. Key determinants of internal brand management success: An exploratory empirical analysis. Journal of Brand Management 16: 264–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cabral, Clement, and Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour. 2020. Understanding the human side of green hospitality management. International Journal of Hospitality Management 88: 102389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cao, Yu, Bowen Yan, and Yefan Teng. 2023. Making bad things less bad? Impact of green human resource management on counterproductive work behaviors of grassroots employees: Evidence from the hospitality industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 397: 136610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chang, Aihwa, Hsu-Hsin Chiang, and Tzu-Shian Han. 2012. A multilevel investigation of relationships among brand-centered HRM, brand psychological ownership, brand citizenship behaviors, and customer satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing 46: 626–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chang, Mark Jaewon, Yong Jae Ko, Daniel Connaughton, and Joon-Ho Kang. 2016. The effects of perceived CSR, pride, team identification, and regional attachment: The moderating effect of gender. Journal of Sport & Tourism 20: 145–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chen, Yun-Shan, She-Chih Chiu, Suming Lin, and Kuan-Hsun Wu. 2019. Corporate social responsibility and income smoothing: Supply chain perspectives. Journal of Business Research 97: 76–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chiang, Hsu-Hsin, Aihwa Chang, Tzu-Shian Han, and David Mcconville. 2013. Corporate Branding, Brand Psychological Ownership and Brand Citizenship Behavior: Multilevel Analysis and Managerial Implications. Journal of General Management 39: 55–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chou, Chia-Jung. 2014. Hotels’ environmental policies and employee personal environmental beliefs: Interactions and outcomes. Tourism Management 40: 436–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cropanzano, Russell, and Marie S. Mitchell. 2005. Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review. Journal of Management 31: 874–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Cropanzano, Russell, Deborah E. Rupp, and Zinta S. Byrne. 2003. The relationship of emotional exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 160–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Du, Shuili, Chitrabhan B. Bhattacharya, and Sankar Sen. 2010. Maximizing Business Returns to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The Role of CSR Communication. International Journal of Management Reviews 12: 8–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Dumont, Jenny, Jie Shen, and Xin Deng. 2017. Effects of Green HRM Practices on Employee Workplace Green Behavior: The Role of Psychological Green Climate and Employee Green Values. Human Resource Management 56: 613–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Edwards, Jeffrey R. 1996. An examination of competing versions of the person-environment fit approach to stress. The Academy of Management Journal 39: 292–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. El Baroudi, Sabrine, Wenjing Cai, Svetlana N. Khapova, and Yang Jiang. 2023. Green human resource management and team performance in hotels: The role of green team behaviors. International Journal of Hospitality Management 110: 103436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ellemers, Naomi, Dick De Gilder, and S. Alexander Haslam. 2004. Motivating Individuals and Groups at Work: A Social Identity Perspective on Leadership and Group Performance. Academy of Management Review 29: 459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Elshaer, Ibrahim A., Alaa M. S. Azazz, and Sameh Fayyad. 2022a. Underdog Environmental Expectations and Environmental Organizational Citizenship Behavior in the Hotel Industry: Mediation of Desire to Prove Others Wrong and Individual Green Values as a Moderator. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19: 9501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Elshaer, Ibrahim A., Alaa M. S. Azazz, and Sameh Fayyad. 2023a. Green Human Resources and Innovative Performance in Small- and Medium-Sized Tourism Enterprises: A Mediation Model Using PLS-SEM Data Analysis. Mathematics 11: 711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Elshaer, Ibrahim A., Alaa M. S. Azazz, and Sameh Fayyad. 2023b. Green Management and Sustainable Performance of Small- and Medium-Sized Hospitality Businesses: Moderating the Role of an Employee’s Pro-Environmental Behavior. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20: 2244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Elshaer, Ibrahim A., Manal A. Abdelrahman, Alaa M. S. Azazz, Mahmaod Alrawad, and Sameh Fayyad. 2022b. Environmental Transformational Leadership and Green Innovation in the Hotel Industry: Two Moderated Mediation Analyses. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19: 16800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Eriksson, Theresa, Anna Näppä, and Jeandri Robertson. 2022. All for one and one for all: Encouraging ecosystem citizenship behavior to strengthen employer branding. Scandinavian Journal of Management 38: 101211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Farooq, Muhammad Shoaib, and Maimoona Salam. 2020. Nexus between CSR and DSIW: A PLS-SEM Approach. International Journal of Hospitality Management 86: 102437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker. 1981. Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. Journal of Marketing Research 18: 382–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Freire, Carla, and Pietra Pieta. 2022. The Impact of Green Human Resource Management on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: The Mediating Role of Organizational Identification and Job Satisfaction. Sustainability 14: 7557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gilal, Faheem Gul, Zubaida Ashraf, Rukhsana Gul Gilal, and Nisar Ahmed Chaana. 2019. Promoting environmental performance through green human resource management practices in higher education institutions: A moderated mediation model. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 26: 1579–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gold, Andrew H., Arvind Malhotra, and Albert H. Segars. 2001. Knowledge Management: An Organizational Capabilities Perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems 18: 185–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gouthier, Matthias H. J., and Miriam Rhein. 2011. Organizational pride and its positive effects on employee behavior. Journal of Service Management 22: 633–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hair, Joe F., Christian M. Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2011. PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 19: 139–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hair, Joseph F., Jr., G. Tomas M. Hult, Christian M. Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2014. A Primer on Partial Least Squares (PLS) Structural Equation Modeling. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  41. Hair, Joseph F., Jr., G. Tomas M. Hult, Christian M. Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2017. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed. New York: SAGE Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  42. Hameed, Zahid, Ikram Ullah Khan, Tahir Islam, Zaryab Sheikh, and Safeer Ullah Khan. 2019. Corporate social responsibility and employee pro-environmental behaviors. South Asian Journal of Business Studies 8: 246–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hartline, Michael D., James G. Maxham, and Daryl O. McKee. 2000. Corridors of Influence in the Dissemination of Customer-Oriented Strategy to Customer Contact Service Employees. Journal of Marketing 64: 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Helm, Sabrina. 2013. A Matter of Reputation and Pride: Associations between Perceived External Reputation, Pride in Membership, Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions. British Journal of Management 24: 542–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Helm, Sabrina Verena, Uwe Renk, and Anubha Mishra. 2016. Exploring the impact of employees’ self-concept, brand identification and brand pride on brand citizenship behaviors. European Journal of Marketing 50: 58–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Henseler, Jörg, and Marko Sarstedt. 2013. Goodness-of-fit indices for partial least squares path modeling. Computational Statistics 28: 565–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Hewstone, Miles, Mark Rubin, and Hazel Willis. 2002. Intergroup Bias. Annual Review of Psychology 53: 575–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Hoang, Hung Trong. 2022. How Does Service Climate Influence Hotel Employees’ Brand Citizenship Behavior? A Social Exchange and Social Identity Perspective. Australasian Marketing Journal 30: 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hooi, Lai Wan, Min-Shi Liu, and Joe J.J. Lin. 2022. Green human resource management and green organizational citizenship behavior: Do green culture and green values matter? International Journal of Manpower 43: 763–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hu, Li-Tze, and Peter M. Bentler. 1998. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods 3: 424–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hur, Won-Moo, Tae-Won Moon, and Han-Geun Lee. 2018. Employee engagement in CSR initiatives and customer-directed counterproductive work behavior (CWB): The mediating roles of organizational civility norms and job calling. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 25: 1087–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hurrell, Scott A., and Dora Scholarios. 2014. The People Make the Brand. Journal of Service Research 17: 54–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Islam, Talat, Mubbsher Munawar Khan, Ishfaq Ahmed, and Khalid Mahmood. 2021. Promoting in-role and extra-role green behavior through ethical leadership: Mediating role of green HRM and moderating role of individual green values. International Journal of Manpower 42: 1102–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Jabbour, Charbel Jose Chiappetta, Joseph Sarkis, Ana Beatriz Lopes De Sousa Jabbour, Douglas William Scott Renwick, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Oksana Grebinevych, Isak Kruglianskas, and Moacir Godinho Filho. 2019. Who is in charge? A review and a research agenda on the ‘human side’ of the circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production 222: 793–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Jia, Jianfeng, Huanxin Liu, Tachia Chin, and Dongqing Hu. 2018. The Continuous Mediating Effects of GHRM on Employees’ Green Passion via Transformational Leadership and Green Creativity. Sustainability 10: 3237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. John, Albert, Faisal Qadeer, Gulnaz Shahzadi, and Fu Jia. 2017. Corporate social responsibility and employee’s desire: A social influence perspective. The Service Industries Journal 37: 819–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Karatepe, Osman M., Hungchen Hsieh, and Mohammed Aboramadan. 2022. The effects of green human resource management and perceived organizational support for the environment on green and non-green hotel employee outcomes. International Journal of Hospitality Management 103: 103202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Katzenbach, Jon. 2003. Pride: A strategic asset. Strategy & Leadership 31: 34–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kim, Woo Gon, Sean McGinley, Hyung-Min Choi, and Charoenchai Agmapisarn. 2020. Hotels’ environmental leadership and employees’ organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management 87: 102375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kim, Yong Joong, Woo Gon Kim, Hyung-Min Choi, and Kullada Phetvaroon. 2019. The effect of green human resource management on hotel employees’ eco-friendly behavior and environmental performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management 76: 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kotabe, Hiroki P., Francesca Righetti, and Wilhelm Hofmann. 2019. How Anticipated Emotions Guide Self-Control Judgments. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 1614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Kraemer, Tobias, and Matthias H. J. Gouthier. 2014. How organizational pride and emotional exhaustion explain turnover intentions in call centers. Journal of Service Management 25: 125–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kuo, Tsai Chi, Gül E. Okudan Kremer, Nguyen Thi Phuong, and Chia-Wei Hsu. 2016. Motivations and barriers for corporate social responsibility reporting: Evidence from the airline industry. Journal of Air Transport Management 57: 184–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Latan, Hengky, Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour, Ana Beatriz Lopes De Sousa Jabbour, Samuel Fosso Wamba, and Muhammad Shahbaz. 2018. Effects of environmental strategy, environmental uncertainty and top management’s commitment on corporate environmental performance: The role of environmental management accounting. Journal of Cleaner Production 180: 297–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Leguina, Adrian. 2015. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). International Journal of Research & Method in Education 38: 220–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Leontitsis, Alexandros, and Jenny Pagge. 2007. A simulation approach on Cronbach’s alpha statistical significance. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 73: 336–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Löhndorf, Birgit, and Adamantios Diamantopoulos. 2014. Internal Branding. Journal of Service Research 17: 310–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Maior, Cecilia Souto, Danielle Mantovani, Diego Costa Pinto, and Mário Boto Ferreira. 2022. Green pride in sustainable versus premium brand decisions. Marketing Intelligence & Planning. ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Mital, Monika, Victor Chang, Praveen Choudhary, Armando Papa, and Ashis K. Pani. 2018. Adoption of Internet of Things in India: A test of competing models using a structured equation modeling approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 136: 339–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Mukherjee, Bidhan, and Bibhas Chandra. 2022. Unravelling the differential effects of pride and guilt along with values on green intention through environmental concern and attitude. Kybernetes 51: 2273–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ng, Thomas W. H., Kai Chi Yam, and Herman Aguinis. 2019. Employee perceptions of corporate social responsibility: Effects on pride, embeddedness, and turnover. Personnel Psychology 72: 107–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Nisar, Qasim Ali, Shahbaz Haider, Faizan Ali, Samia Jamshed, Kisang Ryu, and Sonaina Saif Gill. 2021. Green human resource management practices and environmental performance in Malaysian green hotels: The role of green intellectual capital and pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Cleaner Production 311: 127504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Onwezen, Marleen C., Jos Bartels, and Gerrit Antonides. 2014. Environmentally friendly consumer choices: Cultural differences in the self-regulatory function of anticipated pride and guilt. Journal of Environmental Psychology 40: 239–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ozturk, Anastasia, Osman M. Karatepe, and Fevzi Okumus. 2021. The effect of servant leadership on hotel employees’ behavioral consequences: Work engagement versus job satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality Management 97: 102994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Pan, Changjian, Jawad Abbas, Susana Álvarez-Otero, Hina Khan, and Cheng Cai. 2022. Interplay between corporate social responsibility and organizational green culture and their role in employees’ responsible behavior towards the environment and society. Journal of Cleaner Production 366: 132878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Pham, Anh Tuan, Truc Le Nguyen, Xuan Trong Hoang, Hoang Phuong Trinh, Thi Van Anh LE, Van Anh Vu, Trung Kien Dang, and The Kien Nguyen. 2021. Green performance and employees’ citizenship behavior: Examining the role of employees’ pride and commitment. Geojournal of Tourism and Geosites 36: 563–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Pham, Nhat Tan, Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour, Tan Vo-Thanh, Toan Luu Duc Huynh, and Clarice Santos. 2020. Greening hotels: Does motivating hotel employees promote in-role green performance? The role of culture. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 31: 951–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Pham, Nhat Tan, Zuzana Tučková, and Charbel José Chiappetta Jabbour. 2019. Greening the hospitality industry: How do green human resource management practices influence organizational citizenship behavior in hotels? A mixed-methods study. Tourism Management 72: 386–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Piehler, Rico. 2018. Employees’ brand understanding, brand commitment, and brand citizenship behavior: A closer look at the relationships among construct dimensions. Journal of Brand Management 25: 217–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Pornpitakpan, Chanthika, Yizhou Yuan, and Jie Hui Han. 2017. The Effect of Salespersons’ Retail Service Quality and Consumers’ Mood on Impulse Buying. Australasian Marketing Journal 25: 2–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Raza, Ali, Muhammad Farrukh, Muhammad Khalid Iqbal, Muhammad Farhan, and Yihua Wu. 2021. Corporate social responsibility and employees’ voluntary pro-environmental behavior: The role of organizational pride and employee engagement. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 28: 1104–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Raza, Syed Ali, and Komal Akram Khan. 2022. Impact of green human resource practices on hotel environmental performance: The moderating effect of environmental knowledge and individual green values. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 34: 2154–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Ren, Zhengyu, and Rana Yassir Hussain. 2022. A mediated–moderated model for green human resource management: An employee perspective. Frontiers in Environmental Science 10: 1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Renwick, Douglas W.S., Tom Redman, and Stuart Maguire. 2013. Green Human Resource Management: A Review and Research Agenda*. International Journal of Management Reviews 15: 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Sarstedt, Marko, and Jun-Hwa Cheah. 2019. Partial least squares structural equation modeling using SmartPLS: A software review. Journal of Marketing Analytics 7: 196–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Schneider, Claudia R., Lisa Zaval, Elke U. Weber, and Ezra M. Markowitz. 2017. The influence of anticipated pride and guilt on pro-environmental decision making. PLoS ONE 12: e0188781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  87. Shafaei, Azadeh, Mehran Nejati, and Yusmani Mohd Yusoff. 2020. Green human resource management. International Journal of Manpower 41: 1041–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Shahzadi, Gulnaz, Faisal Qadeer, Albert John, and Jeff (Fu) Jia. 2019. CSR and identification: The contingencies of employees’ personal traits and desire. Social Responsibility Journal 16: 1239–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Simões, Cláudia, and Sally Dibb. 2001. Rethinking the brand concept: New brand orientation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 6: 217–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Singh, Sanjay Kumar, Manlio Del Giudice, Roberto Chierici, and Domenico Graziano. 2020. Green innovation and environmental performance: The role of green transformational leadership and green human resource management. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 150: 119762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Tang, Pok Man, Kai Chi Yam, and Joel Koopman. 2020. Feeling proud but guilty? Unpacking the paradoxical nature of unethical pro-organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 160: 68–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Tenenhaus, Michel, Vincenzo Esposito Vinzi, Yves-Marie Chatelin, and Carlo Lauro. 2005. PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 48: 159–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Tracy, Jessica L., and Richard W. Robins. 2007. Emerging Insights Into the Nature and Function of Pride. Current Directions in Psychological Science 16: 147–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Tyler, Tom R., and Steven L. Blader. 2003. The Group Engagement Model: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Cooperative Behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review 7: 349–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Úbeda-García, Mercedes, Bartolome Marco-Lajara, Patrocinio C. Zaragoza-Sáez, Encarnación Manresa-Marhuenda, and Esther Poveda-Pareja. 2022. Green ambidexterity and environmental performance: The role of green human resources. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 29: 32–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Úbeda-García, Mercedes, Enrique Claver-Cortés, Bartolomé Marco-Lajara, and Patrocinio Zaragoza-Sáez. 2021. Corporate social responsibility and firm performance in the hotel industry. The mediating role of green human resource management and environmental outcomes. Journal of Business Research 123: 57–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Van Nguyen, Long Thang, Vinh Nhat Lu, Sally Rao Hill, and Jodie Conduit. 2019. The Mediating Role of Brand Knowledge on Employees’ Brand Citizenship Behavior: Does Organizational Tenure Matter? Australasian Marketing Journal 27: 169–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Wubben, Maarten J. J., David De Cremer, and Eric Van Dijk. 2012. Is pride a prosocial emotion? Interpersonal effects of authentic and hubristic pride. Cognition and Emotion 26: 1084–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Xie, Li-Shan, Jia-Min Peng, and Tzung-Cheng Huan. 2014. Crafting and testing a central precept in service-dominant logic: Hotel employees’ brand-citizenship behavior and customers’ brand trust. International Journal of Hospitality Management 42: 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Yasin, Raheel, Aydan Huseynova, and Muhammad Atif. 2023. Green human resource management, a gateway to employer branding: Mediating role of corporate environmental sustainability and corporate social sustainability. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 30: 369–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Admsci 13 00109 g001 550
Figure 1. The research model.
Figure 1. The research model.
Admsci 13 00109 g001
Admsci 13 00109 g002 550
Figure 2. The study model.
Figure 2. The study model.
Admsci 13 00109 g002
Admsci 13 00109 g003 550
Figure 3. Interaction-plot (IGV moderation between GHRM and OP).
Figure 3. Interaction-plot (IGV moderation between GHRM and OP).
Admsci 13 00109 g003
Admsci 13 00109 g004 550
Figure 4. Interaction-plot (IGV moderation between OP and BCB).
Figure 4. Interaction-plot (IGV moderation between OP and BCB).
Admsci 13 00109 g004
Table
Table 1. Psychometric metrics.
Table 1. Psychometric metrics.
Loadingsa ValueCRAVE
Green Human Resources Management (GHRM)0.9170.9350.705
GHRM/10.859
GHRM/20.848
GHRM/30.829
GHRM/40.849
GHRM/50.841
GHRM/60.810
Brand Citizenship Behavior (BCBs)0.9410.9520.737
BCB/10.866
BCB/20.874
BCB/30.876
BCB/40.862
BCB/50.869
BCB/60.865
BCB/70.797
Organizational Pride (OP) 0.9040.9330.777
OP/10.877
OP/20.918
OP/30.912
OP/40.817
Individual Green Values (IGVs)0.8800.9260.806
IGV/10.874
IGV/20.913
IGV/30.907
Table
Table 2. Fac. Cross-loadings.
Table 2. Fac. Cross-loadings.
GHRMBCBOPIGV
GHRM/10.8590.6550.4200.499
GHRM/20.8480.6440.4300.543
GHRM/30.8290.4580.3450.473
GHRM/40.8490.4540.3260.441
GHRM/50.8410.5150.4250.448
GHRM/60.8100.4880.3490.392
BCB/10.5190.8660.2950.444
BCB/20.5540.8740.2760.443
BCB/30.5200.8760.2720.372
BCB/40.5060.8620.3530.391
BCB/50.5480.8690.3470.455
BCB/60.5960.8650.3590.456
BCB/70.6350.7970.4570.508
OP/10.4360.4020.8770.426
OP/20.4230.3860.9180.414
OP/30.3840.3080.9120.425
OP/40.3770.2940.8170.304
IGV/10.5250.4480.3490.874
IGV/20.5040.4880.4000.913
IGV/30.4830.4520.4540.907
Bold scores: for discriminant validity, the outer factor loading of the reflective items have should have higher value than the cross-loading related scale measures.
Table
Table 3. Fornell–Larcker criterion matrix.
Table 3. Fornell–Larcker criterion matrix.
BCBGHRMIGVOP
Brand Citizenship Behavior0.859
Green Human Resources Management0.6510.839
Individual Green Values0.5160.5600.898
Organizational Pride0.3980.4610.4490.882
Bold scores: for a proper discriminant validity, AVE values (bold) have to show values that are higher than the inter-variable correlation coefficient.
Table
Table 4. HTMT Matrix.
Table 4. HTMT Matrix.
BCBGHRMIGVOP
Brand Citizenship Behavior
Green Human Resources Management0.681
Individual Green Values0.5610.619
Organizational Pride0.4210.4980.497
HTMT: Heterotrait–monotrait matrix. For adequate discriminant validity, all HTMT scores need to be <0.90.
Table
Table 5. VIF, R2, and Q2 results.
Table 5. VIF, R2, and Q2 results.
ItemsVIFItemsVIFItemsVIFItemsVIF
GHRM/12.901BCB/13.554OP-12.455IGV-12.195
GHRM/22.723BCB/23.838OP-23.589IGV-22.695
GHRM/32.601BCB/33.903OP-33.565IGV-32.547
GHRM/43.455BCB/43.586OP-42.050
GHRM/52.715BCB/54.391
GHRM/62.254BCB/63.710
BCB/72.267
Brand Citizenship Behavior (BCBs)R20.518Q20.366
Organizational Pride (OP)R20.302Q20.220
Table
Table 6. Hypotheses testing (inner model results).
Table 6. Hypotheses testing (inner model results).
HypothesesβtpResults
Direct-Paths
H1—GHRM → BCB0.4156.1100.000Confirmed
H2—GHRM → OP0.2703.7800.000Confirmed
H3—OP → BCB0.2933.8990.000Confirmed
Indirect mediating Paths
H4—GHRM → OP → BCB0.0792.9190.004Confirmed
Moderating Effects
H5—GHRM * IGV → OP0.2062.2930.022Confirmed
H6—OP * IGV → BCB0.1914.0010.000Confirmed
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Elshaer, I.A.; Azazz, A.M.S.; Kooli, C.; Fayyad, S. Green Human Resource Management and Brand Citizenship Behavior in the Hotel Industry: Mediation of Organizational Pride and Individual Green Values as a Moderator. Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13040109

AMA Style

Elshaer IA, Azazz AMS, Kooli C, Fayyad S. Green Human Resource Management and Brand Citizenship Behavior in the Hotel Industry: Mediation of Organizational Pride and Individual Green Values as a Moderator. Administrative Sciences. 2023; 13(4):109. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13040109

Chicago/Turabian Style

Elshaer, Ibrahim A., Alaa M. S. Azazz, Chokri Kooli, and Sameh Fayyad. 2023. "Green Human Resource Management and Brand Citizenship Behavior in the Hotel Industry: Mediation of Organizational Pride and Individual Green Values as a Moderator" Administrative Sciences 13, no. 4: 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13040109

APA Style

Elshaer, I. A., Azazz, A. M. S., Kooli, C., & Fayyad, S. (2023). Green Human Resource Management and Brand Citizenship Behavior in the Hotel Industry: Mediation of Organizational Pride and Individual Green Values as a Moderator. Administrative Sciences, 13(4), 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13040109

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