Reinforcing Competitive Advantage Through Green Organizational Culture and Green Innovation

The Service Industries Journal
ISSN: 0264-2069 (Print) 1743-9507 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fsij20
Reinforcing competitive advantage through green

organizational culture and green innovation
Mert Gürlek & Muharrem Tuna
To cite this article: Mert Gürlek & Muharrem Tuna (2017): Reinforcing competitive advantage
through green organizational culture and green innovation, The Service Industries Journal, DOI:
10.1080/02642069.2017.1402889
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2017.1402889
Published online: 17 Nov 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fsij20
Download by: [University of Florida] Date: 20 November 2017, At: 09:29

THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2017.1402889
Reinforcing competitive advantage through green

organizational culture and green innovation
通过绿色组织文化和绿色创新增强竞争优势
Mert Gürlek and Muharrem Tuna
Department of Tourism Management, Faculty of Tourism, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The purpose of this paper is to reveal the relationships among green Received 10 April 2017
organizational culture, green innovation and competitive Accepted 4 November 2017
advantage. These relationships were assessed using structural
KEYWORDS
equation modeling. Data were gathered from full-time hotel Green organizational culture;
employees (N: 293) and managers (N: 192) in the Antalya region green innovation;
of Turkey. The results indicate that green organizational culture competitive advantage; hotel
has a positive effect on green innovation and competitive industry
advantage. Accordingly, green organizational culture is an
important determinant for green innovation and competitive 关键词
advantage. In addition, green innovation acted as a full mediator 绿色组织文化; 绿色创新;
of the effects of green organizational culture on competitive 竞争优势; 酒店业
advantage. Specifically, green organizational culture predicted
green innovation, which in turn predicted competitive advantage.
Finally, considering that causal studies on green innovation in the
hotel industry are limited, this study may contribute to
understanding how green innovation affects competitive
advantage in the hotel industry.
摘要
本文旨在揭示绿色组织文化、绿色创新与竞争优势之间的关系。
这些关系用了结构方程模型（SEM）来评估。数据来自土耳其安
塔利亚地区的全职酒店员工（N：293）和管理人员（N：192）。
结果表明，绿色组织文化对绿色创新和竞争优势有积极的影响。
因此，绿色组织文化是绿色创新和竞争优势的重要决定因素。此
外，绿色创新对绿色组织文化对竞争优势的影响起到了全面的中
介作用。具体来说，绿色组织文化预测了绿色创新，从而预测了
竞争优势。最后，考虑到酒店业对绿色创新的因果研究有限，本
研究可能有助于了解绿色创新如何影响酒店行业的竞争优势。
1. Introduction
The environmental awareness that has risen in the society as a reaction to the environ-
mental degradation and the global warming has led the hotel industry to pay more atten-
tion to the environmental issues (Bohdanowicz, 2006; Chou, 2014; Wang, Chen, Lee, & Tsai,
2013). Due to very strict environmental regulations and the consumers’ increasing interest
in the environmental problems (Harris & Crane, 2002; Prud’homme & Raymond, 2013;
CONTACT Mert Gürlek mertgurlek89@hotmail.com Department of Tourism Management, Faculty of Tourism,

Gazi University, Gölbaşı, Ankara 06830, Turkey
© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 M. GÜRLEK AND M. TUNA
Tzschentke, Kirk, & Lynch, 2004), the hotel companies have started to make efforts for both
maintaining their financial performances and making environment-focused investments
(Berchicci & Bodewes, 2005; Chiou, Chan, Lettice, & Chung, 2011; Lee, Hsu, Han, & Kim,
2010). Nevertheless, a conflict exists between the environmental protection activities
and the financial performance. The underlying reason for this conflict is the possibility
that the investments into environmental practices would have a negative effect on the
financial performance of organizations (Bird, Hall, Momentè, & Reggiani, 2007; Chen &
Chang, 2013; Jensen, 2001; Rees, 2003). The hotels look for solutions to prevent this con-
flict (Kang, Lee, & Huh, 2010). In general sense, the solution is abandoning the green or
greenwashing. Namely, for the purpose of reducing their financial losses, the hotels
either do not focus on the environmental protection activities at all or try to pretend as
if they would care about the environment (Rahman, Park, & Chi, 2015). Green innovation
can be a solution for the conflict in question without abandoning the green practice and
cheating on the public, as well. Green innovation provides hotels with the opportunity to
both protect the environment and increase the financial performance (Pujari, 2006). Thus,
the hotels would have a win-win solution for the conflict between the environmental man-
agement and the financial performance through investing in green innovation, which
increases the product value and decreases the costs resulting from environmental
effects (Hall & Vredenburg, 2003; Porter & Van der Linde, 1995).
Green innovation is defined as innovations in products and production processes in
order to reach the environmental objectives and decrease the ecological footprint
throughout the life cycle of a product (Lin, Chen, & Huang, 2014). Thanks to green inno-
vation, hotels can have the opportunity for both differentiation and low-cost advantage
(Lin & Chen, 2016; Porter, 1981). Namely, green innovation provides hotels with the oppor-
tunity to become different via improving the product design and quality (Chang & Chen,
2014; Lin, Tan, & Geng, 2013; Shrivastava, 1995). Thus, the hotels can sell their products at
higher prices and have higher profit margin (Chen, Chang, & Wu, 2012; Chen, Lai, & Wen,
2006). Furthermore, green innovation increases the resource productivity through ensur-
ing material saving, decreasing the energy consumption, increasing waste recycling and
providing less use of the resources (Bernauer, Engel, Kammerer, & Sejas Nogareda,
2007). In this way, green innovation not only decreases the negative effects on the
environment but also provides a competitive advantage through lowering the costs
(Chang, 2011; Chen, 2007, 2008).
Many hotels revise their policies, products and production processes in order to
decrease the pollution and minimize the resource utilization. Nevertheless, the changes
are insufficient to ensure a sustainable environment. Hotels need to undergo a cultural
change and transformation process so as to react to the environmental problems in an
adequate and a sufficient way (Crane, 2000; Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010). In this
regard, green organizational culture might help green strategies to be implemented suc-
cessfully. The investments and the efforts of the management would be useless in a hotel
where green values are not shared (Fernández, Junquera, & Ordiz, 2003). Therefore, green
organizational culture plays a crucial role for hotels to ensure the successful implemen-
tation of green innovation activities. Green organizational culture, for the hotels, should
be considered as the basic requirement of green innovation because it provides appropri-
ate conditions for green practices (Azzone & Noci, 1998) and simplifies green innovation
activities. Green organizational culture not only contributes to raise the organization
THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 3
members’ awareness on the importance of green practices but also prompts them to be
demanding for the implementation of the practices in question. As a result, green organ-
izational culture creates the conditions enabling the implementation of green innovation
(Chang, 2015).
This study aims at revealing the relationship among green organizational culture, green
innovation and competitive advantage. It treats green organizational culture as an antece-
dent of green innovation and competitive advantage as a consequence of green inno-
vation. In this regard, green innovation would serve as a bridge between green
organizational culture and competitive advantage.
It is expected that the present study contributes to the literature and the practitioners in
four ways. First, the current study contributes to the background knowledge on green
innovation. The hotel industry has particular negative consequences such as environ-
mental pollution, loss of biodiversity, deforestation, etc. (Gürlek, Düzgün, & Meydan
Uygur, 2017). Therefore, green practices have commonly been researched in the hotel
industry (Chan, Hon, Chan, & Okumus, 2014; García-Pozo, Sánchez-Ollero, & Ons-Cappa,
2016; Hsieh, 2012). However, it is seen that the studies pay less attention on green inno-
vation (González & León, 2001; Jacob, Florido, & Aguiló, 2010). In addition, it is observed
that empirical studies carried out in the hotel industry focus on the product, process, mar-
keting and management innovation rather than green innovation (Fernández, Cala, &
Domecq, 2011; Martínez-Ros & Orfila-Sintes, 2012; Nicolau & Santa-María, 2013). Second,
the antecedents and the consequence of green innovation have not yet been addressed
so far. The present study eliminates this shortcoming and contributes to the hospitality lit-
erature. Third, the present research could also facilitate to overcome the difficulties faced
by the Turkish hotel companies in recent years. Because of the increasing number of the
terrorist attacks and the coup attempt, the hotels have been passing through a tough
period (Babacan, 2016; Calder, 2016). Besides the financial bottleneck (Şimşek, 2016),
the hotels have been trying to cope with the increasing pressure of the consumers regard-
ing the protection of the environment (Gürkan, Polat, & Demiralay, 2015). The present
study could help hotels eliminate this dilemma. Fourth, this research could contribute
to the practitioners and the future studies through providing up-to-date knowledge
about green organizational culture, green innovation and competitive advantage of the
Turkish hotels.
2. Theoretical framework and hypotheses

2.1. Green innovation
Nowadays, innovation has become an important tool for businesses to increase their
market shares and survive in the long run. A successful innovation facilitates to improve
the market position, attracts the possible customers and gains competitive advantage
(Lin et al., 2013). Because of these benefits, innovation is on the agenda of many
tourism researchers (Gomezelj, 2016; Hall, 2009; Hjalager, 2002; Liburd, 2005; Novelli,
Schmitz, & Spencer, 2006). Innovation studies are generally based on Schumpeterian inno-
vation theory. According to Schumpeter (1934), innovation is the creation of new knowl-
edge, or the transformation of new combinations of existing knowledge into innovation
within the organization. Schumpeter (1942) approached innovation from a perspective
of economic development and proposed the concept of creative destruction. Creative

destruction refers to a development process that constantly renews the economy by
destroying old structures and creating new structures. According to creative destruction
approach, while organizations not focusing on innovation face with organizational
inertia, the innovative ones become the engine of economic development (Schumpeter,
1942). The Schumpeterian perspective has introduced five types of innovation: new
product, new process, new markets, new input sources and new industrial structures
(Schumpeter, 1934). This perspective has been adopted in tourism studies with minor
changes (Camisón & Monfort-Mir, 2012; Hall, 2009; Hjalager, 1997; Rodríguez, Williams,
& Hall, 2014; Weiermair, 2006). In the context of the hotel industry, these types of inno-
vation can be defined as follows:
Product innovation refers to changes that are directly observed by the customer and
accepted as new (Gomezelj, 2016; Ottenbacher & Gnoth, 2005). Process innovation
refers to backstage innovations aimed at increasing productivity and efficiency (Hjalager,
2010). Organizational innovation refers to the development of new management tech-
niques and new business models (Hjalager, 2002; Martínez-Ros & Orfila-Sintes, 2009). Mar-
keting innovation refers to the use of new marketing techniques and strategies (Camisón
& Monfort-Mir, 2012). Despite the fact that the innovation is examined in the literature in a
very wide scope, it is seen that the researchers pay less attention to green innovation
(Chen et al., 2006; Lin et al., 2013). Therefore, the present study examines the innovation
from green perspective. Schumpeterian typology includes product and process inno-
vations that can be usefully applied to green innovation (Hellström, 2007). While green
innovation can be divided into product and process innovation in the manufacturing
industry (Chiou et al., 2011; Dangelico & Pujari, 2010), it is almost impossible to make
such a distinction for the close interaction between production and consumption in the
hotel industry (coterminality) (Orfila-Sintes, Crespí-Cladera, & Martínez-Ros, 2005). There-
fore, from a holistic perspective, the present study defines green innovation as innovations
in the product and the production processes in order to achieve the environmental objec-
tives and decrease the ecological footprint throughout the life cycle of the product (Lin
et al., 2014). Green innovation covers innovations performed on the product and in the
production processes related to the energy saving, pollution prevention and green
design (Albort-Morant, Leal-Millan, & Cepada-Carrion, 2016; Carrillo-Hermosilla, del Río,
& Könnölä, 2010).
2.2. Green innovation and the hotel industry

Although green innovation was implemented in other industries in a wide range, it was
not a matter of routine for the hotel industry in the beginning and not included within
the necessary fundamental practices (OECD, 2012). However, biodiversity loss and
environmental pollution (de Grosbois, 2012; Gürlek et al., 2017; Zhang, Joglekar, &
Verma, 2010) have become a part of the interests of the customers with higher sensitivity
about the environmental issues such as the global warming and the ozone depletion (Lee
et al., 2010). Even if it is late, this situation has rendered green innovation an important
matter for the hotel industry (Kuminoff, Zhang, & Rudi, 2010). The studies show that cus-
tomers prefer environmental-conscious hotels. For instance, Kimpton hotels reported that
the reason why 16% of the customers preferred them was their environmental-friendly
practices (Berezan, Raab, Yoo, & Love, 2013; Butler, 2008).
Green innovation helps satisfying the demands of the customers on the protection of
the environment where they visit (Marin, Ruiz, & Rubio, 2009). Therefore, within the scope
of green innovation, the hotel businesses implement the pollution prevention program
(recycling, water treatment), establish the energy saving systems (automatic dimmers,
electronic sensors, the windows with higher thermal performance, the compact fluor-
escents, electronic room cards), implement reuse programs for towels and sheets, and
green building program for a green-friendly hotel (Butler, 2008; González & León, 2001;
Hjalager, 1997; Hjalager, 2010; Hsieh, 2012). Thanks to these programs, the hotels not
only attract the attention of the customers but also increase the resource efficiency (Boh-
danowicz, Churie-Kallhauge, & Martinac, 2001).
It has been repeatedly noted that innovation studies focusing on the hotel industry
are limited and empirical studies are scant (Hjalager, 2010; López-Fernández, Serrano-
Bedia, & Gómez-López, 2011; Sundbo, Orfila-Sintes, & Sørensen, 2007). Innovation
studies in the hotel industry do not have a long tradition compared to the manufac-
turing industry, but this trend has changed and nowadays innovation is becoming a
prolific research field (García-Villaverde, Elche, Martínez-Pérez, & Ruiz-Ortega, 2017).
When the current research flow is examined, it is seen that hospitality researchers gen-
erally focus on product, marketing and management innovation (Fernández et al.,
2011; Martínez-Ros & Orfila-Sintes, 2012; Nicolau & Santa-María, 2013). Hjalager
(2010) has called hospitality researchers for examining other types of innovation.
Taking this call into consideration, we focused on green innovation in the present
study.
Green innovation needs further research in the hotel industry. Reviewing the hospi-
tality literature, it is seen that studies on green innovation can be counted with the
fingers of one hand. For example, Gomezelj’s (2016) literature review revealed that
green innovation studies comprise a portion of 1.97% (3 studies) within all innovation
research. Although Gomezelj (2016) addressed these three studies within green inno-
vation, only one of them (Jacob et al., 2010) focused directly on green innovation.
The other two (Lawton & Weaver, 2010; Torabi Farsani, Coelho, & Costa, 2012)
approached innovation from a broader (sustainability) perspective. Cornell Hospitality
Quarterly, on the other hand, published a special issue on Sustainable and Eco-innova-
tive Practices in Hospitality and Tourism in 2014, due to the increasing prevalence of
environmental management in the hospitality industry. Unfortunately, studies in the
special issue focused green practice from a customer perspective and ignored green
innovation (e.g. Baker, Davis, & Weaver, 2014; Peiró-Signes, Segarra-Oña, Verma, Mondé-
jar-Jiménez, & Vargas-Vargas, 2014). These studies could be considered insufficient in
terms of revealing the body of knowledge as to the nature of green innovation. There-
fore, we reviewed top-tier journals and summarized the related studies (Table 1). As seen
in Table 1, only two studies focused directly on green innovation (González & León,
2001; Jacob et al., 2010), while others focused on similar concepts such as sustainability
innovation (Horng, Liu, Chou, Tsai, & Chung, 2017; Lawton & Weaver, 2010; Razumova,
Rey-Maquieira, & Lozano, 2016; Smerecnik & Andersen, 2011). On the other hand, it is
seen that studies focusing directly on green innovation are descriptive and they did
not focus on any causal links.
Table 1. Summary of related studies with green innovation.

Type of research
Reference design Unit of analysis Topic
González and León Descriptive Hotel and Identifying the determinants of environmental
(2001) apartments innovation
Jacob et al. (2010) Descriptive Tourism firms The importance of environmental innovations as a key
competitiveness factor for tourism firms
Horng et al. (2017) Causal Managers of eco- Testing the relationship among innovation diffusion,
friendly hotels environmental marketing strategy, sustainability
innovations, and the organizational environment
Razumova et al. Causal (binary Hotels Water tariffs as a determinant of water saving
(2016) probit model) innovations
Smerecnik and Causal Medium/large Examining the diffusion of sustainability innovations
Andersen (2011) hotels and ski
resorts
Lawton and Case study Birding festivals Normative and innovative sustainable resource
Weaver (2010) organizer management
Resource: Authors’ own elaboration.
2.3. Green organizational culture

The significant increase in the environmental movements in the recent years and the
increasing environmental consciousness have resulted in including the environmental
practices in the hotels’ agendas (Hoffman, 2001). The hotels have been looking for the
answer to the following question: ‘How can we perform the environmental activities in
a more efficient way?’ The organizational culture leading the company strategies could
answer this question (Harris & Crane, 2002). The hotels with green organizational
culture can contribute to further protection of the green (Milfont & Schultz, 2016; Tsai,
Joe, Lin, & Wang, 2014). The cultural structure of the organizations is a significant determi-
nant of the environmental practices (Newton & Harte, 1997). The organizational culture
shapes the environmental practices and the environmental issues (Howard-Grenville &
Bertels, 2012) because the culture bears the power to create favorable conditions that
bring along the cultural social discourse. Culture creates a pressure on the individuals
and prompts them to behave in line with the cultural values. Sharing green values and
beliefs within the organization could alter the way the organizations do business
through encouraging the environmental-friendly business management practices (Parr,
2009).
Legal regulations and the senior management’s decisions on enhancing the environ-
mental performance are not sufficient for green innovation strategy (Crane, 1995). The lit-
erature on organizational culture indicates that the shared common values play a crucial
role in determining and implementing the business strategies (Howard-Grenville, 2006;
Marshall, McCarthy, McGrath, & Claudy, 2015). In this regard, if the organizations expect
environmental practices to be successful, they have to develop green organizational
culture (Ahmad & Nisar, 2015). The efficient implementation of the environmental prac-
tices requires a culture based on the ecological values. Otherwise, the investments in
environmental practices and the efforts of the management would lose their efficiency
(Fernández et al., 2003). As a result, green organizational culture should be considered
as a fundamental requirement for the continuous increase and improvement in the
environmental performance of the hotel (Azzone & Noci, 1998).
Green organizational culture is a new research field. Therefore, there is no consensus on

the definition of green organizational culture. However, researchers state that the defi-
nitions of previous organizational culture can easily be adapted to green organizational
culture. For example, Norton, Zacher, and Ashkanasy (2015) suggest that Schein’s (1990,
2010) organizational culture definition can be used as a criterion for defining a green organ-
izational culture in his seminal study (Pro-environmental organizational culture and
climate). Other researchers also defined green organizational culture in line with Schein’s
definition (Chang, 2015; Marshall et al., 2015; Muster & Schrader, 2011). This study follows
the above-mentioned research flow to define green organizational culture. ‘The organiz-
ational culture is defined as a set of shared mental assumptions that guide interpretation
and action in organizations by defining appropriate behavior for various situations’
(Ravasi & Schultz, 2006, 437). On the other hand, green organizational culture is defined
as the pattern of shared basic assumptions about environmental management and environ-
mental problems (Chen, 2011a; Marshall et al., 2015; Schein, 2010). Green organizational
culture covers symbols, social stereotypes and shared values. These beliefs, values and
norms regarding the environmental management shape the standard behaviors expected
from the individuals (Chang, 2015). Namely, the symbolic context for the environmental
protection and management within green organizational culture shapes the behaviors
and perceptions of the organization members (Chen, 2011a).
2.4. Competitive advantage

Strong competitive advantage is the common goal shared by many hotels. Since competitive
advantage may lead to higher firm performance, hotels focus on developing competitive
activities (Chang & Liu, 2009; Kanten, Kanten, & Gürlek, 2015). Resource-based view emphasizes
that the firm’s unique resources and capability are key drivers of competitive advantage and
business performance. In this regard, green innovation and green organizational culture can
be drivers of competitive advantage (Leonidou, Leonidou, Fotiadis, & Zeriti, 2013). The basic
emphasis on competitive advantage is the comparative positional superiority that leads a
firm to perform better than its competitors in the market (Porter, 1985). For example, a firm
can be in a superior position to its competitors by operating a cost lower than its competitors
do. On the other hand, by following innovative approaches in product and production pro-
cesses, it can differentiate itself from its competitors (Zhou, Brown, & Dev, 2009).
Similar to many tourism researches (Cheraghalizadeh & Tümer, 2017; Molina-Azorín, Tarí,
Pereira-Moliner, López-Gamero, & Pertusa-Ortega, 2015; Yong Kim & Oh, 2004), this study
approaches competitive advantage from the resource-based perspective and uses the fol-
lowing definition. Competitive advantage is that the organization stands at a position where
its strategies cannot be imitated by its current or potential competitors and that it obtains
more sustainable benefit from those strategies compared to its competitors (Barney, 1991;
Coyne, 1986; Porter, 1985). The main reason to use this definition is that comparative pos-
itional superiority is an indicator of competitive advantage in all industries (Porter, 1985).
2.5. Hypothesis development

Organizational culture plays a crucial role in the implementation of innovation activities
(Kitchell, 1995). Organizational culture could hinder or prompt the innovation. Therefore,
hotels should create a convenient organizational culture for the innovation activities
(Deshpande & Webster, 1989). For instance, a hotel aiming at green innovation could
ensure the sharing of green values within the organization. Organizational culture is an
important determinant factor for the environmental practices, and it shapes the actions
related to the environmental issues. Green organizational culture would ensure the suc-
cessful implementation of green innovation through leading the organization and the
employees (Howard-Grenville, 2006). The effective implementation of green innovation
requires a culture which is based on the environmental values. Otherwise, the efforts on
green innovation might lose their importance (Fernández et al., 2003). Besides, the
senior managers’ decisions on increasing green environmental performance are not suffi-
cient for ensuring green innovation. Since green organizational culture provides a con-
venient environment for green practices, it should be considered as the basic
requirement for green innovation in a hotel (Azzone & Noci, 1998).
Organizational culture provides a set of shared mental assumptions that guide the
actions within the organization (Chen, 2011a). In this regard, green organizational
culture contributes to the development of green innovation because the sharing of
green values facilitates the implementation of green innovation activities. Organizational
culture helps organization members understanding green practices and provides the con-
ditions enabling the implementation of green innovation (Chang, 2015). Baumgartner
(2009) claims that businesses can achieve a better integration to environmental practices
through creating a green organizational culture as a part of the sustainability efforts in the
organization, namely, an environment-oriented culture would enable to implement the
environmental practices in a more successful way (Campbell, Ratcliffe, & Moore, 2013).
The relationship between green organizational culture and green innovation has been
examined in the manufacturing industry rather than in the service industry. For example,
Chen et al. (2012) found a positive relationship between green organizational culture and
green innovation in the manufacturing industry. Similarly, Chang (2015) found positive
relationships between two variables in the manufacturing industry. So far, such a relationship
has not been examined in the service industry. However, studies revealed that various types
of organizational culture would have a positive effect on innovation. For example, Tajeddini
and Trueman (2012) found that dimensions of organizational culture (individualism and
long-term orientation) had a positive effect on innovation. Chen (2011b) revealed that
service innovation culture had a positive effect on innovative behaviors. Monica Hu,
Horng, and Christine Sun (2009) observed that team culture affected service innovation per-
formance positively. As the research flow shows, organizational culture is an important driver
of innovation. Based on the arguments above, the hypothesis was developed as follows:
H1: Green organizational culture has a positive effect on green innovation.
The resource-based approach claims that competitive advantage arises from the internal
capabilities and resources possessed by businesses (Peteraf, 1993; Wernerfelt, 1984).
According to this view, the rare, valuable, imperfectly imitable and non-substitutable
characteristics of the resources enable businesses to have competitive advantage
(Barney, 1991). According to Hart (1995), being one of the pioneer theoreticians of the
resource-based view, such capabilities that avoid pollution, ensure sustainable develop-
ment and generate solutions for the environmental issues which provide competitive
advantages to the firm. In this regard, green innovation can be regarded as a unique
capability that provides a competitive advantage to the hotels (Berchicci & Bodewes, 2005;
Chang, 2011; Chen, 2008).
Hotels could gain the advantage of differentiation and low cost via green innovation
(Chang, 2015; Porter, 1981). In fact, hotels can create unique products through improving
the design and quality of the product with the help of green innovation, which could
provide the opportunity to differ from their competitors (Chang & Chen, 2014; Lin &
Chen, 2016; Shrivastava, 1995). Thus, hotels could sell their products at higher prices
and have a higher profit margin (Liao, 2016). On the other hand, green innovation
could also lower the costs through ensuring material saving, decrease in energy consump-
tion, waste recycling and minimization of the resource use (Eiadat, Kelly, Roche, & Eyadat,
2008; Hart, 1995). Thus, green innovation lowers the costs and provides competitive
advantage to the firms (Chang, 2011).
Within the context of the hotel industry, studies on green innovation are scant. These
studies are briefly summarized below. Jacob et al. (2010) found that tourism firms
(Lodging and accommodation, Leisure and recreation and Transport) having implemented
green innovation had high competitiveness in the Balearic Islands. So far, the causal links
between green innovation and competitive advantage in the hotel industry have not been
addressed. Nevertheless, several studies were conducted on related topics. For example,
Molina-Azorín et al. (2015) found that environmental management had a positive effect
on competitive advantage in the Spanish hotel industry. Leonidou et al. (2013) found
that resources and capabilities related to the environmental management had a positive
effect on competitive advantage. Fraj, Matute, and Melero (2015) revealed that proactive
environmental strategy had a positive effect on organizational competitiveness. With
the emphasis on the resource-based view, this study, sharing a similar perspective with
Leonidou et al. (2013), considers green innovation as a capability that enhances competi-
tive advantage. Based on the arguments above, the following hypothesis was developed:
H2: Green innovation has a positive effect on competitive advantage.
Organizational culture is one of the imperfectly imitable nonphysical resources of the firm
(Barney, 1986). Therefore, green organizational culture could increase competitive advan-
tage (Fiol, 1991; Hatch, 1993). It not only facilitates the implementation of the environmental
practices but also builds a barrier against the competitors (Chen et al., 2006). Since organ-
izational culture is unique for the firm, the competitors cannot easily gain the benefit that
the firm has gained via green organizational culture (Chen, 2008). If hotels have a green
organizational culture, it becomes more difficult for others to imitate their environmental
strategies (e.g. green innovation), and thus they gain competitive advantage. Although
green organizational culture is a very important factor for competitiveness, no study in
the literature has directly addressed the relationship between green organizational
culture and competitive advantage in the hotel industry. However, few studies were con-
ducted on similar topics in the manufacturing industry. For example, Chang (2011) revealed
that corporate environmental ethics had a positive effect on competitive advantage. Based
on these arguments, the following hypothesis was proposed:
H3: Green organizational culture has a positive effect on competitive advantage.
This study considers green organizational culture as an antecedent of green innovation,

and competitive advantage as the consequence of green innovation. It claims that
there is a relationship between the antecedent and the consequence as follows: green
organizational culture could create suitable conditions for green innovation by ensuring
the sharing of green values within the organization. On the other hand, green innovation
could bring competitive advantage to the organization through ensuring differentiation
and low-cost advantage (Figure 1). Namely, green organizational culture could provide
competitive advantage through green innovation. Based on these arguments, the follow-
ing hypothesis was proposed:
H4: Green innovation mediates the effect of green organizational culture on competitive
advantage.
3. Method
3.1. Sample and procedure
Data were collected from the employees and managers in four- and five-star hotel companies
in Antalya. The reason underlying the preference of those kinds of hotels is that they have
much more financial power for the implementation of environmental activities (Erdogan &
Baris, 2007). On the other hand, the reason underlying the preference of Antalya is that it is
the destination that attracts the highest number of tourists and where the highest number
of hotel companies in Turkey is located. According to the data from the Ministry of Culture
and Tourism (2016a), approximately 30% of the tourists visiting Turkey come to Antalya.
On the other hand, Antalya with 193 four-star and 276 five-star hotels is the province
where the highest number of four- and five-star hotels with the tourism operation license
is located (Ministry of Culture and Tourism, 2016b). Therefore, Antalya is the most suitable des-
tination in Turkey in order to test the relationships mentioned abovet.
The research sample was randomly selected from the list of Hotels with Tourism Oper-
ation License (Ministry of Culture and Tourism, 2016b), which is released annually by the
Ministry of Culture and Tourism. The research team made phone conversations with
each hotel included in the sample and explained the objectives of the research and the
content of the questionnaire. As a result, 20 hotel companies in total − 8 four-star and
12 five-star hotels – accepted to be a part of the research. In August 2016, the question-
naire packages were delivered to the hotels by a member of the research team. Each
package contains 40 questionnaires in total (30 questionnaires for employees and 10
for managers). The questionnaires were distributed to the randomly selected managers
Figure 1. Research model.

and employees who have worked for the business for at least 6 months. In order to get the
correct answers, privacy was ensured for all respondents. The respondents were asked to fill
up the questionnaires, put them into envelopes and seal the envelopes in order to ensure
privacy and then deliver them to the interviewer. The respondents were not forced to fill
up the questionnaires. The questionnaires were only given to the respondents who were
willing to participate in the research (Lavrakas, 2008). In total, 800 questionnaires were
delivered to the hotels and 545 questionnaires were returned in the first week of September.
In light of the remarks of the researchers (Aguinis, Gottfredson, & Joo, 2013), the question-
naires were examined cautiously and ineligible questionnaires were removed from the
data-set. As a result, 485 eligible questionnaires were obtained. The return rate is 60.6%.
Min, Park, and Kim (2016) examined 2204 studies published between 2006 and 2015 in four
leading journals on hospitality management (International Journal of Hospitality Management,
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly and International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management) and revealed that most of the studies suffered from
common method bias. Therefore, data were collected from different resources in order to
prevent common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Data regarding
green organizational culture, green innovation and competitive advantage structures were
collected from the employees and junior, middle and senior-level managers.
Social desirability bias (SDB) which refers to the tendency of the respondents to answer
the questions in the questionnaires in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others
might be effective on the validity of the questionnaire surveys (Fisher, 1993; Kim & Kim
2016; Steenkamp, De Jong, & Baumgartner, 2010). Therefore, different methods were fol-
lowed in the research in order to minimize the SDB (Nederhof, 1985; Phillips & Clancy,
1972; Randall & Fernandes, 1991): (a) the respondents were asked to not to write down
their own names and the name of the hotel; (b) it was mentioned that the data were to
be used only for academic purposes; (c) the respondents were asked to answer the ques-
tions in an honest manner.
As seen in Table 2, 64.3% and 35.7% of the respondents are male and female, respect-
ively. Twenty-four per cent of the respondents are at the 18–24 age range, 47% are at the
25–34 age range and 20% are at the 35–44 age range. Sixty per cent of them are employ-
ees and 40% of them are junior, middle and senior-level managers. Approximately 39% of
the respondents studied in undergraduate and postgraduate programs, whereas the edu-
cational level of 64% was high school and lower. Approximately 78% of the hotels are
family companies, 16% are international chain and 6% are national chain firms. Seventy-
nine percent of the hotels are five-star and 21% are four-star hotels.
3.2. Measurements of variables

A 7-point Likert scale ranging between 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree) was
used in the research. Since the scales were adopted from the English literature, linguistic
validation was tested. The items in the scales were translated into Turkish through the
back-translation method by four linguistic experts specialized both in English and
Turkish (Brislin, 1976). Then, the questionnaires were sent to the managers (N: 10) and
employees (N: 50) of different hotels, and they were asked to indicate the ambiguities
and whether the items were convenient for the context of the hotel. In light of the rec-
ommendations, particular parts were edited. After that, the questionnaires were sent to
Table 2. Profiles of respondents.

Variables Sample (N = 485) Percentage
Gender
Male 312 64.3
Female 173 35.7
Marital status
Married 225 46.4
Single 260 43.6
Age
18–24 114 23.5
25–34 229 47.2
35–44 100 20.6
45–54 41 8.5
55–64 1 0.2
Education
Primary School 77 15.9
High school 234 48.2
University 167 34.4
Postgraduate 7 1.4
Business type
National Chain 28 5.8
International Chain 79 16.3
Family Business 378 77.9
Position
Employee 293 60.4
Junior-level manager 115 23.7
Mid-level manager 55 11.3
Senior-level manager 22 4.6
Star No.
Four star 102 21.0
Five star 383 79.0
the same sample and the items were re-examined considering the suggestions (Fraj et al.,
2015; Saeidi et al., 2015). The same process was repeated until ensuring consensus on the
items. After all, the questionnaire was finalized.
3.2.1. Green organizational culture

It was adapted from the study of Marshall et al. (2015). This scale is unidimensional and
composed of five items such as ‘Environmental protection is a central corporate value
in our hotel’ and ‘Environmental awareness is a commonly shared value in hotel’.
3.2.2. Green innovation

It was adapted from the study of Chen et al. (2006). This scale is unidimensional and com-
posed of eight items such as ‘the hotel chooses materials that produce the least amount of
pollution for conducting the product development or design’ and ‘the manufacturing
process of the hotel reduces the consumption of water and electricity’.
3.2.3. Competitive advantage

The scale developed by Chang (2011) was used. This scale is unidimensional and com-
posed of six items such as ‘the quality of the products or services that the hotel offers is
better than that of the competitor’s products or services’ and ‘the competitors are difficult
to take the place of the hotel’s competitive advantage’. Chang (2011) developed the scale
based on the other researches (Barney, 1991; Coyne, 1986; Porter & Van der Linde, 1995)
3.3. Data analysis

For confirmatory factor analysis and testing the structural model, the Analysis of Moment
Structures (AMOS) program was used in the research. In order to test the research model,
the two-stage approach of Anderson and Gerbing (1988) was followed. In this approach,
the measurement model is examined separately from the structural equation model. If the
measurement model has acceptable fit indices, the structural equation model is tested. In
order to test the measurement model, confirmatory factor analysis was performed. For
testing the measurement model and the structural model, the maximum likelihood
method was preferred. So as to be able to use the maximum likelihood method, the
normal distribution assumption has to be fulfilled. Therefore, skewness (−1.381 and
−0.719) and kurtosis (−0.461 and 0.711) values were examined, and these values satisfy
the normal distribution assumption (Kline, 2011).
4. Results
4.1. Measurement results
According to the confirmatory factor analysis results, all factor loadings of the variables are
above 0.50. The factor loadings of 23 items are statistically significant (p < .01). The analysis
results show that the measurement model is compatible with the data (χ2 = 591.714,
df = 149, p < .01, χ2/df = 3.971, RMSEA = 0.078, CFI = 0.942, NFI = 0.924) (Schermelleh-Engel,
Moosbrugger, & Müller, 2003). Alpha coefficients regarding the scales range between 0.880
and 0.95, which indicates the internal consistency for each structure (Nunnally, 1978).
In Table 3, it is seen that composite reliability values are between 0.886 and 0.960. This
result is the indicator that the structural reliability is fulfilled (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). In addition,
it is seen that the average variance extract values are between 0.568 and 0.82. These values
indicate that the convergent validity is fulfilled (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). In Table 3, it is
seen that inter-variable correlations are below 0.85. This result indicates that there is no
multicollinearity problem (Kline, 2011).
Descriptive statistics of the scales are provided in Table 4. The average value of
green culture is 5.69, which indicates that the hotels have implemented green inno-
vation at a high level. The average values are 5.55 and 5.24 for green innovation and
competitive advantage, respectively. The correlations between the scales are significant
(p < .01).
4.2. Hypotheses tests

In order to examine the mediating role of green innovation in the relationship between
green organizational culture and competitive advantage, the method of Baron and
Kenny (1986) was followed. On the condition that the following conditions are met, the
mediating relationship can be observed: (a) the direct relationship between the depen-
dent and the independent variables must be statistically significant (Model 1); (b) when
the mediating variable is included in the relationship between the dependent variable
and the independent variable excluding the direct paths, the results must be statistically
significant (Model 2: Full mediation); (c) when the three variables are analyzed at the same
time, the relationship between the independent and dependent variable must decrease
Table 3. Measurement model.

Variables λ t-value R2 A CR AVE
Green culture 0.950 0.960 0.826
GC1 0.90 33,155 0.817
GC2 0.94 37,805 0.890
GC3 0.84 27,658 0.709
GC4 0.95 38,816 0.904
GC5 0.91 Fixed* 0.836
Green innovation 0.911 0.922 0.599
GI1 0.79 15,365 0.630
GI2 0.80 15,380 0.631
GI3 0.67 13,320 0.450
GI4 0.83 15,961 0.692
GI5 085 16,207 0.719
GI6 0.80 15,435 0.637
GI7 0.77 14,931 0.588
GI8 0.66 Fixed* 0.433
Competitive advantage 0.880 0.886 0.568
CA1 0.79 Fixed* 0.620
CA2 0.83 19,838 0.693
CA3 0.77 17,922 0.587
CA4 0.74 17,103 0.544
CA5 0.79 18,494 0.618
CA6 0.57 12,639 0.323
*Parameter fixed at 1.0 during ML estimation.
Note: Goodness-of-fit statistic (χ2 = 591.714, df = 149, p < .01, χ2/df = 3.971, RMSEA = 0.078, CFI = 0.942, NFI = 0.924). CR:
composite reliability; AVE: average variance extract.
(Model 3: partial mediation). If the relationship between the dependent and independent
variable becomes statistically insignificant, the full mediator model is accepted. The above-
mentioned models were tested (step-by-step) by using structural equation modeling. Pre-
vious studies also followed the same method (Durna, Dedeoglu, & Balikçioglu, 2015; Hon &
Lu, 2010). On the other hand, Zhao, Lynch, and Chen (2010) stated that mediation classi-
fication of Baron and Kenny (full and partial) is ‘somewhat coarse and misleading’, and
they suggested a new classification:
1. Complementary mediation: Mediated effect and direct effect both exist and point at
the same direction.
2. Competitive mediation: Mediated effect and direct effect both exist and point in oppo-
site directions.
3. Indirect-only mediation: Mediated effect exists, but no direct effect.
4. Direct-only non-mediation: Direct effect exists, but no indirect effect.
5. No-effect non-mediation: Neither the direct effect nor the indirect effect exists.
Table 4. Means, standard deviations, and correlations.

GC 2GI 3CA
1GC 1
2GI 0.589* 1
3CA. 0.474* 0.704* 1
Mean 5.6913 5.5490 5.2394
SD 1.36502 1.24104 1.28134
Note: GC: Green culture; GI: Green innovation; CA: Competitive advantage.
*p < .01.
Table 5. Fit index of models.

Fit indices
χ2 df χ2/df RMSEA CFI NFI
Model 1 612.157 151 4.05 0.070 0.88 0.869
Model 2 592.672 150 3.95 0.78 0.942 0.923
Model 3 591.714 149 3.97 0.078 0.94 0.92
*p <.01.
According to above classification, ‘complementary mediation overlaps with Baron and

Kenny’s partial mediation; indirect-only mediation overlaps with their full mediation’ (Zhao
et al., 2010: 200). Based on this classification, we specified below the type of mediation we
found.
The fit indices for the models are shown in Table 5 and the path coefficients for the
models are shown in Table 6. For Model 1, the direct effect of green organizational
culture on competitive advantage is positive and significant. For Model 2, the effect of
green organizational culture on green innovation (β = 0.63; t = 12.051; p < .01) and the
effect of green innovation on competitive advantage is positive and significant (β = 0.78;
t = 12.960; p < .01). Therefore, it can be indicated that H1, H2 and H3 are supported. In
Model 3, it is seen that the relationship between the dependent and the independent vari-
ables become statistically insignificant when all three variables are included in the analysis
process at the same time (β = 0.04; t = 0.982; p > .01). In the same model, the effect of green
organizational cultures on green innovation (β = 0.62; t = 11.981; p > .01) and the effect of
green innovation on competitive advantage are positive and significant (β = 0.75; t =
11.337; p > .01). For this reason, the full mediation model (Model 2) was accepted. These
findings indicate full mediator role of green innovation. Our findings correspond to indir-
ect-only mediation category of Zhao et al. (2010). This category implies that any omitted
mediating variables are unlikely to be observed (Coltman, Devinney, & Midgley, 2011).
The traditional mediation approach of Baron and Kenny (1986) recommends the Sobel
test to test the indirect effects. But since the indirect effect is the product of two par-
ameters, the sampling distribution of products and Sobel’s z is not normal (Preacher &
Hayes, 2004). For this reason, we used the more rigorous and powerful bootstrapping
method recommended by Zhang et al. (2010) instead of the Sobel test in order to
check the significance of the indirect effects. The indirect effect of green organizational
culture is 0.48. In the 95% confidence interval (5000 bootstrap samples), the lower and
higher values of the indirect effect are 0.370 and 0.572, respectively. Therefore, the indirect
effect is significant (p < .01) and it can be indicated that H4 is accepted. According to the
Table 6. Structural equation path coefficients.

Standardized path coefficients and t-values
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
GC → CA 0.51 (10.750*)
GC → GI 0.63 (12.051*)
GI → CA 0.78 (12.960*)
GC → GI 0.62 (11.981*)
GI → CA 0.75 (11.337*)
GC → CA 0.04 (0.982)
Note: GC: Green culture; GI: Green innovation; CA: Competitive advantage.
*p <0.01.
research findings, green organizational culture has a high explanatory power on green
innovation (R 2 = 0.39). In addition, the total variance of competitive advantage explained
by its antecedents is R 2 = 0.61, which indicates a high explanatory power.
5. Discussion
5.1. Summary of findings
The research results support the theoretical model and the developed hypotheses in a
clear way. According to the results, the existence of green organizational culture has a
strong effect on green innovation. Accordingly, green organizational culture is an impor-
tant determinant for green innovation and shapes the actions to be taken with regard to
the environmental issues. Green culture facilitates green innovation activities through
ensuring the sharing of green values. Furthermore, the results reveal that the high
green innovation levels create competitive advantage for the organization. Green inno-
vation provides a strategy that cannot be perfectly imitated by the rivals of the organiz-
ation, and thus, the organizations gain more financial benefits than their rivals. The
organizations not only gain the advantage of differentiation by way of improving the
product design and quality via green innovation but also gain a cost advantage via
material, energy and water savings. More importantly, the research results indicate that
green innovation has a full mediator role in terms of the effect of green organizational
culture on competitive advantage. Accordingly, green organizational culture increases
the level of green innovation, which in return brings along competitive advantage via pro-
viding the advantage of differentiation and low cost. Namely, green organizational culture
not only contributes to the environmental activities but also build a barrier against the
rivals. As a result, the organization gains a competitive advantage through developing
imperfectly imitable environmental strategies (green innovation) with the help of green
organizational culture.
5.2. Theoretical implications

Although green innovation is researched in other industries (e.g. the manufacturing indus-
try) (Chang, 2011), the subject, except a few studies, has not yet been examined sufficiently
within the context of the hotel industry. For instance, González and León (2001)
researched the environmental innovation practices in hotel industry in Gran Canaria.
Jacob et al. (2010) published a research note on the environmental innovation in the
Balearic Islands. Moreover, these two studies adopted a descriptive research design, not
a causal one (see Table 1). In other studies, green innovation was examined from a theor-
etical aspect and the empirical evidences were not provided (Hjalager, 1996, 1997, 1998).
Empirical papers in the hotel industry focused on the process, product, marketing and
the management innovation rather than green innovation (Fernández et al., 2011; Martí-
nez-Ros & Orfila-Sintes, 2012; Nicolau & Santa-María, 2013; Orfila-Sintes et al., 2005).
Several studies also focused on sustainable innovation (Horng et al., 2017; Lawton &
Weaver, 2010; Razumova et al., 2016 Smerecnik & Andersen, 2011). Sustainable innovation
is similar to green innovation in some aspects, but it is different from green innovation
because of its economic and social dimensions (Klewitz & Hansen, 2014). Unlike the
previous studies, both empirical evidence on green innovation and new knowledge on its
antecedents and the consequences are provided in the present research. On the other
hand, it was also observed that data in the researches in the hotel industry were collected
from only one resource (Min et al., 2016). In the present research, data were collected from
the employees and junior, middle and senior-level managers. In this regard, the current
research has sufficient reliability to contribute to the theoretical background.
5.3. Practical implications

The results reported in the study provide beneficial findings for Turkish hotel companies.
The hotels in the research have a high level of green organizational culture (5.69), green
innovation (5.55) and competitive advantage (5.24). The most important reason under-
lying these results could be the growing importance of the green certification (Erdogan
& Tosun, 2009) and the samples containing four- and five-star hotel companies. The
results show that green organizational culture enhances green innovation. Therefore, if
Turkish hotels want green innovation practices to be successful, they should develop a
green organizational culture within the organization. The results indicate the mediator
role of green innovation. If the hotels want to gain competitive advantage, they should
invest in green innovation.
This study can contribute to overcome the financial difficulties that have been faced by
Turkish hotel companies in recent years. Because of the instability caused by the incidents
in the Middle East, the increasing number of the terrorist attacks and the impact of the
coup attempt, the tourism incomes in Turkey decreased approximately 30% in 2016
(TUİK, 2017). On the one hand, the hotels have faced with the customers’ increasing inter-
est in the environmental protection (Gürkan et al., 2015); on the other hand, they have
been attempting to overcome the financial difficulties (Şimşek, 2016). The Turkish hotels
might eliminate this dilemma by way of investing in green innovation. Showing that
the hotels within the research sample have gained competitive advantage via green inno-
vation, the present research reveals that green innovation could be a solution for this
dilemma. Through this research, we call the other hotels in Turkey for implementing
green innovation and develop green organizational culture.
5.4. Limitations and suggestions for future research

A few limitations exist in the research. First, the research model was tested in four- and
five-star hotel companies. In the future studies, it could be tested in a way of covering
different hospitality companies. Second, the research was carried out on a limited
sample. The future studies can be conducted on the larger samples. Third, the research
was limited to Antalya province. The future studies could be conducted on the hotels
located in such other big tourism destinations in Turkey as İstanbul, Muğla and Izmir.
Fourth, since this research is a cross-sectional study, it does not specify the changes
observed in green organizational culture, green innovation and competitive advantage
in time. Therefore, it is recommended to collect the longitudinal data in the future
studies (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002; Podsakoff et al., 2003.). The present research
examines the antecedents and the consequences of green innovation in a very limited
way. In the future researches, it is recommended to examine the environmental
consciousness between managers and employees, customers’ demands for green pro-
ducts and the environmental training programs as the antecedents of green innovation;
the financial performance and the organizational green image as the consequences of
green innovation. Furthermore, in order to observe the possible changes to occur in the
relationships between the variables under the highly competitive and uncertain atmos-
phere, the competition level and the uncertainty can be included into the model as mod-
erator variables. For instance, the Turkish hotel industry faces a serious uncertainty
because of the terrorist attacks and the instability in the Middle East.
6. Conclusion
In this research, a theoretical model examining the mediator role of green innovation in the
effect of green organizational culture on competitive advantage was developed and tested.
Data obtained from the employees and managers in the hotel companies were used to test
the above-mentioned relationships. The findings indicate that green innovation fully med-
iates the relationship between green organizational culture and other variables. These find-
ings correspond to indirect-only mediation category of Zhao et al. (2010). Particularly, it is
observed that green organizational culture increases green innovation, and the increased
green innovation provides hotels with competitive advantage. From the perspective of con-
tribution to the practice, it is obvious that the hotels should develop green organizational
culture. In addition, if they want to gain competitive advantage, they should make more
investments in green innovation activities. In the light of the argument, it can be mentioned
that the present research provides participants with beneficial knowledge.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Mert Gürlek http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0024-7746
References
Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Joo, H. (2013). Best-practice recommendations for defining, identify-
ing, and handling outliers. Organizational Research Methods, 16(2), 270–301.
Ahmad, S., and Nisar, T. (2015). Green human resource management: Policies and practices. Cogent
Business & Management, 2(1), 128–13.
Albort-Morant, G., Leal-Millán, A., & Cepeda-Carrión, G. (2016). The antecedents of green innovation
performance: A model of learning and capabilities. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 4912–4917.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and rec-
ommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
Azzone, G., & Noci, G. (1998). Identifying effective PMSs for the deployment of “green” manufacturing
strategies. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 18(4), 308–335.
Babacan, N. (2016, August 2). Coup attempt cost Turkey’s economy $100 billion: Trade minister.
Hürriyet Daily News.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.
Baker, M. A., Davis, E. A., & Weaver, P. A. (2014). Eco-friendly attitudes, barriers to participation, and
differences in behavior at green hotels. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 55(1), 89–99.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1),
99–120.
Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: Can it be source of sustained competitive advantage?
Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 656–665.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychologi-
cal research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
Baumgartner, R. J. (2009). Organizational culture and leadership: Preconditions for the development
of a sustainable corporation. Sustainable Development, 17(2), 102–113.
Berchicci, L., & Bodewes, W. (2005). Bridging environmental issues with new product development.
Business Strategy and the Environment, 14(5), 272–285.
Berezan, O., Raab, C., Yoo, M., & Love, C. (2013). Sustainable hotel practices and nationality: The
impact on guest satisfaction and guest intention to return. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 34, 227–233.
Bernauer, T., Engel, S., Kammerer, D., & Sejas Nogareda, J. (2007). Explaining green innovation. Ten
years after Porter’s win-win proposition: How to study the effects of regulation on corporate
environmental innovation? In K. Jacob, E. Biermann, P. O. Busch, & P. H. Feindt (Eds.), Politik und
Umwelt. Politische Vierteljahresschrift Sonderheft 39 (pp. 323–341). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fUr
Sozialwissenschaften.
Bird, R., Hall, A. D., Momentè, F., & Reggiani, F. (2007). What corporate social responsibility activities
are valued by the market? Journal of Business Ethics, 76(2), 189–206.
Bohdanowicz, P. (2006). Environmental awareness and initiatives in the Swedish and Polish hotel
industries – Survey results. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 25(4), 662–682.
Bohdanowicz, P., Churie-Kallhauge, A., & Martinac, I. (2001). Energy-efficiency and conservation in
hotels – Towards sustainable tourism. 4. Simpósio Internacional em Arquitetura da Ásia e
Pacífico, Havaí.
Brislin, R. W. (1976). Comparative research methodology: Cross-cultural studies. International Journal
of Psychology, 11(3), 215–229.
Butler, J. (2008). The compelling “hard case” for “green” hotel development. Cornell Hospitality
Quarterly, 49(3), 234–244.
Calder, S. (2016, July 28). Turkey tourism industry experiences worst summer in 25 years amid terror-
ism and coup. Independent Newspaper.
Camisón, C., & Monfort-Mir, V. M. (2012). Measuring innovation in tourism from the Schumpeterian
and the dynamic-capabilities perspectives. Tourism Management, 33(4), 776–789.
Campbell, W. M., Ratcliffe, M., & Moore, P. (2013). An exploration of the impact of organizational culture
on the adoption of green IT. IEEE International Conference on Green Computing and
Communications (GreenCom), IEEE and Internet of Things (iThings/CPSCom) and IEEE Cyber,
Physical and Social Computing (pp. 126–133).
Carrillo-Hermosilla, J., del Río, P., & Könnölä, T. (2010). Diversity of eco-innovations: Reflections from
selected case studies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(10), 1073–1083.
Chan, E. S., Hon, A. H., Chan, W., & Okumus, F. (2014). What drives employees’ intentions to implement
green practices in hotels? The role of knowledge, awareness, concern and ecological behaviour.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 40, 20–28.
Chang, C. H. (2011). The influence of corporate environmental ethics on competitive advantage: The
mediation role of green innovation. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(3), 361–370.
Chang, C. H. (2015). Proactive and reactive corporate social responsibility: Antecedent and conse-
quence. Management Decision, 53(2), 451–468.
Chang, C. H., & Chen, Y. S. (2014). Managing green brand equity: The perspective of perceived risk
theory. Quality & Quantity, 48(3), 1753–1768.
Chang, L. Y., & Liu, W. (2009). Temple fairs in Taiwan: Environmental strategies and competitive
advantage for cultural tourism. Tourism Management, 30(6), 900–904.
Chen, W. J. (2011b). Innovation in hotel services: Culture and personality. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 30(1), 64–72.
Chen, Y. S. (2007). The positive effect of green intellectual capital on competitive advantages of firms.
Journal of Business Ethics, 77(3), 271–286.
Chen, Y. S. (2008). The driver of green innovation and green image–green core competence. Journal
of Business Ethics, 81(3), 531–543.
Chen, Y. S. (2011a). Green organizational identity: Sources and consequence. Management Decision,
49(3), 384–404.
Chen, Y. S., & Chang, C. H. (2013). Enhance environmental commitments and green intangible assets
toward green competitive advantages: An analysis of structural equation modeling (SEM). Quality
& Quantity, 47, 529–543.
Chen, Y. S., Chang, C. H., & Wu, F. S. (2012). Origins of green innovations: The differences between
proactive and reactive green innovations. Management Decision, 50(3), 368–398.
Chen, Y. S., Lai, S. B., & Wen, C. T. (2006). The influence of green innovation performance on corporate
advantage in Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(4), 331–339.
Cheraghalizadeh, R., & Tümer, M. (2017). The effect of applied resources on competitive advantage in
hotels: Mediation and moderation analysis. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 31,
265–272.
Chiou, T. Y., Chan, H. K., Lettice, F., & Chung, S. H. (2011). The influence of greening the suppliers and
green innovation on environmental performance and competitive advantage in Taiwan.
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 47(6), 822–836.
Chou, C. J. (2014). Hotels’ environmental policies and employee personal environmental beliefs:
Interactions and outcomes. Tourism Management, 40, 436–446.
Coltman, T., Devinney, T. M., & Midgley, D. F. (2011). Customer relationship management and firm
performance. Journal of Information Technology, 26(3), 205–219.
Coyne, K. P. (1986). Sustainable competitive advantage – What it is, what it isn’t. Business Horizons, 29
(1), 54–61.
Crane, A. (1995). Rhetoric and reality in the greening of organizational culture. Greener Management
International, 12, 49–62.
Crane, A. (2000). Corporate greening as amoralization. Organization Studies, 21(4), 673–696.
Dangelico, R. M., & Pujari, D. (2010). Mainstreaming green product innovation: Why and how compa-
nies integrate environmental sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(3), 471–486.
de Grosbois, D. (2012). Corporate social responsibility reporting by the global hotel industry:
Commitment, initiatives and performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31
(3), 896–905.
Deshpande, R., & Webster Jr, F. E. (1989). Organizational culture and marketing: Defining the research
agenda. The Journal of Marketing, 53 (1), 3–15.
Donaldson, S. I., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2002). Understanding self-report bias in organizational behav-
ior research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(2), 245–260.
Durna, U., Dedeoglu, B. B., & Balikçioglu, S. (2015). The role of servicescape and image perceptions of
customers on behavioral intentions in the hotel industry. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 27(7), 1728–1748.
Eiadat, Y., Kelly, A., Roche, F., & Eyadat, H. (2008). Green and competitive? An empirical test of the
mediating role of environmental innovation strategy. Journal of World Business, 43(2), 131–145.
Erdogan, N., & Baris, E. (2007). Environmental protection programs and conservation practices of
hotels in Ankara, Turkey. Tourism Management, 28(2), 604–614.
Erdogan, N., & Tosun, C. (2009). Enviromental performance of tourism accommodations in the pro-
tected area: Case of goreme historical natioal park. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 28(3), 406–414.
Fernández, J. I. P., Cala, A. S., & Domecq, C. F. (2011). Critical external factors behind hotels’ investments
in innovation and technology in emerging urban destinations. Tourism Economics, 17(2), 339–357.
Fernández, E., Junquera, B., & Ordiz, M. (2003). Organizational culture and human resources in the
environmental issue: A review of the literature. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 14(4), 634–656.
Fiol, C. M. (1991). Managing culture as a competitive resource: An identity-based view of sustainable

competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 191–211.
Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer
Research, 20(2), 303–315.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Fraj, E., Matute, J., & Melero, I. (2015). Environmental strategies and organizational competitiveness in
the hotel industry: The role of learning and innovation as determinants of environmental success.
Tourism Management, 46, 30–42.
García-Pozo, A., Sánchez-Ollero, J. L., & Ons-Cappa, M. (2016). ECO-innovation and economic crisis: A
comparative analysis of environmental good practices and labour productivity in the Spanish
hotel industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 138, 131–138.
García-Villaverde, P. M., Elche, D., Martínez-Pérez, Á, & Ruiz-Ortega, M. J. (2017). Determinants of
radical innovation in clustered firms of the hospitality and tourism industry. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 61, 45–58.
Gomezelj, D. O. (2016). A systematic review of research on innovation in hospitality and tourism.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(3), 516–558.
González, M., & León, C. J. (2001). The adoption of environmental innovations in the hotel industry of
Gran Canaria. Tourism Economics, 7(2), 177–190.
Gürkan, GÇ, Polat, D. D., & Demiralay, T. (2015). Turistlerde çevre bilincinin çevreye duyarlı müşteri
davranışı ve çevreye duyarlı konaklama işletmelerinde kalma tercihleri üzerindeki etkisi. Muğla
Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları
Dergisi, 4(1), 114–133.
Gürlek, M., Düzgün, E., & Meydan Uygur, S. (2017). How does corporate social responsibility
create customer loyalty? The role of corporate image. Social Responsibility Journal, 13 (3),
409–427.
Hall, C. M. (2009). Innovation and tourism policy in Australia and New Zealand: Never the twain shall
meet? Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 1(1), 2–18.
Hall, J., & Vredenburg, H. (2003). The challenge of innovating for sustainable development. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 45(1), 61–68.
Harris, L. C., & Crane, A. (2002). The greening of organizational culture: Management views on the
depth, degree and diffusion of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(3),
214–234.
Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4),
986–1014.
Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of organizational culture. Academy of Management Review, 18(4),
657–693.
Hellström, T. (2007). Dimensions of environmentally sustainable innovation: The structure of eco-
innovation concepts. Sustainable Development, 15(3), 148–159.
Hjalager, A. M. (1996). Tourism and the environment: The innovation connection. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 4(4), 201–218.
Hjalager, A. M. (1997). Innovation patterns in sustainable tourism: An analytical typology. Tourism
Management, 18(1), 35–41.
Hjalager, A. M. (1998). Environmental regulation of tourism: Impact on business innovation. Progress
in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4(1), 17–30.
Hjalager, A. M. (2002). Repairing innovation defectiveness in tourism. Tourism Management, 23(5),
465–474.
Hjalager, A. M. (2010). A review of innovation research in tourism. Tourism Management, 31(1), 1–12.
Hoffman, A. J. (2001). Linking organizational and field-level analyses the diffusion of corporate
environmental practice. Organization & Environment, 14(2), 133–156.
Hon, A. H., & Lu, L. (2010). The mediating role of trust between expatriate procedural justice and
employee outcomes in Chinese hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
29(4), 669–676.
Horng, J. S., Liu, C. H., Chou, S. F., Tsai, C. Y., & Chung, Y. C. (2017). From innovation to sustainability:
Sustainability innovations of eco-friendly hotels in Taiwan. International Journal of Hospitality
Howard-Grenville, J. A. (2006). Inside the “black box” how organizational culture and subcultures
inform interpretations and actions on environmental issues. Organization & Environment, 19(1),
46–73.
Howard-Grenville, J., & Bertels, S. (2012). Organizational culture and environmental action. In T.
Bansal & A. Hoffman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of business and the natural environment (pp.
194–210). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hsieh, Y. C. (2012). Hotel companies’ environmental policies and practices: A content analysis of their
web pages. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24(1), 97–121.
Şimşek, G. (2016, July 20). Darbe ve Turizm /Coup and Tourism. Haberturk Newspaper.
Jacob, M., Florido, C., & Aguiló, E. (2010). Research note: Environmental innovation as a competitive-
ness factor in the Balearic Islands. Tourism Economics, 16(3), 755–764.
Jensen, M. C. (2001). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function.
Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 14(3), 8–21.
Kang, K. H., Lee, S., & Huh, C. (2010). Impacts of positive and negative corporate social responsibility
activities on company performance in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 29(1), 72–82.
Kanten, P., Kanten, S., & Gürlek, M. (2015). The effects of organizational structures and learning organ-
ization on job embeddedness and individual adaptive performance. Procedia Economics and
Finance, 23, 1358–1366.
Kim, S. H., & Kim, S. (2016). Social desirability bias in measuring public service motivation.
International Public Management Journal, 19(3), 293–319.
Kitchell, S. (1995). Corporate culture, environmental adaptation, and innovation adoption: A qualitat-
ive/quantitative approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(3), 195–205.
Klewitz, J., & Hansen, E. G. (2014). Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: A systematic review.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 57–75.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Kuminoff, N. V., Zhang, C., & Rudi, J. (2010). Are travelers willing to pay a premium to stay at a “green”
hotel? Evidence from an internal meta-analysis of hedonic price premia. Agricultural & Resource
Economics Review, 39(3), 468–484.
Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods: AM (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lawton, L. J., & Weaver, D. B. (2010). Normative and innovative sustainable resource management at
birding festivals. Tourism Management, 31(4), 527–536.
Lee, J. S., Hsu, L. T., Han, H., & Kim, Y. (2010). Understanding how consumers view green hotels: How a
hotel’s green image can influence behavioural intentions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(7),
901–914.
Leonidou, L. C., Leonidou, C. N., Fotiadis, T. A., & Zeriti, A. (2013). Resources and capabilities as drivers
of hotel environmental marketing strategy: Implications for competitive advantage and perform-
ance. Tourism Management, 35, 94–110.
Liao, Z. (2016). Temporal cognition, environmental innovation, and the competitive advantage of
enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 1045–1053.
Liburd, J. J. (2005). Sustainable tourism and innovation in mobile tourism services. Tourism Review
International, 9(1), 107–118.
Lin, Y. H., & Chen, Y. S. (2016). Determinants of green competitive advantage: The roles of green
knowledge sharing, green dynamic capabilities, and green service innovation. Quality &
Quantity, 54(4), 1663–1685. doi:10.1007/s11135-016-0358-6
Lin, R. J., Chen, R. H., & Huang, F. H. (2014). Green innovation in the automobile industry. Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 114(6), 886–903.
Lin, R. J., Tan, K. H., & Geng, Y. (2013). Market demand, green product innovation, and firm perform-
ance: Evidence from Vietnam motorcycle industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 40, 101–107.
Linnenluecke, M. K., & Griffiths, A. (2010). Corporate sustainability and organizational culture. Journal
of World Business, 45(4), 357–366.
López-Fernández, M. C., Serrano-Bedia, A. M., & Gómez-López, R. (2011). Factors encouraging inno-
vation in Spanish hospitality firms. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 52(2), 144–152.
Marin, L., Ruiz, S., & Rubio, A. (2009). The role of identity salience in the effects of corporate social
responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 65–78.
Marshall, D., McCarthy, L., McGrath, P., & Claudy, M. (2015). Going above and beyond: How sustain-
ability culture and entrepreneurial orientation drive social sustainability supply chain practice
adoption. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 20(4), 434–454.
Martínez-Ros, E., & Orfila-Sintes, F. (2009). Innovation activity in the hotel industry. Technovation, 29
(9), 632–641.
Martínez-Ros, E., & Orfila-Sintes, F. (2012). Training plans, manager’s characteristics and innovation in
the accommodation industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(3), 686–694.
Milfont, T. L., & Schultz, P. W. (2016). Culture and the natural environment. Current Opinion in
Psychology, 8, 194–199.
Min, H., Park, J., & Kim, H. J. (2016). Common method bias in hospitality research: A critical review of
literature and an empirical study. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 56, 126–135.
Ministry of Culture and Tourism. (2016a, October 13). Sınır Giriş-Çıkış İstatistikleri. Retrieved from
http://yigm.kulturturizm.gov.tr/TR,9854/sinir-giris-cikis-istatistikleri.html
Ministry of Culture and Tourism. (2016b, October 13). The list of hotels with tourism operation
license. Retrieved from http://yigm.kulturturizm.gov.tr/TR,9579/turizm-tesisleri.html
Molina-Azorín, J. F., Tarí, J. J., Pereira-Moliner, J., López-Gamero, M. D., & Pertusa-Ortega, E. M. (2015).
The effects of quality and environmental management on competitive advantage: A mixed
methods study in the hotel industry. Tourism Management, 50, 41–54.
Monica Hu, M. L., Horng, J. S., & Christine Sun, Y. H. (2009). Hospitality teams: Knowledge sharing and
service innovation performance. Tourism Management, 30(1), 41–50.
Muster, V., & Schrader, U. (2011). Green work-life balance: A new perspective for green HRM. German
Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(2), 140–156.
Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 15(3), 263–280.
Newton, T., & Harte, G. (1997). Green business: Technicist kitsch? Journal of Management Studies, 34
(1), 75–98.
Nicolau, J. L., & Santa-María, M. J. (2013). The effect of innovation on hotel market value. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 71–79.
Norton, T. A., Zacher, H., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2015). Pro-environmental organizational culture and
climate. In J. Barling & J. L. Robertson (Eds.), The psychology of green organizations (Vol. 1, pp.
322–348). New York: Oxford University Press.
Novelli, M., Schmitz, B., & Spencer, T. (2006). Networks, clusters and innovation in tourism: A UK
experience. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1141–1152.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Orfila-Sintes, F., Crespí-Cladera, R., & Martínez-Ros, E. (2005). Innovation activity in the hotel industry:
Evidence from Balearic Islands. Tourism Management, 26(6), 851–865.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2012). Green innovation in
tourism services. Paris: OECD Publications.
Ottenbacher, M., & Gnoth, J. (2005). How to develop successful hospitality innovation. Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 46(2), 205–222.
Parr, A. (2009). Hijacking sustainability. London: The MIT Press.
Peiró-Signes, A., Segarra-Oña, M. D. V., Verma, R., Mondéjar-Jiménez, J., & Vargas-Vargas, M. (2014).
The impact of environmental certification on hotel guest ratings. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly,
55(1), 40–51.
Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic
Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191.
Phillips, D. L., & Clancy, K. J. (1972). Some effects of “social desirability” in survey studies. American
Journal of Sociology, 77(5), 921–940.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Porter, M. E. (1981). The contributions of industrial organization to strategic management. Academy
of Management Review, 6(4), 609–620.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York,
NY: FreePress.
Porter, M. E., & Van der Linde, C. (1995). Green and competitive: Ending the stalemate. Harvard
Business Review, 73(5), 120–134.
Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple
mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36 (4), 717–731.
Prud’homme, B., & Raymond, L. (2013). Sustainable development practices in the hospitality industry:
An empirical study of their impact on customer satisfaction and intentions. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 34, 116–126.
Pujari, D. (2006). Eco-innovation and new product development: Understanding the influences on
market performance. Technovation, 26(1), 76–85.
Rahman, I., Park, J., & Chi, C. G. Q. (2015). Consequences of “greenwashing” consumers’ reactions to
hotels’ green initiatives. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(6),
1054–1081.
Randall, D. M., & Fernandes, M. F. (1991). The social desirability response bias in ethics research.
Journal of Business Ethics, 10(11), 805–817.
Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M. (2006). Responding to organizational identity threats: Exploring the role of
organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 433–458.
Razumova, M., Rey-Maquieira, J., & Lozano, J. (2016). The role of water tariffs as a determinant of
water saving innovations in the hotel sector. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
52, 78–86.
Rees, W. E. (2003). Economic development and environmental protection: An ecological economics
perspective. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 86(1), 29–45.
Rodríguez, I., Williams, A. M., & Hall, C. M. (2014). Tourism innovation policy: Implementation and out-
comes. Annals of Tourism Research, 49, 76–93.
Saeidi, S. P., Sofian, S., Saeidi, P., Saeidi, S. P., & Saeidi, S. A. (2015). How does corporate social respon-
sibility contribute to firm financial performance? The mediating role of competitive advantage,
reputation and customer satisfaction. Journal of business research , 68(2), 341–350.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45, 109–119.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation
models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological
Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit,
interest and the business cycle, Harvard Economic Studies (Vol. 46). Cambridge, MA: Harvard College.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Socialism, capitalism and democracy. New York, NY: Harper and Brothers.
Shrivastava, P. (1995). Environmental technologies and competitive advantage. Strategic
Management Journal, 16(S1), 183–200.
Smerecnik, K. R., & Andersen, P. A. (2011). The diffusion of environmental sustainability innovations in
North American hotels and ski resorts. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(2), 171–196.
Steenkamp, J. B. E., De Jong, M. G., & Baumgartner, H. (2010). Socially desirable response tendencies
in survey research. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(2), 199–214.
Sundbo, J., Orfila-Sintes, F., & Sørensen, F. (2007). The innovative behaviour of tourism firms –
Comparative studies of Denmark and Spain. Research Policy, 36(1), 88–106.
Tajeddini, K., & Trueman, M. (2012). Managing Swiss Hospitality: How cultural antecedents of inno-
vation and customer-oriented value systems can influence performance in the hotel industry.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(4), 1119–1129.
Torabi Farsani, N., Coelho, C., & Costa, C. (2012). Geotourism and geoparks as gateways to socio-cul-
tural sustainability in Qeshm rural areas, Iran. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 17(1), 30–48.
Tsai, Y. H., Joe, S. W., Lin, C. P., & Wang, R. T. (2014). Modeling job pursuit intention: Moderating mech-
anisms of socio-environmental consciousness. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(2), 287–298.
TUİK. (2017, January 13). Turizm istastikleri. Retrieved from www.tuik.org.tr
Tzschentke, N., Kirk, D., & Lynch, P. A. (2004). Reasons for going green in serviced accommodation
establishments. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(2), 116–124.
Wang, Y. F., Chen, S. P., Lee, Y. C., & Tsai, C. T. S. (2013). Developing green management standards for
restaurants: An application of green supply chain management. International Journal of Hospitality
Weiermair, K. (2006). Product improvement or innovation: What is the key to success in tourism? In
OECD (Ed.), Innovation and growth in tourism (pp. 53–69). Paris: OECD.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.
Yong Kim, B., & Oh, H. (2004). How do hotel firms obtain a competitive advantage? International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(1), 65–71.
Zhang, J. J., Joglekar, N., & Verma, R. (2010). Developing measures for environmental sustainability in
hotels: An exploratory study[Electronic article]. Cornell Hospitality Report, 10(8), 6–20.
Zhao, X., LynchJr, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about
mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.
Zhou, K. Z., Brown, J. R., & Dev, C. S. (2009). Market orientation, competitive advantage, and perform-
ance: A demand-based perspective. Journal of Business Research, 62(11), 1063–1070.

Reinforcing Competitive Advantage Through Green Organizational Culture and Green Innovation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reinforcing Competitive Advantage Through Green Organizational Culture and Green Innovation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Service Industries Journal

ISSN: 0264-2069 (Print) 1743-9507 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fsij20

Reinforcing competitive advantage through green

Mert Gürlek & Muharrem Tuna

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2017.1402889

Published online: 17 Nov 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Download by: [University of Florida] Date: 20 November 2017, At: 09:29

Reinforcing competitive advantage through green

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT Mert Gürlek mertgurlek89@hotmail.com Department of Tourism Management, Faculty of Tourism,

2. Theoretical framework and hypotheses

of economic development and proposed the concept of creative destruction. Creative

2.2. Green innovation and the hotel industry

Table 1. Summary of related studies with green innovation.

2.3. Green organizational culture

Green organizational culture is a new research field. Therefore, there is no consensus on

2.4. Competitive advantage

2.5. Hypothesis development

This study considers green organizational culture as an antecedent of green innovation,

Figure 1. Research model.

3.2. Measurements of variables

Table 2. Profiles of respondents.

3.2.1. Green organizational culture

3.2.2. Green innovation

3.2.3. Competitive advantage

3.3. Data analysis

4.2. Hypotheses tests

Table 3. Measurement model.

Table 4. Means, standard deviations, and correlations.

Table 5. Fit index of models.

According to above classification, ‘complementary mediation overlaps with Baron and

Table 6. Structural equation path coefficients.

5.2. Theoretical implications

5.3. Practical implications

5.4. Limitations and suggestions for future research

Fiol, C. M. (1991). Managing culture as a competitive resource: An identity-based view of sustainable

You might also like