Next Article in Journal
Unsustainable Tourism Approaches in Touristic Destinations: A Case Study in Turkey
Previous Article in Journal
Interest Equilibrium and Path Choice in the Development of Construction Land Decrement: A Theoretical Analysis Based on the Multi-Agent Game Model
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 6
10.3390/su15064746
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Perceived Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility Effect on Green Perceived Value and Green Attitude in Hospitality and Tourism Industry: The Mediating Role of Environmental Well-Being

by
Hazem Ahmed Khairy
1,*,
Yehia Elzek
2,
Nadir Aliane
3 and
Mohamed Fathy Agina
4
1
Hotel Management Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, University of Sadat City, Sadat City 32897, Egypt
2
Tourism Studies Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, University of Sadat City, Sadat City 32897, Egypt
3
Management Department, College of Business Administration, King Faisal University, Al-Hassa 31982, Saudi Arabia
4
Hotel Management Department, Higher Institute for Specific Studies, Heliopolis, Cairo 11771, Egypt
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(6), 4746; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064746
Submission received: 13 February 2023 / Revised: 3 March 2023 / Accepted: 4 March 2023 / Published: 7 March 2023
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study examines how green perceived value (GPV) and green attitude (GA) are affected by environmental corporate social responsibility (ECSR). It also investigates the mediating role of environmental well-being (EWB) on the relationship between ECSR and GA and on the relationship between ECSR and GPV. A total of 910 responses gathered from the guests of travel agencies and 5-star hotels in Egypt were analyzed using PLS-SEM. The results showed positive relationships between ECSR with GA, EWB, and GPV. Positive relationships between EWB with GA and GPV also existed. In addition, there was a mediating role of EWB in the relationship between ECSR and GA and in the relationship between ECSR and GPV. The research provides a theoretical contribution to bridging the gap in studies related to ECSR and EWB in relation to GPV and GA, specifically in the tourism and hotel sector. Practically, the research provides the tourism and hotel enterprises with recommendations to improve ECSR and EWB—this could, in turn, positively impact the GPV and GA of their guests. Limitations and potential directions for future research were also presented.

1. Introduction

Nowadays, attention to environmental issues has become very important as a result of global warming [1]. Therefore, enterprises in various fields, including tourism and hotel enterprises, must try to adapt to the current environmental changes and take advantage of green opportunities [2]. CSR for the tourism and hospitality industry is pushing beyond the limits of early procedures to corporate sustainability via assisting the significance of integrating various stakeholder views and wishes for the duration of the making plans, implementation, and assessment of CSR initiatives [3]. Consumers’ concern for the environment has also grown between consumers [4]. Accordingly, marketers are looking for ways to connect with customers, “i.e., adopting environmental initiatives and designing green products” in order to achieve their goals through define consumers’ green behavioral intentions, green attitudes, and perceived value for green products or services [2]. According to the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) approach, behavioral intentions that are formed from attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and subjective characteristics are what drive green consumer behavior, such as supporting green businesses and buying green services [5].
As a result of businesses’ environmental consciousness, which has grown since the 1960s, growing demands on businesses have been made in the areas of environmental corporate social responsibility (ECSR) [6]. ECSR is crucial for businesses to attain economic benefits as well as a sustainable business and environmental development, which are of major interest to both researchers and practitioners [7]. Consumer research has revealed that people are more likely to make purchases from businesses that demonstrate a stronger commitment to environmental protection, as evidenced by their willingness to pay a little bit more for high-quality green services or products. However, according to academics, being environmentally conscious would involve the underlying business culture, policy, and practices through ECSR, not merely selling environmentally-friendly products [8].
Despite the importance of social responsibility in reducing harmful effects on the environment through integration and interactions between all stakeholders, whether suppliers or consumers [9], studies that dealt with the relationship between ECSR and consumer behavior or marketing variables are very limited [8]. The notion that environmental responsibility is an essential component of CSR seems less contentious than the diverse nature of CSR discussed before. However, even in terms of business sustainability, significant research issues remain [10]. In the tourist and hospitality context, the importance of CSR in consumer behavior has long been recognized. Hence, researchers and practitioners have paid particular attention to ECSR as environmental degradation is increasingly becoming a problem in the tourism and hospitality field [11].
To the best of the researchers’ knowledge, there are no studies that dealt with the environmental and social responsibility of enterprises in the tourism and hotel sector in Egypt. The modern consumer’s concerns are moving towards sustainable products. In addition, Egypt is considered one of the developing countries where its interest towards environmental issues is relatively recent. Hence, this study aims to shed light on the environmental and social responsibility of hotels and travel agencies in Egypt and its relationship to some marketing variables, namely environmental well-being, green attitude, and green perceived value. To achieve this goal, the study answers the following questions:
First Question. 
Does ECSR affect consumers’ environmental well-being, green attitude, and green perceived value at travel agencies and hotels in Egypt?
Second Question. 
Does environmental well-being affect consumers’ green attitude and green perceived value at travel agencies and hotels in Egypt?
Third Question. 
Does environmental well-being mediate the impact of ECSR on green attitude and green perceived value of consumers at travel agencies and hotels in Egypt?

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

2.1. Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility (ECSR)

Recent years have seen a tremendous expansion of the literature on corporate social responsibility (CSR), although the definition of the term is still up for debate [12,13]. Corporate social responsibility is the voluntary adoption of CSR practices to improve a company’s reputation and competitiveness [10]. The triple bottom line of an organization’s performance in terms of the economy, society, and environment can be influenced by corporate social responsibility (CSR) [12]. Companies are becoming more aware of the strategic advantages that result from incorporating environmental issues into their corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives [14].
Concentrating on the CSR element related to the environment, namely environmental CSR [15]. Rashid et al. [8] defined ECSR as a notion where businesses incorporate environmental considerations into their daily operations and interactions with stakeholders without sacrificing economic success. From another view, Rela et al. [16] mentioned that ECSR refers to the sustainability of the corporate business for the future and noble manners that promote the economic, environmental, and social welfare of society. In the same context, Chuang and Huang [6] cleared that ECSR is the environmental practice undertaken by companies in order to mitigate or prevent negative environmental impacts that result from its activities in the areas of environmental performance, credibility, and governance.
ECSR is vital for enterprises to achieve both economic gains and the sustainable growth of businesses and the environment [7,17]. ECSR leads in enabling the transition to a low-carbon, high-quality economy [18] and fostering innovation [19]. Alam and Islam [14] indicated that ECSR has a major contribution to improving a company’s green reputation and green competitiveness. Schill and Godefroit-Winkel [9] add that ECSR diminishes negative environmental effects caused by administrative decisions and interactions with diverse stakeholders, including suppliers or customers. Additionally, Chuang and Huang [6] mentioned that ECSR enhances environmental performance for enterprises. Ji et al. [20] also found that when businesses do well in terms of ECSR, their financing costs might be dramatically lowered. For the community, Rela et al. [21] indicate that ECSR contributes to achieving the community’s environmental, social, and economic well-being, and this is reflected in the quality level of facilities and services in the community.
At the consumer level, there are many benefits to ECSR. Consumer behavior and corporate social responsibility are increasingly linked in today’s society [22,23]. ECSR is closely related to customer attitudes [9], improves customer loyalty [24], and achieves customer satisfaction and environmental well-being [16]. Accordingly, enterprises in various fields, including tourism and hospitality, can benefit from ECSR in marketing aspects to achieve the desired goals.
As a result of the importance of ECSR and regarding its scope in the tourism industry, Paskova and Zelenka [25] indicate that there is a growing interest in applying social responsibility in tourism in order to achieve sustainability through all stakeholders represented in airlines, transport companies, travel agencies, and hotels.

2.2. Environmental Well-Being

Consumption-related environmental harm puts human well-being, prosperity, and other important values at risk [26]. Hence, it is important to achieve well-being by using natural and human resources without adverse impacts on the environment [27]. The well-being concept is one of the important concepts in the field of consumer behavior in general and tourist behavior in particular [28]. In the hotel and tourism industries, the well-being perception is especially crucial because consumers of hospitality and tourism products/services frequently look for pleasure, enjoyment, relaxation, enthusiasm, or wellness [29]. At the tourist destination level, well-being refers to how effectively the destination uses its financial, environmental, and human resources to improve human well-being [27]. At the consumer/tourist level, well-being perception is defined as a person’s assessment of how much a specific product enhances their perceived life’s quality of life [28].
Environmental well-being refers to providing eco-friendly products to customers and ensuring the product condition offered to customers enhances the environment’s well-being [8]. In the same meaning, environmental well-being is defined as developing and providing the best goods and services, giving customers the right product information, and creating safe, environmentally friendly products that do not harm consumers [14]. Environmental well-being is also defined as the impact of consumption-related environmental change on human health and welfare [26]. Environmental well-being importance is represented in retaining and attracting customers. It is also an important factor that helps enterprises to build a green image and green competitive advantage [14,29].

2.3. Green Attitude

Consumer concern for the environment has grown. So, it is crucial for green enterprises to understand how consumers feel about purchasing environmentally friendly goods or services in order to fulfill consumers’ requirements and wants [4]. Jayasinghe [2] said that marketers must control green attitudes in order to serve these demands and wants. Maggon and Chaudhry [30] define customer attitude as a customer’s psychological inclination, either in favor of or against the enterprise. Opatha and Arulrajah [31] define a green attitude as having the proper cognitive, affective, and behavioral objectives with regard to going green.
Green attitude focuses specifically on a person’s attitude towards the environment, which helps to preserve the environment, maintain natural resources, or reduce environmental damage [32]. The importance of a green attitude is that it is important in anticipating consumers’ behavior toward the environment [2]. Therefore, consumers’ attitude about environmental protection has an important role in green purchasing behavior [33] and behavioral intentions [34]. Customers are more likely to establish a relationship with a company and give a bigger percentage of their relationship to that company if they have a positive attitude towards that organization [30]. On the other hand, Ott and Soretz [35] believe that the green attitude and its development contribute to raising the level of environmental quality and maximizing economic growth.

2.4. Green Perceived Value

Perceived value has received more attention recently in marketing as well as other disciplines, including the tourism and hospitality sector due to the rise in consumers’ value-conscious [36]. According to marketing literature, perceived value is a crucial consideration for both businesses and consumers because it directly affects both price/value for money and economic profitability [37]. Because perceived value has a favorable impact on marketing effectiveness, previous studies have focused extensively on this topic [1]. The perceived value represents a person’s contentment with a certain thing or situation in order to express the degree of expectation and preference [38].
When consuming a product or service, especially one that is green, perceived values are considered one of the important factors that customers should take into account [39]. Consequently, the green perceived value has drawn significant attention in relation to concerns relating to the quality of the environment, especially for enterprises that concentrate on customer purchasing interests [40]. The term “green perceived value” refers to a consumer’s overall assessment of the net gain of a good or service between what they get and what is provided in accordance with their environmental needs, sustainable expectations, and green wants [1]. Green perceived value can be defined as the bundle of characteristics connected to awareness of the environmental value of services [38].
In the tourism and hospitality context, managers and marketers should concentrate on raising customer perceptions of the environmental quality of their services if they want to benefit from the advantages of their enterprises’ green business practices [5]. This is because the green perceived value may enhance returning intentions toward their services and generate a favorable effect of word-of-mouth [38].

2.5. Hypotheses Development

According to the norm activation theory of Schwartz declared in 1977, pro-environmental behavior forecasts how tourism and hospitality consumers make ecologically conscious decisions [29]. In this context, the theory supported that environmental corporate social responsibility affects the consumer attitude [41,42] because organizational pro-environmental culture impacts consumers’ attitudes toward environmental behavior [43]. This was confirmed by Rusyani et al. [44], who indicated that green attitudes were closely linked with and influenced by environmental concerns. In addition, Rashid et al. [8] stated that ECSR practices enhance customers’ attitudes toward the goods and services of the enterprise. On the other hand, Lin and Zhou [45] stated that the environmental benefits to customers of consuming environmentally friendly products and services are related to the perceived green value. Abdou et al. [36] found that environmental practices by enterprises positively and significantly impact the green perceived Value of consumers. As a result, Geiger et al. [46] suggested that enterprises should adopt environmental and sustainable activities in order to raise the environmental consciousness of customers. Moreover, Rashid et al. [8] and Han et al. [41] confirmed that ECSR practices and initiatives have a significant effect on improving the consumers’ green perceived value. Hence, the following hypotheses were suggested:
H1. 
ECSR positively affects green attitude.
H2. 
ECSR positively affects green perceived value.
Most of the environmental impact theories suppose that environmental exploitation provides advantages to human well-being [27]. Consequently, enterprises in various fields, including tourism and hotels, invest in ECSR in order to preserve the environment and improve society’s well-being [21]. Accordingly, enterprises adopt ECSR to reduce their negative effects on the environment and reduce hazards [47]. Hoque et al. [48] and Xia et al. [49] indicated that ECSR is considered a commitment that guarantees enterprises achieve environmental sustainability and well-being. Rela et al. [16] and Walton et al. [50] found that there is a direct relationship between ECSR and environmental well-being. Hence, the following hypothesis was suggested as follow:
H3. 
ECSR positively affects environmental well-being.
The values and beliefs of customers towards preserving the environment are related to the extent of the impact of green consumer behavior on environmental issues and the well-being of society because these beliefs and values directly influence the formation of customer attitudes [51]. Liao et al. [52] and Woo and Kim [53] indicated that consumers’ green value is considered a vital factor for attitude toward green purchasing intention. According to Syarifuddin and Alamsyah [40], the emotional well-being of consumers of green products and services is the primary focus of efforts to increase the perceived value of these products and services. Therefore, the following hypotheses were formulated as follow:
H4. 
Environmental well-being positively affects green attitude.
H5. 
Environmental well-being positively affects green perceived value.
Customers will seek meaning in their life and make contributions to society by adopting a green attitude if they feel their emotional well-being towards the environment [54]. The degree of environmental quality or well-being is significantly influenced by the development of a green attitude [35]. Han et al. [28] discovered that hotel consumers who hold stronger environmental value beliefs perceive higher well-being. Prati et al. [55] stated that consumers who have higher levels of environmental well-being have more attitudes to adopt new behaviors and invest more time and effort into reaching more intrinsic and non-materialistic goals for the preservation of the environment. Moreover, Liao [56] customers’ attitudes towards hospitality and tourism enterprises’ behavior through ECSR play a great role in encouraging customers toward the environment. Hence, the following hypotheses were proposed as follow:
H6. 
Environmental well-being mediates the relationship between ECSR and green attitude.
H7. 
Environmental well-being mediates the relationship between ECSR and green perceived value.
The research framework is presented in Figure 1 below.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Measures and Instrument Development

In this study, literature-based constructs were used to ensure the validity and reliability of the measurements. This study consisted of 4 different scales to measure the four studied variables. Perceived environmental corporate social responsibility was measured using the 5-item scale of Han et al. [11]. Sample items included: “The hotel I stay in provides ecologically friendly goods and services” and “The hotel where I stay must perform in a way that is compatible with environmental protection”. Another 5-item scale adapted from Sohaib et al. [57] was used to assess environmental well-being. For example, “When I stay at an environmentally friendly hotel, I feel good” and “I feel happy and at peace when I think of the eco-friendly hotel”. In addition, green attitude was evaluated by the 4-item scale of Chen et al. [58]. For instance, “Green purchases provide us with greater advantages than non-green purchases” and “Purchasing environmentally friendly energy-saving items will make me happy”. Ultimately, the 14-item scale of Woo and Kim [53] was used to assess green perceived value. Sample items include: “Buying green hotel products saves money” and “Green hotel products are well-designed to reduce environmental distortion”. The scales’ items are attached in Appendix A.
This study employed a self-administered questionnaire to gather information for testing the study’s suggested model. The questionnaire is divided into two parts. The participants’ demographic information, including gender, age, education level, marital status, and monthly income, was covered in the first section. In the second part of the survey, the participants were asked about their perceptions of environmental corporate social responsibility, environmental and emotional well-being, green attitude, and green perceived value. For all measuring items, the investigated participants’ responses were calculated using a five-point Likert scale. The range of the scale was 1 for strongly disagreeing to 5 for strongly agreeing.
The back translation approach is employed; the questionnaire was produced in English first, then translated into Arabic by a bilingual (English and Arabic) expert, and afterwards back into English by another bilingual expert. The previous and later English translations were checked to ensure that the contents were consistent. There was a match; thus, the questionnaire was given out in Arabic and English to guarantee a high level of phrase interpretation and obtain the greatest number of replies [59].

3.2. Sampling and Data Collection

The population of this study consisted of 5-star hotels and travel agencies in category (A) in Egypt. There are 158 five-star hotels in Egypt and 2222 travel agencies in category (A) by 2018 [60]. Customers of 5-star hotels and travel agencies category (A) in the Red Sea and South Sinai governorates were chosen to participate in this survey. 5-star hotels and travel agencies category (A) have been chosen because of their vast range of activities, which may have a potentially negative impact on the environment. Moreover, the study deals with a large number of consumers with different mental backgrounds. The Red Sea and South Sinai governorates were chosen due to the nature of the sensitive environment in these two governorates. There are 42 five-star hotels in the Red Sea governorate and 55 five-star hotels in the South Sinai governorate, with a total of 97 [60]. For travel agencies category (A), there are 78 travel agencies in the Red Sea governorate and 43 in the South Sinai [61]. Only 52 hotels and 60 travel agencies agreed to take part in the research. The investigated hotels and travel agencies were guaranteed confidentiality and anonymity when dealing with the surveys. To distribute the questionnaire, the researchers hired four people, two in each governorate. In addition, the questionnaire was designed on Google Forms and sent via messenger and WhatsApp messages to acquaintances and friends who stayed in 5-star hotels or received services from travel agencies category (A) located in the two study governorates.
This study’s sample includes guests who stayed in the investigated hotels and customers of travel agencies. The convenience sample was used in this study for two reasons. First, consider the study’s geographic scope of 5-star hotels and travel agencies category (A) which are located throughout two big governorates in Egypt. The only need for this kind of sampling technique is the participants’ consent to participate; therefore, a simple random sample is not necessary.
A total of 1200 questionnaires were distributed. A total of 980 forms were collected, but only 910 were valid for analysis. Nearly three months were needed for the data collection procedure (October to December 2022). Hair et al. [62] recommend estimating the suitable sample size depending on the number of variables investigated, where the minimum acceptable ratio is (variable: sample = 1:10). As a result, the minimum sample size necessary for this study was 280 participants since there are 28 items under consideration. Our sample size of 910 consumers from hotels and travel agencies was enough for the final analysis.
In terms of the sample’s characteristics (Table 1), 640 of the 910 respondents (70.3%) were men. The majority of respondents (n = 740, 81.3%) were between 21 and 45 years old. About two-thirds of respondents (n = 600, 65.9%) had postgraduate studies. The majority of respondents (n = 700, 76.9%) were married. In addition, 700 of the respondents (76.9%) had less than $1000 monthly income, while 200 (about 22%) of them gained from $1000 to less than $4000 monthly income. Of the 910 respondents, 590 (64.8%) were hotel guests, and 320 (35.2%) were travel agency customers.

4. Results

Descriptive statistics such as frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviation were used to summarize the participants’ demographic information as well as their perceptions of the research constructs. Reliability analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were used to assess the validity and reliability of study items. The composite reliability and average variance extracted were also used to examine convergent and discriminant validity. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) was adopted to examine the relationships between study constructs. The statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS v. 22 and WarpPLS 7.0 software.

4.1. Descriptive Statistics and Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to estimate the factor loading of variables (see Table 2). Item loadings were calculated and ranged from 0.579 to 0.949. According to Hair et al. [62], a factor loading value that is more than 0.5 is acceptable. Table 2 also illustrated the mean scores of green perceived value (GPV), environmental corporate social responsibility (ECSR), green attitude (GA), and environmental well-being (EWB) as reported by hotel and tourist companies’ guests (3.71 ± 0.64), (3.85 ± 0.87), (3.64 ± 0.74), and (3.80 ± 0.82), respectively.

4.2. Reliability and Validity

Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, and the average variance extracted (AVE) were employed to examine the reliability and validity. According to Manley et al. [63], Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability for all variables are acceptable, as seen in Table 3, where all variables were more than 0.7. In addition, AVE values of more than 0.5 were recorded, which confirms the validity of the scales [64].
A discriminant validity test was also carried out. The findings in Table 4 reveal that the AVE value is bigger than the maximum common value for each variable. According to Elshaer et al. [65], these findings confirm the validity and reliability of the research model.

4.3. Model Fit and Quality Indices for the Research Model

Model fit was performed before testing hypotheses. All model fit and quality indices findings are compatible with the criteria, as shown in Table 5.

4.4. The Structural Models for Hypotheses Testing

Path coefficient analysis (β), p-value, and R-square (R2) were used to analyze the structural models. The results (Figure 2 and Table 6) of the hypotheses tests show that there is a positive relationship between ECSR with GA (β = 0.38, p < 0.01), EWB (β = 0.70, p < 0.01), and GPV (β = 0.29, p < 0.01). Consequently, H1, H2 and H3 were supported. This means that when ECSR is high, GA, EWB, and GPV tend to be high. So, H1, H2, and H3 are supported. In addition, a positive relationship between EWB and GA (β = 0.33, p < 0.01) exists. There is also a positive relationship between EWB and GPV (β = 0.50, p < 0.01). Hence, H4 and H5 were proven. This means that when EWB is high, GA and GPV tend to be high as well.
Additionally, Figure 2 showed that ECSR interpreted 49% of the variance in EWB (R2 = 0.49). In addition, ECSR and EWB explained 43% of the variance in GA (R2 = 0.43). Furthermore, ECSR and EWB explained 52% of the variance in GPV (R2 = 0.52).
Indirect effects were also measured to investigate the mediating role of EWB (see Table 6). The results revealed that there is a mediating role of EWB on the relationship between ECSR and GA (β = 0.233, <0.001) and on the relationship between ECSR and GPV (β = 0.350, <0.001). So, H6 and H7 were supported.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The current study aimed to explore the effect of perceived environmental corporate social responsibility on green perceived value and green attitude, taking into consideration the mediating role of environmental well-being in the tourism and hospitality industry. A growing number of tourist and hospitality businesses have implemented a variety of sustainable initiatives in order to protect the environment, maintain local resources, and gain financial rewards [11].
The findings of this study revealed that environmental corporate social responsibility (ECSR) has a positive relationship with green attitude (GA). This result is in line with previous studies by Ha [66], Han et al. [41], Afsar et al. [43], and Merli et al. [42]. This result is also consistent with the norm activation theory of Schwartz (1977), which was applied to forecast pro-environmental behavior and provide a clear explanation of how tourism and hospitality guests make ecologically conscious decisions [67]. The theory takes into account how environmental corporate social responsibility affects attitude [41,42], where h is the key to explaining how guests feel about hospitality and tourism eco-friendly products and services. Moreover, an organizational pro-environmental culture may influence its guests’ attitudes toward environmentally friendly behavior and encourage the adoption of such behaviors as well [43]. Customers are more likely to engage in pro-environmental consumption behavior and have a favorable view of the organization when it engages in different responsible ECSR programs [8,41]. Furthermore, a company’s ECSR initiatives help to improve its reputation, image, and customers’ favorable attitude toward the company’s goods and services [66,68].
The findings also revealed that environmental corporate social responsibility (ECSR) has a positive relationship with environmental well-being (EWB). This finding is consistent with the findings of the previous studies of Walton et al. [50], Hoque et al. [48], Xia et al. [49], and Rela et al. [16], who found that the use of ECSR has a significant positive impact on the environmental well-being. Organizations invest in ECSR efforts to enhance community well-being and environmental protection [69]. Companies engage in ECSR initiatives to reduce their negative effects on the environment, such as adopting eco-friendly packaging, waste reduction, recycling, reducing waste, saving energy, water saving, and reducing emissions [47]. Consequently, ECSR initiatives may be utilized as instruments to reduce risks [70]. The adoption of ECSR initiatives is therefore anticipated to have an influence on environmental conditions. Iskandar et al. [71] and Walton et al. [50] argued that the environmental aspect is one of the key factors affecting life quality and is considered part of community well-being. Food production, access to clean water, and a healthy atmosphere are all dependent on the natural environment [72]. In addition, Forjaz et al. [73] claimed that EWB is a requirement of contentment with the environment. Thus, well-being is directly impacted by the quality of the living environment [74]. Consequently, ECSR is a key obligation to guarantee that enterprises have positive effects on environmental sustainability and well-being [48,49].
The findings of the present study also provided evidence that environmental corporate social responsibility (ECSR) is positively related to green perceived value (GPV). This finding may be interpreted by the findings of Chen and Chang [1], who stated that customers perceive a green value when they have a satisfactory overall appraisal of the net benefit of a product or service based on their green needs and expectations for sustainability. According to Lin et al. [75] and Alam and Islam [14], environmentally friendly products/services requested by customers may directly or indirectly increase their loyalty to the business. Geiger et al. [46] also stated that firms should engage in environmentally sustainable activities in order to adapt to environmentally conscious customer behavior. Customers may also perceive green value through their passion, appreciation, and loyalty for a brand, which can be gained through creating in them a feeling of brand responsibility for environmental concerns, such as by participating in ECSR initiatives [41]. Furthermore, Rashid et al. [8] suggested that guaranteeing ECSR has a significant impact on consumers’ perceptions of the quality of the products and services delivered, and hence, improve the green perceived value.
Results also demonstrated the importance of environmental well-being (EWB) to both green attitude (GA) and green perceived value (GPV). These results come to be consistent with previous studies by Prati et al. [55] and Nguyen et al. [54]. This is due to the fact that people who have greater levels of environmental well-being are more inclined to change their attitudes and devote more of their time and energy to setting and achieving more intrinsic and non-materialistic objectives for the sake of environmental conservation. In addition, when customers believe they are happy as a result of experiencing environmental emotional well-being, they will strive to find purpose in their lives and contribute to society by adopting a green attitude. A positive relationship between well-being and ethical daily consumption behaviors, such as recycling and buying local goods, was also observed by Ganglmair-Wooliscroft and Wooliscroft [76]. Consequently, customers’ green attitudes will be shaped, which in turn, could improve the green value customers perceive. Syarifuddin and Alamsyah [40] also stated that the key focus on raising the perceived value of green products and services is on the emotional well-being that is experienced by consumers of these goods and services.
The findings of the present study also provided evidence that environmental well-being (EWB) mediates the relationship between environmental corporate social responsibility (ECSR) with green attitude (GA) and green perceived value (GPV). Customers’ attitude towards hospitality and tourism enterprises’ behavior, “i.e., ECSR”, played an important role in motivating customers to take action in favor of the environment [56]. Luo et al. [77] further emphasized that customers who have a green attitude are more likely to recognize the emotional value of goods and services than those who do not. Han et al. [78] provided evidence that customers’ personal moral obligation to undertake eco-friendly behaviors during their stay in hotels is activated by a “green attitude” that is established as a result of guests’ knowledge of environmental challenges and companies’ adoption of environmental CSR activities. This, in turn, could stimulate customers’ environmental well-being and hence, improve their green perceived value.

6. Implications

This study has important theoretical and practical contributions. On the theoretical side, this study fills an important gap in the context of ECSR in the Egyptian tourism and hospitality sector—especially travel agencies and hotels. This study also adds to the knowledge framework information on the relationship between ECSR and some linked behaviors, such as environmental well-being, green attitude, and green perceived value. This study also enriches the knowledge structure of tourism regarding the mediating role that environmental well-being plays in the relationship between ECSR and green attitude as well as between ECSR and green perceived value.
This study bears significant practical contributions to the tourism and hospitality industry. Marketing managers in hotels and travel agencies can greatly benefit from the results of this study in marketing their products and services. This study helps them to develop green marketing strategies by understanding customer behaviors. Understanding these behaviors contributes to identifying their attitudes, preferences, and perceived values towards the quality of products and services in order to meet their desires and needs. Accordingly, managers of travel agencies and hotels can adopt environmental and social responsibility practices as the results showed their positive impact on the environmental well-being of customers and their perceived attitudes and values. Consequently, travel agencies and hotels should take serious steps towards adopting environmentally friendly practices by providing environmentally friendly services and rationalizing energy consumption, water treatment, and waste management. Adopting these practices contributes to maximizing environmental and social responsibility, achieving environmental well-being, transforming consumers’ attitudes towards the organization’s services, and maximizing the consumers’ green perceived value. For marketing, tourist and hotel enterprises would invest in eco-friendly products and services to reach a wide sector of customers through promoting environmental awareness in all marketing efforts.

7. Limitations and Future Research of the Study

This study encountered two main limitations. First: the scarcity of studies that dealt with environmental well-being and its relationship to ECSR. This required expanding the search to the largest number of global databases. Second: conducting the field study in the governorates of the Red Sea and South Sinai, which are very far from each other and from the place of residence of the researchers. To overcome this, the researchers hired four people—two in each governorate—to distribute the questionnaire. In addition, the questionnaire was designed on Google Forms and sent via Messenger and WhatsApp to acquaintances and friends who stayed in 5-star hotels or received services from travel agencies category (A) located in the two study governorates.
For future research, researchers can test the study model in other geographical areas in Egypt that have the same conditions as South Sinai and the Red Sea, or in other countries whose conditions are similar to Egypt, such as North Africa. More studies are needed to explore the impact of ECSR on behaviors other than those studied, such as customer satisfaction and customer loyalty, for more benefit in the marketing aspect. Future research could focus on examining the impact of ECSR on more measurable variables such as emissions reduction, customer purchase of environmentally friendly products, or return on investment in sustainable practices. Future studies can also study ECSR in other contexts which could have more impact on the environment, such as tourist transport companies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.A.K., Y.E., M.F.A. and N.A.; Data curation, H.A.K. and Y.E.; Formal analysis, H.A.K. and Y.E.; Funding acquisition, N.A.; Investigation, H.A.K. and Y.E.; Methodology, H.A.K. and Y.E.; Project administration, H.A.K., Y.E., M.F.A. and N.A.; Software, H.A.K. and Y.E.; Supervision, H.A.K., Y.E., M.F.A. and N.A.; Validation, H.A.K., Y.E., M.F.A. and N.A.; Visualization, H.A.K., Y.E., M.F.A. and N.A.; Writing—original draft, H.A.K., Y.E., M.F.A. and N.A.; Writing—review & editing, H.A.K., Y.E., M.F.A. and N.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 [Project No. GRANT3020].

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not available.

Acknowledgments

We thank all the participants who filled out the questionnaire for the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Sustainability 15 04746 i001

References

  1. Chen, Y.S.; Chang, C.H. Enhance Green Purchase Intentions: The Roles of Green Perceived Value, Green Perceived Risk, and Green Trust. Manag. Decis. 2012, 50, 502–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Jayasinghe, J.A.S.C. The Influence of Green Packaging, Green Campaigns and Green Attitude on Green Behavioural Intentions of Consumers: Evidence from Sri Lanka. Colombo J. Multi-Discip. Res. 2022, 6, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Font, X.; Lynes, J. Corporate Social Responsibility in Tourism and Hospitality. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 1027–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Kit, P.; Waei, M.; Kaur, S.; Kalsom, U. Green Attitude and Purchase Intention towards Environmental Friendly Product. J. Emerg. Econ. Islam. Res. 2018, 6, 17–25. [Google Scholar]
  5. Riva, F.; Magrizos, S.; Rubel, M.R.B.; Rizomyliotis, I. Green Consumerism, Green Perceived Value, and Restaurant Revisit Intention: Millennials’ Sustainable Consumption with Moderating Effect of Green Perceived Quality. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2022, 31, 2807–2819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Chuang, S.P.; Huang, S.J. The Effect of Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility on Environmental Performance and Business Competitiveness: The Mediation of Green Information Technology Capital. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 150, 991–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ruan, R.; Chen, W.; Zhu, Z. Linking Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility with Green Innovation Performance: The Mediating Role of Shared Vision Capability and the Moderating Role of Resource Slack. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Rashid, N.R.N.A.; Khalid, S.A.; Rahman, N.I.A. Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility (ECSR): Exploring Its Influence on Customer Loyalty. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2015, 31, 705–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Schill, M.; Godefroit-Winkel, D. Consumer Responses to Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility and Luxury. J. Serv. Mark. 2022, 36, 769–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Orlitzky, M.; Siegel, D.S.; Waldman, D.A. Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Sustainability. Bus. Soc. 2011, 50, 6–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Han, H.; Chua, B.L.; Ariza-Montes, A.; Untaru, E.N. Effect of Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility on Green Attitude and Norm Activation Process for Sustainable Consumption: Airline versus Restaurant. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 1851–1864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Macassa, G.; McGrath, C.; Tomaselli, G.; Buttigieg, S.C. Corporate Social Responsibility and Internal Stakeholders’ Health and Well-Being in Europe: A Systematic Descriptive Review. Health Promot. Int. 2021, 36, 866–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hiswåls, A.S.; Hamrin, C.W.; Vidman, Å.; Macassa, G. Corporate Social Responsibility and External Stakeholders’ Health and Wellbeing: A Viewpoint. J. Public Health Res. 2020, 9, 27–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Alam, S.M.S.; Islam, K.M.Z. Examining the Role of Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility in Building Green Corporate Image and Green Competitive Advantage. Int. J. Corp. Soc. Responsib. 2021, 6, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ee, M.S.; Chao, C.C.; Wang, L.F.S.; Yu, E.S.H. Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility, Firm Dynamics and Wage Inequality. Int. Rev. Econ. Financ. 2018, 56, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Rela, I.Z.; Awang, A.H.; Ramli, Z.; Md Sum, S.; Meisanti, M. Effects of Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility on Environmental Well-Being Perception and the Mediation Role of Community Resilience. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 2176–2187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sila, I.; Cek, K. The Impact of Environmental, Social and Governance Dimensions of Corporate Social Responsibility: Australian Evidence. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2017, 120, 797–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jiang, X.; Li, G.; Fan, X. Environmental Protection Fee-to-Tax and Corporate Environmental Social Responsibility: A Test Based on Corporate Life Cycle Theory. Sustainability 2023, 3, 2128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Forcadell, F.J.; Úbeda, F.; Aracil, E. Effects of Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility on Innovativeness of Spanish Industrial SMEs. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 162, 120355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ji, D.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, L.; An, J.; Sun, W. Green Social Responsibility and Company Financing Cost-Based on Empirical Studies of Listed Companies in China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rela, I.Z.; Awang, A.H.; Ramli, Z.; Rusdan, M.; Mappasomba, M.; Nikoyan, A. Conceptual Model of Corporate Social Responsibility Impact on Community Well-Being. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2020, 8, 311–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Boccia, F.; Manzo, R.M.; Covino, D. Consumer Behavior and Corporate Social Responsibility: An Evaluation by a Choice Experiment. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Ho, C.; Ding, M. The Impact of Consumer and Environmental CSR on Consumer Behavioural Intention The Impact of Consumer and Environmental CSR on Consumer Behavioural Intention Ching-Wei Ho *, May-Ching Ding and Yuan-Shuh Lii. World Rev. Entrep. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 13, 10–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Godefroit-winkel, D.; Schill, M. Does Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility Increase Consumer Loyalty? Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2022, 50, 417–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Paskova, M.; Zelenka, J.; Paskova, M. How Crucial Is the Social Responsibility for Tourism Sustainability? Soc. Responsib. J. 2019, 15, 534–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Sheth, J.N.; Sethia, N.K.; Srinivas, S. Mindful Consumption: A Customer-Centric Approach to Sustainability. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2011, 39, 21–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Dietz, T.; Rosa, E.; York, R. Environmentally Efficient Well-Being. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 2009, 16, 114–123. [Google Scholar]
  28. Han, H.; Jongsik, Y.; Hyun, S.S. Nature Based Solutions and Customer Retention Strategy: Eliciting Customer Well-Being Experiences and Self-Rated Mental Health. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 86, 102446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kim, H.; Chua, B.; Lee, S.; Boo, H.; Kim, H. Understanding Airline Travelers ’ Perceptions of Well-Being: The Role of Cognition, Emotion, and Sensory Experiences in Airline Lounges. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2015, 33, 1213–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Maggon, M.; Chaudhry, H. Customer Satisfaction and Customer Attitude from Customer Relationship Management Viewpoint: An Empirical Study of Leisure Travellers. FIIB Bus. Rev. 2017, 7, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Opatha, H.; Arulrajah, A. Green Human Resource Management: Simplified General Reflections. Int. Bus. Res. 2014, 7, 101–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Casal, L.; Escario, J.-J. Heterogeneity in the Association between Environmental Attitudes and Pro-Environmental Behavior: A Multilevel Regression Approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 175, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Moser, A.K. Thinking Green, Buying Green? Drivers of pro-Environmental Purchasing Behavior. J. Consum. Mark. 2015, 3, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ahn, J.; Back, K. Influence of Brand Relationship on Customer Attitude toward Integrated Resort Brands: A Cognitive, Affective, and Conative Perspective. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2017, 35, 449–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ott, I.; Soretz, S. Green Attitude and Economic Growth. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2018, 70, 757–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Abdou, A.H.; Shehata, H.S.; Mahmoud, H.M.E.; Albakhit, A.I.; Almakhayitah, M.Y. The Effect of Environmentally Sustainable Practices on Customer Citizenship Behavior in Eco-Friendly Hotels: Does the Green Perceived Value Matter? Sustainability 2022, 14, 7167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Román-Augusto, J.A.; Garrido-Lecca-Vera, C.; Lodeiros-Zubiria, M.L.; Mauricio-Andia, M. Green Marketing: Drivers in the Process of Buying Green Products—The Role of Green Satisfaction, Green Trust, Green WOM and Green Perceived Value. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Chen, S.Y. Green Helpfulness or Fun? Influences of Green Perceived Value on the Green Loyalty of Users and Non-Users of Public Bikes. Transp. Policy 2016, 47, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Danish, M.; Ali, S.; Ahmad, M.A.; Zahid, H. The Influencing Factors on Choice Behavior Regarding Green Electronic Products: Based on the Green Perceived Value Model. Economies 2019, 7, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Syarifuddin, D.; Alamsyah, D.P. Green Perceived Value for Environmentally Friendly Products: Green Awareness Improvement. J. Ekon. Pembang. Kaji. Masal. Ekon. Pembang. 2017, 18, 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Han, H.; Yu, J.; Kim, W. Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility and the Strategy to Boost the Airline ’ s Image and Customer Loyalty Intentions. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2019, 36, 371–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Merli, R.; Preziosi, M.; Acampora, A.; Lucchetti, M.C.; Ali, F. International Journal of Hospitality Management The Impact of Green Practices in Coastal Tourism: An Empirical Investigation on an Eco-Labelled Beach Club. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 77, 471–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Afsar, B.; Al-Ghazali, B.; Rehman, Z.U.; Umrani, W. The Moderating Effects of Employee Corporate Socialresponsibility Motive Attributions (Substantive and Symbolic) between Corporate Social Responsibility Perceptions Andvoluntary Pro-environmental Behavior. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 27, 769–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rusyani, E.; Lavuri, R.; Gunardi, A. Purchasing Eco-Sustainable Products: Interrelationship between Environmental Knowledge, Environmental Concern, Green Attitude, and Perceived Behavior. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lin, J.; Zhou, Z. The Positioning of Green Brands in Enhancing Their Image: The Mediating Roles of Green Brand Innovativeness and Green Perceived Value. Int. J. Emerg. Mark. 2022, 17, 1404–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Geiger, S.M.; Fischer, D.; Schrader, U. Measuring What Matters in Sustainable Consumption: An Integrative Framework for the Selection of Relevant Behaviors. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 33, 18–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Suska, M. Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility (ECSR) on the Example of Polish Champion Oil, Gas and Mining Companies. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hoque, N.; Hanifa, A.; Rahim, A.; Rahman, A. Is Corporate Social Responsibility Pursuing Pristine Business Goals for Sustainable Development ? Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2018, 25, 1130–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Xia, B.; Olanipekun, A.; Chen, Q.; Xie, L.; Liu, Y. Conceptualising the State of the Art of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in the Construction Industry and Its Nexus to Sustainable Development. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 195, 340–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Walton, A.; Mccrea, R.; Leonard, R. CSIRO Survey of Community Wellbeing and Responding to Change: Western Downs Region in Queensland; CSIRO Technical Report; CSIRO: Canberra, Australia, 2014; ISBN 9781486304417. [Google Scholar]
  51. Jeong, E.H.; Jang, S.C.; Day, J.; Ha, S. The Impact of Eco-Friendly Practices on Green Image and Customer Attitudes: An Investigation in a Café Setting. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 41, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Liao, Y.K.; Wu, W.Y.; Pham, T.T. Examining the Moderating Effects of Green Marketing and Green Psychological Benefits on Customers’ Green Attitude, Value and Purchase Intention. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Woo, E.; Kim, Y.G. Consumer Attitudes and Buying Behavior for Green Food Products: From the Aspect of Green Perceived Value (GPV). Br. Food J. 2019, 121, 320–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Nguyen, H.V.; Thi, M.; Le, T.; Pham, C.H.; Cox, S.S. Happiness and Pro-Environmental Consumption Behaviors. J. Econ. Dev. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Prati, G.; Albanesi, C.; Pietrantoni, L. Social Well-Being and Pro-Environmental Behavior: A Cross-Lagged Panel Design. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 2017, 23, 123–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Liao, Z. Market Orientation and FIRMS ’ Environmental Innovation: The Moderating Role of Environmental Attitude. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018, 127, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sohaib, M.; Wang, Y.; Iqbal, K.; Han, H. Nature-Based Solutions, Mental Health, Well-Being, Price Fairness, Attitude, Loyalty, and Evangelism for Green Brands in the Hotel Context. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 101, 103126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Chen, K.; Deng, T. Research on the Green Purchase Intentions from the Perspective of Product Knowledge. Sustainability 2016, 8, 943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Brislin, R. Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural Research. J. Cross. Cult. Psychol. 1970, 1, 185–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ministry of Tourism. Tourism in Figures; General Department of Information and Statisrics, Ministry of Tourism: Cairo, Egypt, 2018.
  61. Egyptian Travel Agents Association (ETAA). Available online: https://www.etaa-egypt.org/SitePages/CompaniesEn.aspx (accessed on 10 February 2023).
  62. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Prentice-Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  63. Manley, S.C.; Hair, J.F.; Williams, R.I.; McDowell, W.C. Essential New PLS-SEM Analysis Methods for Your Entrepreneurship Analytical Toolbox. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2021, 17, 1805–1825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hair, J.F.; Howard, M.C.; Nitzl, C. Assessing Measurement Model Quality in PLS-SEM Using Confirmatory Composite Analysis. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 109, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Elshaer, I.; Moustafa, M.; Elnasr, A.; Aliedan, M.; Alaa, M.; Azazz, S. The Impact of Women’s Empowerment on Sustainable Tourism Development: Mediating Role of Tourism Involvement. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2021, 38, 100815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ha, D. The Effect of Foodservice Company’s Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Activities on Value through Customer Satisfaction. Korean J. Hosp. Tour. 2017, 26, 103–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Gkargkavouzi, A. Resources, Conservation & Recycling Environmental Behavior in a Private-Sphere Context: Integrating Theories of Planned Behavior and Value Belief Norm, Self-Identity and Habit. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 148, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Wang, S.; Han, H. The Effect of Airlines’ CSR Activities on Corporate Image and Brand Preference: From the Perspectives of Job Seekers. Korean J. Hosp. Tour. 2017, 26, 69–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sarmila, M.S.; Zaimah, R.; Lyndon, N.; Azima, A.M.; Suhana, S.; Rosniza, A. CSR and the Development of Community Social Capital: A Case Study of CSR Chilly Contract Farming. Malays. J. Soc. Space 2015, 11, 104–115. [Google Scholar]
  70. Tang, Z. CSR as a Tool to Mitigate Risk for the B&R Initiative: The Case of Thailand. In Securing the Belt and Road Initiative; Arduino, A., Gong, X.U.E., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Singapore, 2018; pp. 147–161. ISBN 9789811071157. [Google Scholar]
  71. Iskandar, Z.R.; Awang, A.H.; Ramli, Z. An Analysis of the Community Perceptions of Well-Being: Special Reference to Nickel Mining and Processing Industry. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2019, 30, 211–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Estes, R.J.; Sirgy, M.J. Global Advances in Quality of Life and Well-Being: Past, Present, and Future. Soc. Indic. Res. 2019, 141, 1137–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Forjaz, M.J.; Prieto-Flores, M.E.; Ayala, A.; Rodriguez-Blazquez, C.; Fernandez-Mayoralas, G.; Rojo-Perez, F.; Martinez-Martin, P. Measurement Properties of the Community Wellbeing Index in Older Adults. Qual. Life Res. 2011, 20, 733–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Streimikiene, D. Environmental Indicators for the Assessment of Quality of Life. Intellect. Econ. 2015, 9, 67–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Lin, R.J.; Chen, R.H.; Huang, F.H. Green Innovation in the Automobile Industry. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2014, 114, 886–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ganglmair-Wooliscroft, A.; Wooliscroft, B. Well-Being and Everyday Ethical Consumption. J. Happiness Stud. 2019, 20, 141–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Luo, B.; Li, L.; Sun, Y. Understanding the Influence of Consumers ’ Perceived Value on Energy-Saving Products Purchase Intention. Front. Psychol. 2022, 12, 6331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Han, H.; Lee, M.J.; Kim, W. Promoting Towel Reuse Behaviour in Guests: A Water Conservation Management and Environmental Policy in the Hotel Industry. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018, 27, 1302–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 04746 g001 550
Figure 1. The study framework.
Figure 1. The study framework.
Sustainability 15 04746 g001
Sustainability 15 04746 g002 550
Figure 2. Final results of the study model.
Figure 2. Final results of the study model.
Sustainability 15 04746 g002
Table
Table 1. Participant’s characteristics (N = 910).
Table 1. Participant’s characteristics (N = 910).
Participant’s CharacteristicsFrequencyPercent
GenderMale64070.3
Female27029.7
Age<21 year101.1
21 to <35 year42046.2
35 to <45 year32035.2
>45 year16017.6
EducationHigh school101.1
Bachelor30033.0
Master22024.2
PhD38041.8
Marital statusSingle18019.8
Married70076.9
Divorced303.3
Monthly income<$100070076.9
$1000 to <$200013014.3
$2000 to <$4000707.7
$4000 or more 101.1
OrganizationHotel59064.8
Tourist company32035.2
Table
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and confirmatory factor analysis.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and confirmatory factor analysis.
Construct/ItemsMean 1SDItem Loading
Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility (ECSR) 3.850.87-
ECSR13.780.9360.915
ECSR23.760.9880.924
ECSR33.870.9860.940
ECSR43.930.9120.902
ECSR53.920.9290.879
Green Attitude (GA) 3.640.74-
GA13.860.8970.799
GA23.910.8340.823
GA33.410.8770.818
GA43.371.0240.836
Green Perceived Value (GPV) 3.710.64-
GPV13.161.0090.579
GPV23.220.9590.637
GPV33.760.8820.655
GPV43.760.8440.788
GPV54.120.9000.688
GPV64.090.8600.692
GPV74.080.8290.686
GPV83.980.9260.804
GPV93.470.9770.585
GPV103.330.9960.672
GPV113.511.0100.623
GPV123.820.9910.826
GPV133.820.9450.799
GPV143.770.9510.825
Environmental Well-being (EWB) 3.800.82-
EWB13.880.9360.910
EWB23.760.9420.927
EWB33.850.8380.918
EWB43.750.8600.920
EWB53.760.8560.949
1 Mean score; Low: 1.00 to 2.33, Average (Moderate): 2.34 to 3.66, High: 3.67 to 5.00.
Table
Table 3. Reliability and AVEs.
Table 3. Reliability and AVEs.
Construct Cronbach’s AlphaComposite ReliabilityAverage Variance Extracted (AVE)
ECSR0.9490.9610.832
GA0.8370.8910.670
EWB0.9580.9670.855
GPV0.9120.9250.503
Table
Table 4. Discriminant validity results.
Table 4. Discriminant validity results.
ConstructsECSRGAEWBGPV
ECSR0.9120.5920.6870.603
GA0.5920.8190.5910.551
EWB0.6870.5910.9250.684
GPV0.6030.5510.6840.689
Table
Table 5. Model fit and quality indices.
Table 5. Model fit and quality indices.
IndicesAssessment CriterionSupported/Rejected
Average path coefficient (APC)0.441, p < 0.001p < 0.05Supported
Average R-squared (ARS)0.480, p < 0.001p < 0.05Supported
Average adjusted R-squared (AARS)0.470, p < 0.001p < 0.05Supported
Average block VIF (AVIF)1.789acceptable if ≤ 5, ideally ≤ 3.3Supported
Average full collinearity VIF (AFVIF)2.138acceptable if ≤ 5, ideally ≤ 3.3Supported
Tenenhaus GoF (GoF)0.583small ≥ 0.1, medium ≥ 0.25, large ≥ 0.36Supported
Sympson’s paradox ratio (SPR)1.000acceptable if ≥0.7, ideally = 1Supported
R-squared contribution ratio (RSCR)1.000acceptable if ≥0.9, ideally = 1Supported
Statistical suppression ratio (SSR)1.000acceptable if ≥0.7Supported
Nonlinear bivariate causality direction ratio (NLBCDR)1.000acceptable if ≥0.7Supported
Table
Table 6. Mediation analysis.
Table 6. Mediation analysis.
Indirect Effects for Paths with 2 Segmentsβp-ValueMediation Decision
ECSR on GA through EWB0.233<0.001EWB mediates the relationship between ECSR and GA relationship
ECSR on GPV through EWB0.350<0.001EWBmediates the relationship between ECSR and GPV relationship
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

Khairy, H.A.; Elzek, Y.; Aliane, N.; Agina, M.F. Perceived Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility Effect on Green Perceived Value and Green Attitude in Hospitality and Tourism Industry: The Mediating Role of Environmental Well-Being. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4746. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064746

AMA Style

Khairy HA, Elzek Y, Aliane N, Agina MF. Perceived Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility Effect on Green Perceived Value and Green Attitude in Hospitality and Tourism Industry: The Mediating Role of Environmental Well-Being. Sustainability. 2023; 15(6):4746. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064746

Chicago/Turabian Style

Khairy, Hazem Ahmed, Yehia Elzek, Nadir Aliane, and Mohamed Fathy Agina. 2023. "Perceived Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility Effect on Green Perceived Value and Green Attitude in Hospitality and Tourism Industry: The Mediating Role of Environmental Well-Being" Sustainability 15, no. 6: 4746. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064746

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