Outline

  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Literature Review
  • 2.1. the Link of Hrm and Environmental Management: Ghrm
  • 2.2. Theoretical Background
  • 2.3. Hypotheses Development
  • 3. Methodology
  • 3.1. Sample and Data Collection
  • 3.2. Measurement
  • 3.2.1. Green Hrm
  • 3.2.2. Employees’ Organizational Commitment
  • 3.2.3. Employees’ Eco-Friendly Behavior
  • 3.2.4. Hotel Environmental Performance
  • 3.3. Data Analysis
  • 4. Results
  • 4.1. Common Method Bias
  • 4.2. Reliability and Validity
  • 4.3. Hypotheses Testing
  • 4.4. Mediation Effects
  • 5. Discussion and Implications
  • 5.1. Theoretical Contribution
  • 5.2. Practical Implications
  • 6. Limitations and Future Research
  • Appendix A. . Description of Measures
  • References

رئوس مطالب

  • چکیده
  • کلیدواژه ها
  • 1. مقدمه
  • 2. مروری بر مقالات
  • 1.2 ارتباط HRM و مدیریت زیست محیطی GHRM
  • 2.2 پیش زمینه نظری
  • 3.2 توسعه نظریه ها
  • 3. روش شناسی
  • 1.3. نمونه و جمع آوری داده ها
  • 2.3. اندازه گیری
  • 3.3. تجزیه و تحلیل داده ها
  • 4. نتایج
  • 4.1. سوگیری روش مشترک
  • 4.2. قابلیت اطمینان و روایی
  • 4.3. تست فرضیات
  • 4.4. اثرات میانجی (واسطه‌گر)
  • 5. بحث و استدلالها
  • 5.1. نقش نظری
  • 5.2. استدلال‌های عملی
  • 6. محدودیت‌ها و تحقیقات آینده
  • ضمیمه A. توضیح معیارها
  • GHRM سبز
  • تعهد سازمانی کارمندان
  • رفتار سازگار با محیط کارمندان
  • عملکرد زیست محیطی هتل

Abstract

The subject of human resource management in hotels’ environmentally friendly management remains relatively underexplored. This study examines how to improve employees’ eco-friendly behavior and hotels’ environmental performance through green human resource management. The findings show that green human resource management enhances employees’ organizational commitment, their eco-friendly behavior, and hotels’ environmental performance. This study suggests that hotel top management and HR managers should establish green human resource management policies.

Keywords: - - -

6. Limitations and future research

There are some limitations in the present study, but the limitations can serve as avenues for future research. First, common method affects the findings in this study because the predictor (i.e., GHRM) and criterion variable (i.e., EFB) were self-rated by the same respondents. Bou Llusar et al. (2016) suggest that researchers obtain predictor and criterion variables from different raters or sources to limit the risk of common method bias. Future studies should consider collecting data from supervisors or coworkers to rate employees’ eco-friendly behavior.

Second, this study collected data from an eastern country, Thailand. Hence, scholars should use caution when generalizing the findings. This study does not investigate cultural differences; therefore, future studies across different cultural contexts would decide whether the outcomes of this research are culture specific.

For future research to be most informative, it is critical to integrate other factors as determinants of eco-friendly behaviors in the workplace. For example, individual self-efficacy is a potential determinant of eco-friendly behavior. People with high levels of confidence in their abilities to complete tasks tend to participate in eco-friendly behavior (Meinhold and Malkus, 2005). Thus, future research should continue to search for appropriate individual personal variables including self-efficacy. In addition, the authors suggest that future studies include more organizational factors, such as supervisory support behaviors, since supervisors can help individual employees to understand a vision of long-term sustainable environmental management (Egri and Herman, 2000).

دانلود ترجمه تخصصی این مقاله دانلود رایگان فایل pdf انگلیسی