See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/370067026

Socially responsible HRM and hotel employees’ environmental performance:

the mediating roles of green knowledge sharing and environmental
commitment

Article in International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management · April 2023

DOI: 10.1108/IJCHM-01-2022-0098

CITATION READS

1 973

4 authors:

Mohammad Rabiul Basher Rubel Daisy Mui Hung Kee

BRAC University Universiti Sains Malaysia
42 PUBLICATIONS 962 CITATIONS 357 PUBLICATIONS 4,808 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

M. Y. Yusliza Nadia Rimi

Universiti Malaysia Terengganu University of Dhaka
136 PUBLICATIONS 4,597 CITATIONS 19 PUBLICATIONS 563 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Rabiul Basher Rubel on 19 April 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0959-6119.htm

Environmental
Socially responsible HRM and performance
hotel employees’ environmental
performance: the mediating roles
of green knowledge sharing and
environmental commitment Received 21 January 2022
Revised 30 April 2022
19 July 2022
Mohammad Rabiul Basher Rubel 4 October 2022
4 November 2022
BRAC Business School, BRAC University, Dhaka, Bangladesh Accepted 12 November 2022

Daisy Mui-Hung Kee

School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
Mohd Yusoff Yusliza
Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Development,
Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Terengganu, Malaysia, and
Nadia Newaz Rimi
Department of Management, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to investigate how employee environmental performance (EP) is affected by
socially responsible human resource management (SRHRM) via green knowledge sharing (GKS) and
environmental commitment (EC).
Design/methodology/approach – Partial least squares-structural equation modeling was used to
analyze data from 494 frontline employees of hotels.
Findings – The findings reveal that SRHRM influences employee EP, GKS and EC. SRHRM indirectly
predicts individual EP through GKS and EC mediation. GKS and EC also have significant relationships with
employee EP.
Practical implications – Hotels can use the findings of this study to develop effective strategies to
promote employees’ positive responses to the environment and improve their organizational identification.
Moreover, the current research enables the organization to recognize the importance of employees’ GKS and
EC and capitalize on them.
Originality/value – This study links SRHRM to the individual EP level in the hotel industry.
This study reveals the importance of EC and GKS as psychological mechanisms linking SRHRM
and EP.
Keywords Socially responsible HRM, Environmental performance, Environmental commitment,
Green knowledge sharing and corporate social responsibility, Employee environmental performance
Paper type Research paper

The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees of the journal for their extremely useful suggestions International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality
to improve the quality of the article Management
Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication © Emerald Publishing Limited
0959-6119
of this article. DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-01-2022-0098
IJCHM Introduction
Environmental sustainability has become increasingly important for businesses over the past
few years. Stakeholders expect progressive development in implementing environmental
sustainability, from government agencies to corporate investors to general consumers. This
expectation has pressured organizations to accelerate environmental sustainability integration into
their businesses (Hu and Kee, 2022; Shahzad et al., 2020; Zhang and Zhu, 2019). Environmentally
conscious business practices were used in the operations of both manufacturing (Rubel et al.,
2021b) and service firms (Kim et al., 2019; Rubel et al., 2021a) to support organizations as well as
individual sustainability (Li et al., 2018; Mahdi et al., 2019; Sun et al., 2020). Green initiatives in the
service industry, particularly in hotels, include waste reduction, energy and water conservation,
and customer and employee education (Raza and Khan, 2022). World-famous hotels such as Hilton
and Marriott International have championed environmental preservation projects (Kim et al., 2019).
Other leading hotels, such as Accor, encourage employee participation in environmental
management to achieve environmental goals (Aboramadan and Karatepe, 2021).
Past research has started to elucidate how green performance is derived from organizational
mechanisms, particularly human resource management (HRM) practices, and the influence of
such mechanisms on employees of the tourism and hospitality industry (Pham et al., 2019; Yusoff
et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2019; Luu, 2020). Researchers suggested that prioritizing individual green
performance could lead to positive organizational green performance because employees are
proactive agents of green performance (Zhang et al., 2019). Following such direction, this study
links socially responsible HRM (SRHRM) to the individual environmental performance (EP) level
in the hotel business, recognizing the need to foster the integration of macrolevel organizational
policies and microlevel individual behaviors. This study has shown a path to developing a
holistic understanding of green employee outcomes at the microlevel influenced by a macrolevel
factor, for example, SRHRM in the hospitality industry.
In the hospitality industry, SRHRM is found to influence employee outcomes such
as employee psychological recovery during COVID-19 (He et al., 2020), organizational
citizenship behavior for the environment (OCBE) (Zhao and Zhou, 2021; Zhao et al., 2021),
job meaningfulness and employees’ job strain (Luu, 2021) and employee role in
implementing corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities (Shao and Peng, 2022). These
findings clearly signal the need for a deeper understanding of SRHRM, which may be an
important antecedent of hotel employee EP.
The extant literature has highlighted the need for further study SRHRM’s impact on
different work outcomes (Luu, 2021; Jia et al., 2019). This study, therefore, responds to recent
calls to provide more exhaustive explanations and advance research about how SRHRM
influences EP at an individual level. This study examines if SRHRM impacts employee EP,
explores its psychological mechanisms and contributes to the literature in at least four
important ways. First, this study brings together the theoretical logic and identifies the
impacts of SRHRM on employee EP. Second, this study proposes that environmental
commitment (EC) and green knowledge sharing (GKS) are the important psychological
mechanisms linking SRHRM and EP. As SRHRM affects employee behaviors through social
and psychological processes, this study suggests that the impact of SRHRM on EP may
come from various sources associated with employee attitude (EC) and behavior (GKS).
Third, this study enhances the hospitality industry’s SRHRM and employee EP research.
This industry faces significant environmental problems that necessitate a focus on
environmental sustainability and responsible management (Kloutsiniotis and Mihail, 2020;
Riva et al., 2022). One way of understanding environmental sustainability is to focus on
SRHRM (Shao and Peng, 2022; Zhao et al., 2021; Zhao and Zhou, 2021). These studies further
signal that the hospitality industry can take advantage of SRHRM to contribute to the EP of
the companies. Moreover, recent studies have shown a compelling need to focus HRM Environmental
research on the attitudes and behaviors of hospitality employees (Peccei and van de Voorde, performance
2019; Aboramadan and Karatepe, 2021). García-Lillo et al. (2018) highlight the need for
additional HRM research in the tourism and hospitality industry. Evidence pertaining to
employees’ perceptions of SRHRM and its impact on hotel employees’ EP is sparse.
Fourth, the study on how SRHRM affects sustainability in the hospitality industry is still
under-researched, and it desires additional organizational contextual proof (Luu, 2021; Jia et al.,
2019; Chanda and Goyal, 2020; Rakin et al., 2020). South Asian nations have little study on
SRHRM, and Bangladesh is given little consideration (Rakin et al., 2020). Bangladesh, a South
Asian emerging economy, has its mission to achieve the United Nations’ sustainable development
goals (SDGs). Emerging countries’ hospitality and tourism businesses are important economic
engines (Oriade et al., 2021). Hence, this study responds to recent calls to provide a more
exhaustive explanation of SRHRM and EP in the emerging economy context using data collected
from hotel employees in Bangladesh. The research model is presented in Figure 1.

Literature review and hypotheses development

Employee environmental performance
Employee EP refers to behaviors contributing to environmental sustainability or reducing
environmental degradation (Ones and Dilchert, 2012). Employee EP, also known as green
behavior, can be defined as an employee’s actions that positively impact the environment
(Unsworth et al., 2013). Employee EP has been studied in other fields like environmental
psychology (Paill
e and Meja-Morelos, 2014) and tourism (Tuan, 2018). As human behavior is
responsible for global issues such as pollution and climate change (Nisar et al., 2021),
organizations can contribute to environmental sustainability by promoting employee green
performance. Due to the exponential growth of the hotel industry over time, hotels are
focusing on and implementing environmentally friendly practices that do not harm the
environment to ensure long-term business sustainability (Nisar et al., 2021; Katz et al., 2022).
The need to become more environmentally conscious is greater at hotels, as they are
directly accountable for water and energy uses and waste generation (Abdou et al., 2020).
If not properly managed, Bangladesh’s hotel and tourism sectors may affect the
environment badly (Abdulaali et al., 2019). Implementing SRHRM is critical in driving
the hotel industry to sustainable value creation in the long term. Such practices create
collaborative outcomes for the employees, hotels, environment and community. Greening an
organization is a responsible movement that requires both employee and management
commitment (Nisar et al., 2021). This study proposes that SRHRM can improve employee
green performance.

Green Knowledge
Sharing (GKS)

Socially responsible Environmental

HRM (SRHRM) Performance (EP)

Environmental Figure 1.
Commitment
(EC)
Research framework
IJCHM Socially responsible human resource management
In examining HRM’s value to firms, academics have identified SRHRM, which indicates
the social responsibility of the HRM knowledge base (Shen and Benson, 2016; Kundu
and Gahlawat, 2015; Chanda and Goyal, 2020). SRHRM is conceptualized to describe
HR practices that address the demands of an organization’s social obligations to its
internal workforce and the larger external community. Accordingly, SRHRM emerges
as a by-product of the integration of CSR and HRM techniques that emphasize enhancing
an employee’s life while meeting their social and personal expectations (Nie et al., 2018) as
well as assisting an organization in becoming more socially, ethically and sustainably
successful (Kundu and Gahlawat, 2015). SRHRM provides opportunities for employee well-
being; includes CSR training activities; and considers social performance in performance
appraisal, compensation and promotion decisions (Shen and Benson, 2016). SRHRM
involves employees in social responsibilities through the implementation of CSR, increasing
their awareness of social responsibilities, growing their skills and expertise and fostering a
desire to participate in social welfare activities by offering contingent benefits. SRHRM uses
employees’ motivations and fosters their sense of social responsibility to create a supportive
atmosphere that encourages them to act ethically (Shen and Zhu, 2011).
Employees, important stakeholders in CSR, are responsible for CSR implementation
(Aguinis and Glavas, 2012; He et al., 2020). Employee-focused practices, also known as
SRHRM, are an important aspect of CSR initiatives (Shen and Benson, 2016). SRHRM is a
significant component of CSR activities and is key to successful implementation, as CSR
objectives are realized through employees (Shen and Benson, 2016). SRHRM efforts are
believed to have a positive impact on various employee behaviors (He and Kim, 2021;
Jia et al., 2019; Shen and Benson, 2016; Zhao et al., 2021), although few are explored in
the context of hospitality organizations and their employees’ green outcomes such as
SRHRM and hotel employees OCBE (Zhao et al., 2021; Zhao and Zhou, 2021), successful
CSR implementation (Shao and Peng, 2022). Organizations must focus on employees and
encourage participation if they want to achieve their CSR aspirations (Shen and Zhang,
2019). Building on this thought, this study proposes that SRHRM can indirectly affect
employee EP via hotel employees’ EC and GKS. This study anticipates that introducing
SRHRM may lead to greater employee EC and GKS, which could increase EP.

Green knowledge sharing

Knowledge sharing is exchanging facts, information and know-how to solve problems;
create new strategies, policies or practices; and apply them (Chen et al., 2018). By fostering a
culture of knowledge sharing, employers can encourage their staff to use both explicit and
implicit knowledge to solve problems (Ali et al., 2018). According to sustainability literature,
knowledge and transmission are crucial building blocks for effectively influencing
employees’ sustainable performance and maintaining firms’ competitive advantages in the
green economy (Gope et al., 2018). Employees might share knowledge about environmental
challenges and participate in GKS (Lin and Chen, 2017). Employees are interested in
spreading information and knowledge about environmental challenges, enhancing learning
opportunities and motivating others to seek and create new green knowledge to engage in
GKS (Rubel et al., 2021a).
The connection between SRHRM and knowledge sharing has recently emerged as a
viable area for further research in this sector (Jia et al., 2019). Specifically, SRHRM relates to
CSR practices, such as deploying employees with a responsible mindset, CSR training,
appraisal, promotion and rewards (Farooq et al., 2017; Shen and Benson, 2016). SRHRM can
improve the appeal and trustworthiness of an organization (Kim et al., 2017), which is linked
to higher organizational identity and job satisfaction among employees (Farooq et al., 2017; Environmental
Shen and Benson, 2016). Hence, this study anticipates that the introduction of SRHRM will performance
encourage employees to share their green knowledge.

Environmental commitment
Employee EC is an internal, obligation-based drive to conserve the natural environment
(Cantor et al., 2012). EC can be defined as the extent to which employees pledge to assist
their company in putting environmental strategies into practice at work (Chan, 2010).
Employee EC is characterized by a person’s “emotional attachment, identification, and
involvement with environmental actions” (Perez et al., 2009, p. 36). Employees are more
likely to become environmentally conscious and participate in environmental protection
when their employer is committed to green (Cantor et al., 2012). Shen et al. (2014) found that
employee work behavior is positively influenced by deploying SRHRM strategies that
allow and encourage employee involvement in CSR efforts by increasing organizational
identification. This study argues that employees are expected to develop a positive attitude
toward CSR initiatives (commitment to the environment) to strengthen their value fit with
CSR-oriented practices (SRHRM).

Socially responsible human resource management and employee environmental

performance
SRHRM emphasizes sustainable values in staffing, promotes green values in training and
considers sustainable performance during promotion, performance evaluation and salary
calculation, thus positively influencing employee sustainability-related attitudes and
behavior (Renwick et al., 2013). In addition, SRHRM can boost staff members’ loyalty to the
company (Shen and Zhu, 2011), OCBE (Newman et al., 2016) and job satisfaction (Kundu and
Gahlawat, 2015). SRHRM is anticipated to enhance employee EP because of the linkages
between CSR and HRM practices (Shen and Zhu, 2011). The organization’s commitment to
the environment and its members’ expected performance are communicated via SRHRM.
SRHRM procedures such as recruiting employees who are a good fit for the company,
training, evaluating, rewarding and promoting employees based on their performance (Shen
et al., 2014) is an organizational indicator of adherence to social CSR norms and are critical
for increasing employee OCBE, for example, employee CSR toward green (Zhao et al., 2021).
When employees sense a good fit between themselves and their employer, they are more
likely to share the same values and feelings with the organization that promotes their
positive responses to CSR activities (Hu et al., 2020). This study, therefore, hypothesizes:

H1. SRHRM is positively related to employee EP.

Socially responsible human resource management and green knowledge sharing

Past research has examined how organizational, team and individual variables drive people
to share their knowledge. Wang et al. (2014) find that employee knowledge sharing is
influenced by accountability-inducing management practices and employee personality
factors. HRM encourages information sharing at work (Bhatti et al., 2020). Previous HRM
research has thoroughly examined the connection between HRM and employee knowledge
sharing (Jia et al., 2019; Ma et al., 2017). According to Gope et al. (2018), HRM positively
impacts how employees share knowledge. The advantages of promoting the link between
HRM and information sharing intention and behavior are reported by earlier studies
(Sammarra et al., 2017). Jia et al. (2019) find specific effects of SRHRM on the knowledge
IJCHM sharing of hotel employees. It might be argued that to execute CSR, SRHRM must include
staff members and have an impact on their GKS behaviors. Nerstad et al. (2018) report
that perceived mastery climate at the workplace and interpersonal trust facilitate employees’
knowledge sharing. SRHRM would create a responsible work environment where
employees and employers work together for green goals. The potential for sharing green
knowledge would facilitate employee ability to learn about environmental challenges and
enhance their performance in this area. Moreover, as SRHRM is linked to higher employee
organizational identification and job satisfaction (Farooq et al., 2017; Shen and Benson,
2016), it is anticipated that SRHRM will promote employee GKS:

H2. SRHRM is positively related to employee GKS.

Socially responsible human resource management and environmental commitment

According to Afsar and Umrani (2020), perceived CSR positively impacts employee EC.
Perceived corporate environmental policy and employee EC correlate positively (Raineri and
Paill
e, 2016). These authors suggest that an organizational commitment to sustainability
could inspire employee concern for the environment. This study argues that SRHRM may
motivate employees to go above and beyond their regular responsibilities and increases
their commitment to the environment. Encouraging employee participation in CSR
initiatives will likely increase identification by improving employees’ perceptions of value fit
with the organization (Bauman and Skitka, 2012; Newman et al., 2016). This finding
illustrates how employees’ commitment to the environment would be strengthened to foster
value congruence between the organization and employees if an organization offers the
appropriate support in the form of SRHRM. Therefore, it is hypothesized:

H3. SRHRM is positively related to employee EC.

Green knowledge sharing and employee environmental performance

Employees may create, share and use new knowledge through interactions and
conversation (Teh and Yong, 2011; McAdam et al., 2012). Sharing knowledge is an effective
method for fostering creativity (Liao et al., 2018). Jilani et al. (2020) recommend knowledge
sharing practices to influence the organization positively. Because knowledge sharing
involves information exchange and assisting others in reaching corporate goals, Kwahk
and Park (2016) claim that knowledge sharing has a major impact on work performance.
Similarly, employees share green information to work cooperatively toward the
organization’s green image, which also represents identity fit (Rubel et al., 2021a).
CSR refers to a wide variety of actions that are generally seen favorably by a large
section of the social group (Penner et al., 2005). Therefore, CSR-practicing businesses and
CSR-conscious workers would eventually discover a possible value match (Haski-Leventhal
et al., 2017). Existing research has demonstrated that work-related outcomes, including
job satisfaction and commitment in businesses (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005) and work
engagement (Haski-Leventhal et al., 2017), can be produced when individuals and
organizations share socially responsible behaviors and values. Employees might share
green knowledge to achieve sustainable goals that strengthen the corporate green image
collectively. In this regard, this study sees GKS as a facilitator of eliciting employee green
performance and concludes that when employees are enthusiastic about disseminating
green knowledge and pertinent green concerns, it will eventually help their EP:

H4. Employee GKS is positively related to employee EP.

Environmental commitment and employee environmental performance Environmental
The fulfillment of green goals is anticipated to be facilitated by green dedication, enhancing performance
the green reputation of both companies and personnel. Employees are more inclined to
participate in enhancing the quality and resolving environmental problems when they are
committed to the environment (Afsar and Umrani, 2020). According to Cop et al. (2020), EC
improves participants’ favorable sentiments regarding the environment and their conduct
toward protecting natural resources. In addition, Afsar and Umrani (2020) find that when
workers care about the environment, they take greater action to safeguard it. Employees
who demonstrate environmental responsibility and commitment can apply their green
knowledge and skills gained through environmental training programs to solve
environmental problems (Pham et al., 2020). According to Newman et al. (2016), employees
will feel more important, love their tasks, have better self-motivation and engage in extra-
role behaviors when their jobs align with their beliefs, demonstrating organization–
employee identity similarity. When employees’ EP is valued, they experience organizational
CSR to the environment, which increases their commitment to the environment. Thus, it
can be assumed that employees’ commitment to the environment may lead to EP. It is
hypothesized:

H5. Employee EC is positively related to employee EP.

The mediating roles of green knowledge sharing and environmental commitment

This study anticipates that GKS and EC are important explanatory mechanisms linking
SRHRM to EP. HRM literature identifies knowledge sharing as a significant mediating
construct in many relationships, such as those between high performance HRM and team
creativity (Ma et al., 2017) and employee innovation (Bhatti et al., 2020), high commitment
work systems and innovative work behavior (Ahmed et al., 2018), and HRM practices and
corporate entrepreneurship (Mustafa et al., 2016). Following these considerations, this study
expects that the increase in employee GKS resulting from SRHRM will promote employee
EP. Adopting SRHRM practices demonstrates that an organization cares about employee
EP. Employees feel valued, which is an important source of improved self-identity.
Following the norm of value fit (Newman et al., 2016), employees who perceive respect from
their organization due to value similarity are inclined to exhibit proactive participation in
their jobs, even by sharing knowledge with their coworkers (Jia et al., 2019).
Research demonstrates that the EC acts as a mediator between individual environmental
beliefs and environmental citizenship behavior (Raineri and Paill
e, 2016), green HRM
and corporate EP (Pham et al., 2020), perceived corporate environmental policy and
employee environmental citizenship behavior (Raineri and Paill
e, 2016), and CSR and pro-
environmental behavior (Afsar and Umrani, 2020). If employees believe their company
is socially responsible, they are more likely to exhibit EC and, as a result, engage in pro-
environmental actions (Afsar and Umrani, 2020).
SRHRM is concerned with facilitating the implementation of CSR strategies and creating
a supportive environment for employees (Shen and Benson, 2016). These supporting
initiatives are likely to form a value fit framework between employees and the organization
and work to enhance employee organization identification. An individual–organization fit is
a strong indicator of how well employees will act by upholding an organization’s
environmental aims and values and vice versa (Zhao et al., 2021). The better the fit between
the employees and the organization, the greater the employees’ awareness of the firm’s
objectives and vision (Chen et al., 2016), and the greater the employees’ satisfaction by
IJCHM seeking common ground (consistency with organizational values) (Zhao et al., 2021).
Accordingly, the study hypothesizes:

H6. Employee GKS mediates the relationship between SRHRM and employee EP.
H7. Employee EC mediates the relationship between SRHRM and employee EP.

Research methods
Sampling
The sample consisted of individual-level data from frontline employees (FLEs) working in
the Bangladesh hotel industry, particularly in Dhaka, Chattogram and Sylhet. The selection
of hotel was made based on the following criteria:
 the hotel has been operating in the industry for more than 10 years;
 the number of employees of the hotel must be at least 250 employees;
 the hotel must engage in green movements by displaying various green statements
(for instance, careful use of water and electricity, when leaving the room turn off the
lights) in easily visible areas; and
 the hotel must receive a rating of four star and above.

Dhaka, Chattogram and Sylhet were chosen because these three main cities are the main
commercial hub for major destinations, infrastructure, export processing zone and connectivity
in Bangladesh (Bangladesh Civil Aviation and Tourism Ministry, 2020). The following criteria
were used to choose the sample: Respondents had to be full-time FLEs with a minimum of one
year of hotel work experience and have completed environmental management training.
The growth of hotel chains and personalized services has increased rivalry in this
industry (Rubel et al., 2021c). FLEs were selected as the responders in this study because
they are the key members for providing direct client services. Previous scholars such as Jia
et al. (2019) used the FLEs to investigate the impact of SRHRM on knowledge sharing. Out
of 38 hotels, 30 consented to take part in the study. These 30 hotels were provided 750
questionnaires, of which 531 were returned. The HR personnel of the concerned hotels was
then instructed regarding the delivery method and timing of the questionnaires being sent to
the participants. After the data screening, only 494 surveys were found usable, with a 65.8%
response rate. Table 1 summarizes the demographical information of the respondents. The
respondents were between the ages of 21 and 60 years. The age range of 25–29 had the
highest percentage of respondents (34.4%), followed by that of 30–34 (26.7%) and 35–39
(19.8%). Approximately three-quarters were male (74.3%).

Measures
In this research, the partial least squares-structural equation modeling method was used to
assess the hypotheses. Six items of SRHRM were adapted from Shen and Benson (2016).
Bangwal et al.’s (2017) scale of employee EP (five items) was adapted. Five items of GKS and
three items of EC were taken from Rubel et al. (2021c) and Afsar and Umrani (2020). These
modified scales had reliability coefficients between 0.75 and 0.92. All items are presented in
Table 3.
Results
Common method variance
Harman’s single-factor test assesses common method variance (CMV). The findings showed
that single-source data were not a threat to this study. Podsakoff et al.’s (2003) recommended
method was also used to minimize the risk of CMV. First, based on the guidelines of the Environmental
proximal separation technique, different sets of directions were used to differentiate the performance
items in the constructs. Next, different scale formats were incorporated for different
variables. A five-point Likert scale (5 = strongly agree and 1 = strongly disagree) was used
for both independent and mediating variables, whereas a seven-point Likert scale (7 =
strongly agree and 1 = strongly disagree) was used for the dependent variable. The results
presented that the variance explained by the first factor was meaningfully lower than 50%,
supporting the idea that CMV was not the main problem in the survey. This study also
used an unmeasured latent method factor technique (see Table 2). In this method, a latent
variable is included that can only be measured by the observed items from the primary

Demography of the respondents N = 494 %

Gender
Male 367 74.3
Female 127 25.7
Age (years)
Between 25 and 29 170 34.4
Between 30 and 34 132 26.7
Between 35 and 39 98 19.8
Between 40 and 44 55 11.1
Above 45 years 39 8.0
Religion
Muslim 415 84.0
Non-Muslim 79 16.0
Experience in the industry
Between 1 and 4 141 28.5
Between 5 and 9 177 35.8
Between 10 and 14 101 20.4
Above 14 years 75 15.3
Experience in the current organization
Up to 3 years 285 57.7
Between 4 and 6 129 26.1
Between 7 and 9 53 10.7
Above10 years 27 5.5
Qualification
Table 1.
Bachelor’s degree 206 41.7
Diploma with bachelor 42 8.5 Demographic
Masters 135 27.3 profile of
Master of Business Administration (MBA) 83 16.8 the respondents
Diploma with master 28 5.7 (N = 494)

Latent variable Original R2 Unmeasured marker

Table 2.
Green knowledge sharing 0.457 0.429 The output of CMV
Environmental commitment 0.437 0.421 (unmeasured latent
Environmental performance 0.538 0.497 method factor)
IJCHM research constructs and, as a result, only represents a method variance (Chin et al., 2012;
Podsakoff et al., 2012). The study used the endogenous variable’s exploratory factor analysis
scores to calculate the unmeasured maker variable’s scores, ensuring that the R2 did not
change much from the baseline (10%) (Kock, 2015). The results indicated a 10% difference
from the original model, demonstrating that this study data set does not have a CMV issue.

Measurement models
The two-step procedure was used to test the model based on the recommendation of
Anderson and Gerbing (1988). First, the measurement model was examined to assess
the items’ reliability and validity. The developed hypotheses were then examined using
the structural model. Confirmatory factor analysis assessed the measurement model’s
reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity. All loading values were greater
than 0.708, above the recommended value. Both composite reliability (CR) and average
variance extruded (AVE) should be measured while investigating convergent validity. Hair
et al. (2019) recommended that CR be equal to or more than 0.70 and AVE be equal to or
greater than 0.50. Table 3 shows that the CR is achieved, and AVEs are above the threshold
value.

Constructs Loadings

SRHRM (AVE = 0.667; CR = 0.923)

My organization selects appropriate personnel to carry out general CSR activities 0.797
My company’s CSR initiatives increase marketplace respect and the potential to attract
qualified employees 0.847
My company provides CSR training to help employees grow and boost their morale 0.818
While the promotion issue comes, employee social performance is considered 0.807
In evaluating employee contribution, my organization considers his or her social performance 0.832
My organization links the social performance of employees to declare compensation and
rewards 0.798
GKS (AVE = 0.767; CR = 0.943)
I circulate environmental knowledge that I have learned from periodicals, newspapers, books,
digital media and other different sources 0.894
I like educating my coworkers about environment-related information 0.904
People in my organization share their practical understanding of the environment 0.879
It is enjoyable for me to educate coworkers about green-related knowledge 0.857
I believe that green knowledge sharing benefits all parties involved 0.845
EC (AVE = 0.813; CR = 0.929)
It is important to me that my organization cares about the environment 0.892
I feel obligated to encourage my organization’s environmental initiatives 0.924
I feel like I am responsible for the environmental issues at my organization 0.888
EP (AVE = 0.833; CR = 0.961)
I have reduced energy consumption in the workplace 0.899
I have reduced water consumption in the workplace 0.910
I have reduced waste in the workplace 0.924
I have reduced office carbon footprint in the workplace 0.921
I make my workplace eco-friendly 0.909
Table 3. Notes: SRHRM = socially responsible HRM; GKS = green knowledge sharing; EC = environmental
Measurement model commitment; EP = environmental performance
The Fornell–Larcker criterion and the Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) ratio were Environmental
used to determine discriminant validity (Henseler et al., 2015). Table 4 confirms that the performance
discriminant validity of the constructs under study is established as the HTMT scores fall
within the range of 1 to 1. As shown in Table 5, the discriminant validity results using
Fornell–Larcker criterion demonstrate the discriminant quality of the model. There is no
issue of multicollinearity, as the square root of AVE for each construct is greater than each
correlation coefficient obtained. Thus, the measurement model demonstrates satisfactory
convergent and discriminant validity.

Structural model
This study developed a structural model in which SRHRM was represented as an exogenous
latent variable influencing employee environment performance through GKS and EC to
investigate the possible link among the variables (see Tables 6 and 7 and Figure 2).
Employee EP explained that 53.8% (substantial) of the variance accounted for by SRHRM,
GKS and EC, whereas the variances accounted for GKS (45.7%) and EC (43.7%) by SRHRM
separately were also deemed significant. As shown in Table 6, all five direct hypotheses
were observed to be significant such as SRHRM to employee EP (b = 0.324, p < 0.01),
SRHRM to GKS (b = 0.317, p < 0.01), SRHRM to EC (b = 0.261, p < 0.01), GKS to employee
EP (b = 0.315, p < 0.01) and lastly from EC to employee EP (b = 0.144, p < 0.01).
This study also examines the mediating effect of GKS and EC between SRHRM and EP.
The mediator test was used in two phases, first to see the mediating effect of GKS and EC,
including independent and dependent interaction. The findings showed a partial mediating
effect of both GKS and EC between SRHRM and EP relation because SRHRM significantly
and positively influences EP. If the 95% confidence interval level does not cover 0,
the mediation effect will be significant, as claimed by Preacher and Hayes (2008). Both GKS

EC EP GKS SRHRM

EC
EP 0.670
GKS 0.816 0.717
SRHRM 0.736 0.707 0.740
Mean 4.10 5.88 4.22 4.11
SD 0.66 0.99 0.64 0.60
Table 4.
Notes: SRHRM = socially responsible HRM; GKS = green knowledge sharing; EC = environmental Discriminant validity
commitment; EP = environmental performance (HTMT0.85)

EC EP GKS SRHRM

EC 0.902
EP 0.616 0.913
GKS 0.737 0.676 0.876
Table 5.
SRHRM 0.661 0.656 0.676 0.817
Discriminant validity
Notes: SRHRM = socially responsible HRM; GKS = green knowledge sharing; EC = environmental (Fornell–Larcker
commitment; EP = environmental performance criterion)
IJCHM (b = 0.237, p < 0.01) and EC (b = 0.095, p < 0.01) showed a positive mediating effect
between SRHRM and employee EP. Furthermore, an alternative model was also tested,
considering GKS and EC as mediators, excluding the direct link between SRHRM and EP.
The analysis also showed a significant mediating effect of GKS and EC between SRHRM
and EP. Finally, the blindfolding method was used to evaluate the model’s predictive
relevance (Q2). Findings of the analysis showed that Q2 was 0.407 for EP, 0.317 for GKS and
0.335 for EC, which were greater than 0, postulating that Q2 was adequate.

Discussion and conclusions

Conclusions
This study examines the impact of SRHRM on employee EP directly and indirectly through
GKS and EC. First, the findings demonstrate that SRHRM has a good impact on employee
EP and serves as a critical facilitator to support personal performance toward the
environment. Employee GKS and EC are also significantly impacted by SRHRM. In

Direct hypotheses Std. beta Std. error t-value p-value f2 VIF Decision

SRHRM > EP 0.324 0.052 6.19** 0.000 0.110 2.06 Supported

SRHRM > GKS 0317 0.033 5.98** 0.000 0.142 1.00 Supported
SRHRM > EC 0.261 0.032 4.87** 0.000 0.257 1.00 Supported
GKS > EP 0.351 0.049 7.17** 0.000 0.105 2.54 Supported
EC > EP 0.144 0.05 2.87** 0.004 0.018 2.45 Supported
Table 6.
Structural model Notes: Significant at **p < 0.01(based on one-tailed). SRHRM = socially responsible HRM; GKS = green
(direct hypotheses) knowledge sharing; EC = environmental commitment; EP = environmental performance

Indirect path Std. beta Std. error t-value p-values 95% LL 95% UL Decision

SRHRM > EC > EP 0.095 0.034 2.82** 0.005 0.030 0.161 Supported
Table 7.
SRHRM > GKS > EP 0.237 0.037 6.47** 0.000 0.167 0.312 Supported
Structural model
(mediating output Notes: Significant at **p< 0.01 (based on one-tailed). SRHRM = socially responsible HRM; GKS = green
with direct effect) knowledge sharing; EC = environmental commitment; EP = environmental performance

Green Knowledge
Sharing

0.317** 0.351**

Socially Environmental
responsible HRM 0.324**
performance

Figure 2. 0.261** 0.144**

Environmental
Structural model Commitment
addition, it is discovered that employee EP and GKS and EC have important ties. These Environmental
results lend credence to initiatives like staff deployment with sufficient CSR awareness, CSR performance
training, CSR-focused appraisal and awards to encourage employee environmental attitude
and productivity. These findings add to the understanding of the recent studies (Pham et al.,
2019; Abdelmotaleb and Saha, 2020; Luu, 2021) on the relationship between SRHRM and
employees’ positive results, here, environmental outcomes.
Second, SRHRM indirectly predicts individual EP through GKS and EC mediation. This
study finds a positive link between SRHRM and employee EP through GKS and EC in the
hospitality industry. This study finds that the organizational level of SRHRM directly
influences the individual level of EP. Moreover, the findings prove that the individual level
of GKS and EC are the underlying mechanisms through which organizational level SRHRM
affects the individual level of EP. The availability of SRHRM signals to employees that
the organization shows responsible practices toward employees who would eventually be
motivated to align their responsibilities by being committed to the environment, sharing
green information and performing green. Hence, adopting SRHRM is anticipated to promote
organizational identification among employees, which is more likely to impact their
attitudes and behaviors at work positively. Employee commitment to the environment
(attitude) and GKS (behavior) would increase with such identification, which may raise the
potential of their green performance.

Theoretical implications
This study expands the theory of SRHRM in wider HRM by addressing HRM’s CSR
components (Shen and Benson, 2016; Shao et al., 2019). First, by connecting SRHRM to
employee EP, particularly in the hospitality environment, this study adds to the research on
SRHRM and employee green outcomes. This study is an important attempt to examine how
the organizational level of SRHRM can lead to the individual level of EP via GKS and EC.
The findings indicate that SRHRM significantly influences employee EP and that employee
GKS and EC mediate this relationship. This finding confirms that SRHRM promotes
employee green performance and supports sustainability obligations by encouraging their
sharing of green information and fostering commitment to green concerns. Importantly, the
findings reveal that SRHRM is a tool for promoting hotel employees’ green attitude
and behavior and consequent green performance. Second, the findings contribute to the
hospitality research by revealing that SRHRM would improve hotel employee recognition of
the organization’s green goal, enhancing their GKS and EC, thus enabling them to show EP.
Finally, this study complements the CSR study by responding to the urge to link the macro
idea of CSR and its micro individual-level consequence in HRM and organizational behavior.

Practical implications
Employee green attitude (EC) and behavior (GKS) are important mechanisms to enhance the
individual level of EP. The key finding generated from this study is that GKS and EC
significantly mediate the relationship between SRHRM and EP. This result demonstrates
the significance of SRHRM at the organizational level in motivating employee EP at an
individual level. Given the significance of SRHRM, employee EC, GKS and EP, HR
managers should be responsible for raising awareness and launching CSR training and
development initiatives. Programs for CSR training and development could increase
employee knowledge of the value of having a green mindset and behaving sustainably, as
well as provide them the skills to do so.
By connecting SRHRM to employees’ sustainable performance, the findings will help
hotel management reconsider the relationship between CSR and HRM and recreate
IJCHM employees’ green self-concepts with intrinsic green spirits (EC) and extrinsic behavior
(GKS). In addition, the hotel’s top management needs to be aware of the importance of
SRHRM, which could be impactful enough to make their employees “greener” in achieving
the organizational green goals. Employees who share these social goals and values of the
organizations are more likely to demonstrate green behaviors.
The findings have also identified practical implications for facilitating sustainable
achievements in Bangladesh. First, the study can assist managers in gaining a better
understanding of the SRHRM, which promotes employee EP in the hospitality sector
and other industries. How sustainability programs and policies are implemented and
incorporated into broader economic policies impacts the effectiveness of environmental
management and the accomplishment of SDGs. Understanding the variables that encourage
people to patronize green behaviors should drive policymakers to establish adequate
standards for the hotel industry and other industries to deal with environmental
deterioration through SRHRM.

Limitations and future research directions

This study is not without limitations, though these could provide fruitful directions for
future research. First, a logical assumption this study did not draw in our paper is that
both individual and organizational levels of EP may coexist. Thus, future research could
investigate how SRHRM may affect EP at two levels, namely, the organizational and
individual levels. Second, the research found that GKS is a more effective mechanism
for linking SRHRM to employee EP. Thus, it is important to investigate under what
circumstances GKS positively impact employee EP. Longitudinal research should be
conducted over three waves to assess whether these variables relate independently over
time. Future research may also examine supervisory support behaviors because they can
persuade staff to adopt attitudes and show behavior that benefits long-term sustainable
environmental management (Kim et al., 2019). This research sheds some light on the EP at
an individual level, an area still under-researched. It is hoped that this study inspires further
research on how SRHRM motivates “green” employees with a great sense of EP.

References
Abdelmotaleb, M. and Saha, S.K. (2020), “Socially responsible human resources management,
perceived organizational morality, and employee well-being”, Public Organization Review,
Vol. 20, pp. 385-399.
Abdou, A.H., Hassan, T.H., Dief, E. and Moustafa, M. (2020), “A description of green hotel
practices and their role in achieving sustainable development”, Sustainability, Vol. 12
No. 22, pp. 1-22.
Abdulaali, H.S., Usman, I.M.S. and Al-Ruwaishedi, M. (2019), “A review on sustainable and green
development in the tourism and hotel industry in Malaysia”, Journal of Advanced Research in
Dynamical and Control Systems, Vol. 11, pp. 854-867.
Aboramadan, M. and Karatepe, O.M. (2021), “Green human resource management, perceived green
organizational support and their effects on hotel employees’ behavioral outcomes”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 33 No. 10, pp. 3199-3222.
Afsar, B. and Umrani, W.A. (2020), “Corporate social responsibility and pro-environmental
behavior at workplace: the role of moral reflectiveness, coworker advocacy, and
environmental commitment”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 109-125.
Aguinis, H. and Glavas, A. (2012), “What we know and don’t know about corporate social Environmental
responsibility: a review and research agenda”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 4,
pp. 932-968.
performance
Ahmed, F., Hassan, A., Ayub, M.U. and Klimoski, R.J. (2018), “High commitment work system
and innovative work behavior: the mediating role of knowledge sharing”, Pakistan Journal of
Commerce and Social Sciences, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 29-51.
Ali, F., Kim, W.G., Li, J.J. and Cobanoglu, C. (2018), “A comparative study of covariance and
partial least squares based structural equation modelling in hospitality and tourism
research”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 416-435.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review
and recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3,
pp. 411-423.
Bangladesh Civil Aviation and Tourism Ministry (2020), “A report on the growth of tourism
industry”, available at: www.mediafire.com/file/3gl2qghf6fmi3w8/Bangladesh (accessed
14 September 2022).
Bangwal, D., Tiwari, P. and Chamola, P. (2017), “Green HRM, work-life and environment
performance”, International Journal of Environment, Workplace and Employment, Vol. 4
No. 3, pp. 244-268.
Bauman, C.W. and Skitka, L.J. (2012), “Corporate social responsibility as a source of employee
satisfaction”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32, pp. 63-86.
Bhatti, S.H., Zakariya, R., Vrontis, D., Santoro, G. and Christofi, M. (2020), “High-performance work
systems, innovation and knowledge sharing”, Employee Relations: The International Journal,
Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 438-458.
Cantor, D.E., Morrow, P.C. and Montabon, F. (2012), “Engagement in environmental behaviors among
supply chain management employees: an organizational support theoretical perspective”,
Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 33-51.
Chan, R.Y. (2010), “Corporate environmentalism pursuit by foreign firms competing in China”, Journal
of World Business, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 80-92.
Chanda, U. and Goyal, P. (2020), “A Bayesian network model on the interlinkage between
socially responsible HRM, employee satisfaction, employee commitment and organizational
performance”, Journal of Management Analytics, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 105-138.
Chen, H., Nunes, M.B., Ragsdell, G. and An, X. (2018), “Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation for experience
grounded tacit knowledge sharing in Chinese software organisations”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 478-498.
Chen, P., Sparrow, P. and Cooper, C. (2016), “The relationship between person-organization fit and job
satisfaction”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 946-959.
Chin, W.W., Mills, A.M., Steel, D.J. and Schwarz, A. (2012), “Multi-group invariance testing: An
illustrative comparison of PLS permutation and covariance-based SEM analysis”, in 7th
International Conference on Partial Least Squares and Related Methods, Houston, Texas,
USA, pp. 1-11.
Cop, S., Alola, U.V. and Alola, A.A. (2020), “Perceived behavioral control as a mediator of hotels’
green training, environmental commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior: a
sustainable environmental practice”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 29 No. 8,
pp. 3495-3508.
Farooq, O., Rupp, D.E. and Farooq, M. (2017), “The multiple pathways through which internal and
external corporate social responsibility influence organizational identification and multifoci
outcomes: the moderating role of cultural and social orientations”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 954-985.
IJCHM García-Lillo, F., Claver-Cortes, E., Ubeda-Garcia, M., Marco-Lajara, B. and Zaragoza-S
aez, P.C. (2018),
“Mapping the ‘intellectual structure’ of research on human resources in the ‘tourism and
hospitality management scientific domain’: reviewing the field and shedding light on future
directions”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 1741-1768.
Gope, S., Elia, G. and Passiante, G. (2018), “The effect of HRM practices on knowledge management
capacity: a comparative study in Indian IT industry”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 649-677.
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “When to use and how to report the results of
PLS-SEM”, European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-24.
Haski-Leventhal, D., Roza, L. and Meijs, L.C. (2017), “Congruence in corporate social responsibility:
connecting the identity and behavior of employers and employees”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 143 No. 1, pp. 35-51.
He, J. and Kim, H. (2021), “The effect of socially responsible HRM on organizational citizenship behavior
for the environment: a proactive motivation model”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 14, pp. 1-21.
He, J., Mao, Y., Morrison, A.M. and Coca-Stefaniak, J.A. (2020), “On being warm and friendly: the
effect of socially responsible human resource management on employee fears of the threats of
COVID-19”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 33 No. 1,
pp. 346-366.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in
variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135.
Hu, M.K. and Kee, D.M.H. (2022), “Global institutions and ESG integration to accelerate SMEs
development and sustainability”, in Baporikar, N. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Global
Institutional Roles for Inclusive Development, IGI Global, Hershey, PA, pp. 139-156, doi: 10.4018/
978-1-6684-2448-3.ch008.
Hu, B., Liu, J. and Zhang, X. (2020), “The impact of employees’ perceived CSR on customer orientation:
an integrated perspective of generalized exchange and social identity theory”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 2345-2364.
Jia, X., Liao, S., Van der Heijden, B.I. and Guo, Z. (2019), “The effect of socially responsible human
resource management on frontline employees’ knowledge sharing”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 9, pp. 3646-3663.
Jilani, M., Fan, L., Islam, M.T. and Uddin, M. (2020), “The influence of knowledge sharing on
sustainable performance: a moderated mediation study”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 908-926.
Katz, I.M., Rauvola, R.S., Rudolph, C.W. and Zacher, H. (2022), “Employee green behavior: a meta-
analysis”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 29 No. 5,
pp. 1146-1157, doi: 10.1002/csr.2260.
Kim, Y.J., Kim, W.G., Choi, H.M. and Phetvaroon, K. (2019), “The effect of green human resource
management on hotel employees’ eco-friendly behavior and environmental performance”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 76, pp. 83-93.
Kim, H.L., Rhou, Y., Uysal, M. and Kwon, N. (2017), “An examination of the links between corporate
social responsibility and its internal consequences”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 61, pp. 26-34.
Kloutsiniotis, P.V. and Mihail, D.M. (2020), “High performance work systems in the tourism and
hospitality industry: a critical review”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 2365-2395.
Kock, N. (2015), “Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity assessment approach”,
International Journal of e-Collaboration (IJeC), Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 1-10.
Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D. and Johnson, E.C. (2005), “Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: Environmental
a meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 281-342.
performance
Kundu, S.C. and Gahlawat, N. (2015), “Socially responsible HR practices and employees’ intention to
quit: the mediating role of job satisfaction”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 18
No. 4, pp. 387-406.
Kwahk, K.Y. and Park, D.H. (2016), “The effects of network sharing on knowledge sharing activities
and job performance in enterprise social media environments”, Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol. 55, pp. 826-839.
Li, Y., Ye, F., Sheu, C. and Yang, Q. (2018), “Linking green market orientation and performance:
antecedents and processes”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 192, pp. 924-931.
Liao, S.H., Chen, C.C. and Hu, D.C. (2018), “The role of knowledge sharing and LMX to enhance
employee creativity in theme park work team: a case study of Taiwan”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 2343-2359.
Lin, Y.H. and Chen, Y.S. (2017), “Determinants of green competitive advantage: the roles of green
knowledge sharing, green dynamic capabilities, and green service innovation”, Quality and
Quantity, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 1663-1685.
Luu, T.T. (2020), “Integrating green strategy and green human resource practices to trigger individual
and organizational green performance: the role of environmentally-specific servant leadership”,
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 1193-1222.
Luu, T.T. (2021), “Socially responsible human resource practices and hospitality employee outcomes”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 757-789.
McAdam, R., Moffett, S. and Peng, J. (2012), “Knowledge sharing in Chinese service organizations: a
multi-case cultural perspective”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 129-147.
Ma, Z., Long, L., Zhang, Y., Zhang, J. and Lam, C.K. (2017), “Why do high-performance human resource
practices matter for team creativity? The mediating role of collective efficacy and knowledge
sharing”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 565-586.
Mahdi, O.R., Nassar, I.A. and Almsafir, M.K. (2019), “Knowledge management processes and
sustainable competitive advantage: an empirical examination in private universities”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 94, pp. 320-334.
Mustafa, M., Lundmark, E. and Ramos, H.M. (2016), “Untangling the relationship between human
resource management and corporate entrepreneurship: the mediating effect of middle managers’
knowledge sharing”, Entrepreneurship Research Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 273-295.

Nerstad, C.G., Searle, R., Cerne, M., Dysvik, A., Škerlavaj, M. and Scherer, R. (2018), “Perceived mastery
climate, felt trust, and knowledge sharing”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 39 No. 4,
pp. 429-447.
Newman, A., Miao, Q., Hofman, P.S. and Zhu, C.J. (2016), “The impact of socially responsible human
resource management on employees’ organizational citizenship behavior: the mediating role of
organizational identification”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 440-455.
Nie, D., Lämsä, A.M. and Puce_ tait_e, R. (2018), “Effects of responsible human resource management
practices on female employees’ turnover intentions”, Business Ethics: A European Review,
Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 29-41.
Nisar, Q.A., Haider, S., Ali, F., Jamshed, S., Ryu, K. and Gill, S.S. (2021), “Green human resource
management practices and environmental performance in Malaysian green hotels: the role of
green intellectual capital and pro-environmental behavior”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 311, pp. 1-11, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127504.
Ones, D.S. and Dilchert, S. (2012), “Environmental sustainability at work: a call to action”, Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 444-466.
IJCHM Oriade, A., Osinaike, A., Aduhene, K. and Wang, Y. (2021), “Sustainability awareness, management
practices and organisational culture in hotels: evidence from developing countries”, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 92, p. 102699, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102699.
Paill
e, P. and Mejía-Morelos, J.H. (2014), “Antecedents of pro-environmental behaviours at work: the
moderating influence of psychological contract breach”, Journal of Environmental Psychology,
Vol. 38, pp. 124-131.
Peccei, R. and van de Voorde, K. (2019), “Human resource management–wellbeing–performance
research revisited: past, present, and future”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 29
No. 4, pp. 539-563.
Penner, L.A., Dovidio, J.F., Piliavin, J.A. and Schroeder, D.A. (2005), “Prosocial behavior: multilevel
perspectives”, in Fiske, S.T., Schacter, D.L. and Kazdin, A.E. (Eds), Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 56, Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 365-392.
Perez, O., Amichai-Hamburger, Y. and Shterental, T. (2009), “The dynamic of corporate self-regulation:
ISO 14001, environmental commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior”, Law and
Society Review, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 593-630.
Pham, N.T., Tuckov
a, Z. and Jabbour, C.J.C. (2019), “Greening the hospitality industry: how do green
human resource management practices influence organizational citizenship behavior in hotels?
A mixed-methods study”, Tourism Management, Vol. 72, pp. 386-399.
Pham, N.T., Thanh, T.V., Tuckov
a, Z. and Thuy, V.T.N. (2020), “The role of green human resource
management in driving hotel’s environmental performance”, Interaction and Mediation
Analysis: International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 88, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.1016/j.
ijhm.2019.102392.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63,
pp. 539-569.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, The Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Raineri, N. and Paill
e, P. (2016), “Linking corporate policy and supervisory support with environmental
citizenship behaviors: the role of employee environmental beliefs and commitment”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 137 No. 1, pp. 129-148.
Rakin, S.R., Yousuf, M.B. and Rubel, M.R.B. (2020), “Socially responsible HRM and environmental
performance of banking organization in Bangladesh: mediating effect of green innovation”,
International Journal of Human Resource Studies, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 268-286.
Raza, S.A. and Khan, K.A. (2022), “Impact of green human resource practices on hotel environmental
performance: the moderating effect of environmental knowledge and individual green
values”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 34 No. 6,
pp. 2154-2175.
Renwick, D.W., Redman, T. and Maguire, S. (2013), “Green human resource management: a review and
research agenda”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Riva, F., Magrizos, S., Rubel, M.R.B. and Rizomyliotis, I. (2022), “Green consumerism, green perceived
value, and restaurant revisit intention: millennials’ sustainable consumption with moderating
effect of green perceived quality”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 31 No. 7,
pp. 2807-2819, doi: 10.1002/bse.3048.
Rubel, M.R.B., Kee, D.M.H. and Rimi, N.N. (2021a), “The influence of green HRM practices on green
service behaviors: the mediating effect of green knowledge sharing”, Employee Relations: The
International Journal, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 996-1015.
Rubel, M.R.B., Kee, D.M.H. and Rimi, N.N. (2021b), “Green human resource management and Environmental
supervisor pro-environmental behavior: the role of green work climate perceptions”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 313, p. 127669, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127669.
performance
Rubel, M.R.B., Kee, D.M.H. and Rimi, N.N. (2021c), “High commitment human resource management
practices and hotel employees’ work outcomes in Bangladesh”, Global Business and
Organizational Excellence, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 37-52.
Sammarra, A., Profili, S., Maimone, F. and Gabrielli, G. (2017), “Enhancing knowledge sharing in age-
diverse organizations: the role of HRM practices (161-187)”, Age Diversity in the Workplace,
Emerald Publishing, Bingley.
Shahzad, M., Qu, Y., Zafar, A.U., Ding, X. and Rehman, S.U. (2020), “Translating stakeholders’ pressure
into environmental practices: the mediating role of knowledge management”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 275, pp. 1-11, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124163.
Shao, D. and Peng, Y. (2022), “Impact of socially responsible human resource management (SRHRM) on
hotel employee outcomes using the role theory”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, doi:
10.1108/JHTI-08-2021-0224.
Shao, D., Zhou, E. and Gao, P. (2019), “Influence of perceived socially responsible human resource
management on task performance and social performance”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 11,
pp. 2-22.
Shen, J. and Benson, J. (2016), “When CSR is a social norm: how socially responsible human resource
management affects employee work behavior”, Journal of Management, Vol. 42 No. 6,
pp. 1723-1746.
Shen, J. and Zhang, H. (2019), “Socially responsible human resource management and employee
support for external CSR: roles of organizational CSR climate and perceived CSR directed
toward employees”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 156 No. 3, pp. 875-888.
Shen, J. and Zhu, C.J. (2011), “Effects of socially responsible human resource management on employee
organizational commitment”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 22 No. 15, pp. 3020-3035.
Shen, J., Benson, J. and Huang, B. (2014), “High-performance work systems and teachers’ work
performance: the mediating role of quality of working life”, Human Resource Management,
Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 817-833.
Sun, H., Mohsin, M., Alharthi, M. and Abbas, Q. (2020), “Measuring environmental sustainability
performance of South Asia”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 251, p. 119519, doi: 10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.119519.
Teh, P.L. and Yong, C.C. (2011), “Knowledge sharing in IS personnel: organizational behavior’s
perspective”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 11-21.
Tuan, L.T. (2018), “Activating tourists’ citizenship behavior for the environment: the roles of CSR and
frontline employees’ citizenship behavior for the environment”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 1178-1203.
Unsworth, K.L., Dmitrieva, A. and Adriasola, E. (2013), “Changing behaviour: increasing the
effectiveness of workplace interventions in creating pro-environmental behaviour change”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 211-229.
Wang, S., Noe, R.A. and Wang, Z.M. (2014), “Motivating knowledge sharing in knowledge management
systems: a quasi-field experiment”, Journal of Management, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 978-1009.
Yusoff, Y.M., Nejati, M., Kee, D.M.H. and Amran, A. (2020), “Linking green human resource
management practices to environmental performance in hotel industry”, Global Business Review,
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 663-680.
Zhang, F. and Zhu, L. (2019), “Enhancing corporate sustainable development: stakeholder pressures,
organizational learning, and green innovation”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 28
No. 6, pp. 1012-1026.
IJCHM Zhang, Q., Oo, B.L. and Lim, B.T.H. (2019), “Drivers, motivations, and barriers to the implementation
of corporate social responsibility practices by construction enterprises: a review”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 210, pp. 563-584.
Zhao, H. and Zhou, Q. (2021), “Socially responsible human resource management and hotel employee
organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: a social cognitive perspective”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 95, p. 102749, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102749.
Zhao, H., Zhou, Q., He, P. and Jiang, C. (2021), “How and when does socially responsible HRM affect
employees’ organizational citizenship behaviors toward the environment?”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 169 No. 2, pp. 371-385.

Corresponding author
Mohammad Rabiul Basher Rubel can be contacted at: asstprof_sub@yahoo.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats