International Journal of Hospitality Management 87 (2020) 102510

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhm

Research Paper

Sustainability implementation in restaurants: A comprehensive model of T

drivers, barriers, and competitiveness-mediated effects on firm performance
Silvia Cantele*, Fabio Cassia
Department of Business Administration, University of Verona, Italy

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This study examines sustainability implementation in restaurants by theorizing and testing a comprehensive
Sustainability model of antecedents and effects. It represents positive and negative pressures toward sustainability respectively
Restaurant by entrepreneurs’ attitude and barriers to sustainability, while hypothesizing that customer satisfaction and
Sustainability barrier competitiveness mediate effects of these practices on firm performance. Covariance-based structural equation
Firm performance
modeling is used to analyze survey data on 334 restaurants in North Italy. Results show that sustainability
Competitiveness
attitude exerts pressure toward sustainability, while barriers in terms of costs, fear of regulation or skepticism
Sustainability attitude
about benefits have negative, but lower, effects. Sustainability implementation positively contributes to firm
performance, but only via two intermediate measures of business success: competitiveness and customer sa-
tisfaction. The study fills a gap in the literature by presenting a whole construct of sustainability, by testing two
mediating effects not yet hypothesized and by highlighting in the same model the role of factors enabling and
deterring sustainability.

1. Introduction consumers are increasingly sensitive to themes such as the quality,

Sustainability is increasingly becoming a critical topic not only in
the global political and macroeconomic context, but also in business
processes and consumers’ lifestyle. The definition of the UN Sustainable
Development Goals (United Nations General Assembly, 2015) as global
targets for the next decade has increased awareness of global social and
environmental issues, which require a common response from national
governments, public administration, nongovernmental organizations
and businesses, and people worldwide.
From a business point of view, the acknowledgement of social and
environmental responsibilities is increasingly embedded in strategies
(Baumgartner and Rauter, 2017; Engert et al., 2016) and management
processes; the shift from the traditional corporate social responsibility
(CSR) concept (Frederick, 1994) toward shared value (Porter and
Kramer, 2007, 2011) and sustainable business models (Bocken et al.,
2014; Boons and Lüdeke-Freund, 2013; Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2018;
Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008) has outlined this need to embed sustain-
ability issues in day-to-day operations, not only in response to some
types of moral obligations, but also as an opportunity to increase the
quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of business, and consequently to
improve firm performance (Cantele and Zardini, 2018).
The restaurant industry is not exempt from these trends, because
safety, and origin of food; the sustainability of agriculture and pro-
duction processes; the fight against food waste; and the respect for labor
rights within the entire supply chain. The literature on sustainability in
restaurants is recent and mainly focused on the environmental side of
sustainability (Higgins-Desbiolles et al., 2017). Studies have analyzed
topics such as the attitude of consumers toward green restaurants (Gao
et al., 2016; Jeong et al., 2014; Kim and Ham, 2016; Kwok et al., 2016;
Lee et al., 2016a; Namkung and Jang, 2013), green supply chain
management in restaurants (Al-aomar and Hussain, 2017; Beske et al.,
2014), sustainability management or measurement systems (Hsiao
et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2013), or local food (Inwood et al., 2009;
Peterson et al., 2010; Sharma et al., 2014; Starr et al., 2003).
In considering the global relevance of pushing restaurants toward
more sustainable management, it is crucial to understand factors
driving entrepreneurs toward sustainability and to highlight the po-
tential benefits stemming from this type of approach. Few studies have
analyzed the impact of sustainability on restaurants’ performance
(Alonso-Almeida et al., 2018; Bagur-Femenías et al., 2015; Chou et al.,
2018; Jang et al., 2017; Llach et al., 2013; Perramon et al., 2014; Rao
et al., 2009), while the studies on motivations, drivers, and barriers in
this industry are very rare (Al-aomar and Hussain, 2017; Chou et al.,
2012; Kasim and Ismail, 2012; Perramon et al., 2014). Hence, through

⁎
Corresponding author at: University of Verona, Department of Business Administration, Via Cantarane, 24, 37129, Verona, Italy.
E-mail addresses: silvia.cantele@univr.it (S. Cantele), fabio.cassia@univr.it (F. Cassia).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102510
Received 9 September 2019; Received in revised form 10 December 2019; Accepted 10 March 2020
0278-4319/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Cantele and F. Cassia
the present study, we aim to contribute to the literature on sustain-
ability in restaurants by presenting a comprehensive model of re-
lationships in which we highlight the effects of drivers and barriers
related to sustainability implementation, together with the effects of
these practices on firm performance, by hypothesizing mediating effects
of competitiveness and customer satisfaction as intermediate measures
of firm performance.
The contributions of this study are threefold: First, it fills a gap in
previous studies—that focused only on environmental practices or only
on CSR practices—by presenting a whole conceptualization and mea-
surement of sustainability, which encompasses environmental practices
together with social and economic practices toward different categories
of stakeholders (i.e., employees, customers, suppliers, and community).
The second contribution is that this study tested two mediation paths of
relationship from sustainability to firm performance, via customer sa-
tisfaction and competitiveness, while previous studies have almost ex-
clusively considered effects of direct relationships on financial or op-
erational firm performance. The third contribution resides in this study
having tested a comprehensive model, which includes not only the
impact of sustainability on various measures of performance, but also
enabling and deterring factors (drivers and barriers) viewed as ante-
cedents of sustainability implementation.
The remainder of this article is structured as follows. Section 2 is
dedicated to the literature review and hypothesis formulation. Section 3
contains the details of the empirical research method, while Sections 4
and 5 present the analysis, discussion and conclusions stemming from
the research.
2. Theory and hypotheses
2.1. Impact of sustainability on restaurant performance
Sustainability in restaurants has been studied from different points
of view. For instance, the marketing literature presents contributions on
consumers’ attitudes or behaviors related to green restaurants (Gao
et al., 2016; Jeong et al., 2014; Kim and Ham, 2016; Kwok et al., 2016;
Lee et al., 2016a; Namkung and Jang, 2013), while other research is
dedicated to green supply chain management (Al-aomar and Hussain,
2017; Beske et al., 2014), sustainability management, or measurement
systems (Hsiao et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2013), or is focused on the
specific topic of local food (Inwood et al., 2009; Peterson et al., 2010;
Sharma et al., 2014; Starr et al., 2003).
A recent review (Higgins-Desbiolles et al., 2017) found that the
literature on sustainable restaurants is mainly focused on environ-
mental practices; among the aforementioned different fields of re-
search, some studies are devoted to deepening the driving factors of
sustainability in restaurants and the effects on firms’ performance. Most
of the literature about the impact of sustainability on performance of
restaurants is based on secondary data, included in regression models
(Kang et al., 2010; Kim and Kim, 2014; Lee et al., 2013; Rhou et al.,
2016; Theodoulidis et al., 2017; Youn et al., 2015, 2016) in which CSR
is measured using the MSCI ESG Index (previously known as KLD) and
financial performance is synthesized by a single market or accounting
indicator (mainly Tobin’s Q and rarely return on assets). The use of this
type of secondary data implies that most analyses were focused on
American restaurants, and the models could not test different kinds of
variables, which were not included in the database.
If we consider studies based on surveys, the impact of CSR practices
on restaurant performance has rarely been analyzed, owing to the
prevailing focus on the environmental dimension of sustainability.
Bagur-Femenías et al. (2015) found a positive direct impact of CSR on
competitiveness and an indirect impact on restaurant performance; the
construct of CSR exclusively referred to employee practices and was not
found to be related to environmental management in restaurants, while
it is related for hotels. This finding highlights the need to study res-
taurants separately from other hospitality structures, because they are
2
International Journal of Hospitality Management 87 (2020) 102510
usually smaller, have less resources, and are less keen on commu-
nicating than hotels.
A subsequent study on restaurants (Alonso-Almeida et al., 2018)
found that social management practices were positively related to both
market success factors—such as image, customer satisfaction, and em-
ployee satisfaction—and financial performance. Further, in this case the
social construct mainly referred to employee practices, with the addi-
tion of only an item dedicated to different stakeholders. These practices
were also found to be related to quality and environmental manage-
ment practices (EMPs), indicating that when a firm starts introducing
some new management practices, the learning effect facilitates the
implementation of further improvement processes.
Among studies focused on environmental practices, Bagur-Femenías
et al. (2015) found that environmental management systems (EMSs)
positively affect competitiveness and indirectly affect firm performance
for hotels. By contrast, they found that for restaurants, the relationship
between EMS and competitiveness was not significant, maybe because
of the different size of these organizations, different regulations, and
the greater communication propensity of hotels compared with res-
taurants.
Conversely, Alonso-Almeida et al. (2018) found a positive re-
lationship between EMPs and financial performance of restaurants, but
this positive relationship appears mainly based on cost savings and
efficiency gains, because the relationship with market success factors,
such as image and customer and employee satisfaction, did not prove to
be significant. The authors explain this result indicating that small
companies do not attempt to build a green image, because their in-
sufficient resources compared with that of large companies brings dif-
ficulties in communicating environmental improvement, and conse-
quently the risk of losing the opportunity to differentiate from
competitors.
Environmental management, practices, and performance could be
conceptually distinguished and put into a logical chain of effects. First,
the management of the firm should commit to including environmental
issues in their decision-making process, which would lead to introdu-
cing environmental performance indicators for reporting and control,
and subsequently, to improving environmental performance. Rao et al.
(2009) tested these relationships on a sample of SMEs from different
industries (hotels and restaurants included) and found that this positive
chain of effects on business performance and competitiveness con-
tinues. They represent business performance mainly through internal
factors, such as improvements in efficiency, productivity, quality, and
cost savings, while referring to competitiveness through external gains,
such as image, new market opportunities, and sales; thus, they found
that environmental performance leads first to business improvement
and then to competitive advantages in the market. These results high-
light the need to distinguish between different measures of firm per-
formance that could be affected by environmental practices; while some
direct effects could be generated in terms of cost savings, whether the
firm will gain further benefits depends on its specific market approach.
Rao et al. (2009) distinguished external and internal benefits and found
that the path extends from internal benefits—termed “business perfor-
mance”—to external benefits—termed “competitiveness”.
A subsequent study (Llach et al., 2013) analyzed the impact of EMPs
on market success factors and on financial performance and found that
EMPs have a positive direct impact only on the latter, while quality
management practices have a positive impact directly on financial
performance and indirectly via market success. This finding highlights
that small restaurants do not capitalize their environmental improve-
ment in terms of customer and employee satisfaction and image.
The distinction between operational performance and financial
performance is hypothesized in a more recent study (Chou et al., 2018),
in which a construct termed “overall impression” is dedicated to image
and customers’ impression and willingness to recommend the restau-
rant, while “operational profits” measures financial performance by
considering cost reduction and efficiency improvement as well as
S. Cantele and F. Cassia
increase in revenue and manpower improvement. In their study, a
complex model is proposed, where social and environmental aspects are
included in two holistic constructs dedicated to sustainable restaurants,
namely, sustainable food and sustainable management, and the impact
on performance is mediated by different intermediate constructs dedi-
cated to the firm’s organizational environment. The hypothesized re-
lationships highlight the need to conceive models in which the di-
chotomy of CSR and environmental management should be overcome
by referring to sustainability, and the path to performance should be
depicted in all possible intermediate steps.
2.2. Drivers of, and barriers to, restaurant sustainability
The complexity of reality indicates that the analysis of sustainability
implementation and subsequent performance gains should commence
from ascertaining their drivers and barriers, such as perceived en-
vironmental pressures and benefit expectations from one side, and
perceived constraints from the other side. Restaurants can experience
pressure from customers, suppliers, the government, and other stake-
holders for adopting green practices, and can also fear the risk of ar-
riving late when competitors and other organizations in the territory
are becoming increasingly engaged in such practices; these pressures
have been considered in a comprehensive model including motivations,
practices, and different performance effects (Perramon et al., 2014). In
this model, the authors found confirmation about the role of pressures
in implementing green practices in restaurants, and the positive impact
of these practices on operational performance and competitiveness.
Further, the direct impact on financial performance was found to be
negative, while the indirect impact via the mediating effect of compe-
titiveness was confirmed. These findings highlight that restaurants do
not view the cost savings determined by environmental practices as
relevant, unlike improvement in image and customer and employee
satisfaction.
Similarly, Jang et al. (2017) considered nonfinancial performance in
terms of employee satisfaction and motivation, and customer satisfac-
tion and retention, and found a positive effect of environmental sus-
tainability performance on these operational success measures. How-
ever, different from Perramon et al. (2014), they found also a positive
direct relationship with financial performance, without hypothesizing
mediating effects of some other constructs. In their comprehensive
model, Jang et al. (2017) tested the role of different drivers toward
environmental sustainability: environmental values, environmental
leadership, and stakeholder engagement. They proved that values exert
a positive impact on leadership, but not on stakeholder engagement and
sustainability, which are affected by leadership instead. By testing
mediating effects, their results revealed that leadership and stakeholder
engagement mediate the relationship between values, sustainability
performance, and financial/nonfinancial performance.
Among internal pressures, the role of entrepreneurs and/or top
management is considered a relevant driver toward environmental
practices: Chou et al. (2012) included attitude to green practices among
their drivers and found a positive impact on behavioral intention to
adopt them. Unlike other studies, they did not find social influence to
be determinant; that is, the approval of external stakeholders, such as
regulators, consumers, social groups, communities, employees, in-
vestors, suppliers, and other partners in the restaurant industry, was not
positively related to behavioral intention. Green practices are related to
innovation, which is one of the most powerful drivers of firm success;
the authors also include perceived innovation characteristics as a
measure of potential benefits achievable from green practices: Image
improvement, economic benefits, and new market opportunities are
positively related to green practices, together with the absence of
complexity concerns in terms of difficulties in undertaking or under-
standing these practices.
Indeed, the representation of issues affecting green or sustainable
behaviors in restaurants is complete only when both enabling and
3
International Journal of Hospitality Management 87 (2020) 102510
hindering factors are considered: Pressures from internal and external
forces, potential benefits achievable, and perceived constraints to im-
plementation should be included in a complete model of relationships.
However, studies that consider potential benefits and constraints are
rare. For instance, Kasim and Ismail (2012) found that Malaysian res-
taurants are not really convinced that being a green restaurant will
increase their revenues; these restaurants are also skeptical about po-
tential cost savings in adopting EMSs and are not keen to make the
initial investments. They do not consider regulation a threat, because
they perceive low environmental concern among local and federal au-
thorities. A relevant factor in pushing restaurants to adopting en-
vironmentally friendly practices is the top management’s attitude, even
if the lack of a green supply chain and the low market demand dis-
courage this ethical approach innate in firms.
The difficulty in establishing the “business case for sustainability”
(Schaltegger et al., 2012) has been highlighted with reference to small
businesses in different industries (Battisti and Perry, 2011; Lee et al.,
2016b). Considering that most restaurants could be classified as small-
and medium-sized firms (SMEs), the findings of previous studies about
CSR and sustainability in SMEs could be used to understand some
common industry approaches. SMEs are usually depicted as constrained
by numerous limitations and barriers (Vázquez-Carrasco and López-
Pérez, 2013): lack of time, resources, appropriate information, and
support services (El Baz et al., 2016; Jamali et al., 2009; Roberts et al.,
2006), or difficulties in measuring the benefits and maintaining the
momentum of activities (Jenkins, 2006), or in understanding CSR be-
yond firm-specific practices (Murillo and Lozano, 2006).
Sometimes, regulations have a positive impact on the decision to
implement sustainability in restaurants (Chou et al., 2012; Perramon
et al., 2014; Revell and Blackburn, 2007), but some firms express
aversion to environmental regulation, in particular, when they consider
it a bureaucratic burden (Brammer et al., 2012) or when their level of
awareness and compliance is low (Gadenne et al., 2009). This is par-
ticularly true for SMEs (Williamson et al., 2006) because increased
environmental regulation and enforcement appear to be linked to the
formation of fewer small businesses (Dean et al., 2000). Further, SMEs’
opinions and ideas are often neglected by legal authorities, who assume
that sustainability management policies of large firms can be simply
transferred to smaller businesses (Fassin, 2008): This, in turn, creates a
set of bureaucratic, complicated policies that are thus impractical to
implement for SMEs.
SMEs are also characterized by the relevance of the values of the
entrepreneur/chief executive officer, their sense of belonging to the
local community and the specificity of human resources management
(El Baz et al., 2016), the prevalence of “informal” practices of CSR, and
the reduced propensity to communicate them externally (Fassin, 2008;
Jenkins, 2006). Revell and Blackburn (2007) analyzed the UK con-
struction and restaurants sectors and found that small firms’ owner-
managers do not believe that costs can be significantly minimized and
customers can be won by environmental improvements.
2.3. Literature gaps, research hypotheses, and model development
These discouraging results in previous studies have been partially
overcome by more recent ones, but some gaps already exist in the lit-
erature on sustainable restaurants: The incomplete analysis of enabling
and deterring factors, the prevailing focus on the environmental side of
sustainability, and the conflicting results about the effects on firm
performance should be further addressed in empirical research. Table 1
presents a synthesis of empirical studies discussed thus far and based on
surveys aimed at deepening the relationship between sustainability and
restaurant performance.
Table 1 highlights that studies have mainly tested direct relation-
ships between social or environmental constructs and different kinds of
performance (operational or financial); in only two studies were
mediated relationships tested (Chou et al., 2018; Perramon et al.,
S. Cantele and F. Cassia International Journal of Hospitality Management 87 (2020) 102510

Table 1
Literature synthesis.
Study Independent variables Dependent variables Relationship type

Alonso-Almeida et al. (2018) Environmental management Financial performance Positive

practices Market success factors No relationship
Social management practices Financial performance Positive
Market success factors Positive
Bagur-Femenías et al. (2015; results referred to Environmental management Competitiveness No relationship
restaurants’ subsample) CSR Competitiveness Positive
Competitiveness Financial performance Positive
S. F. Chou et al. (2018) Sustainable Service Performance Positive, mediated by perceived innovation and
resources
Jang et al., 2017 Environmental sustainability Financial performance Positive
Nonfinancial performance Positive
Lach et al. (2013) Environmental management Financial performance Positive
practices
Environmental management Market success factors No relationship
practices
Market success factors Financial performance Positive
Perramon et al. (2014) Green practices Operational performance Positive
Competitiveness Positive
Firm performance Negative (direct)
No relationship (mediated by operational
performance)
Positive (mediated by competitiveness)

2014), which in one case (Perramon et al., 2014) yielded conflicting
results. However, if we consider more general studies on other sectors,
the occurrence of divergent results for the sustainability–performance
relationship has been related to different ideas and measurements of
CSR or environmental constructs (Lu et al., 2014) or to the evidence
that the link with performance is too complex to be defined by a sim-
plistic direct relationship (Margolis and Walsh, 2003; Van Beurden and
Gössling, 2008). Actually, while some environmental practices have a
clear impact in terms of efficiency (e.g., water and energy savings or
reduction in waste of materials), many others are not expected to have
an immediate effect in terms of cost reduction or income increase
(Ambec and Lanoie, 2008). Therefore, limitations of previous studies
could be attributable to the lack of adequate investigations on the real
path of influence, since possible mediator or moderator factors may
have not been fully investigated (Cantele et al., 2015; Margolis and
Walsh, 2003).
Hence, more recent developments in the sustainability–performance
relationship literature have included some types of operational per-
formance measures—in particular, customer satisfaction and competi-
tiveness—that act to increase financial performance (Cantele and
Zardini, 2018; Galbreath and Shum, 2012; Saeidi et al., 2015). Cus-
tomer satisfaction can be defined as customers’ overall evaluation of the
firm's products and services on the basis of a relationship with the firm
over time (Galbreath, 2010). If we consider sustainability in light of
stakeholder theory, then respect and inclusion of customer expectations
in strategy and operations can result in improved perceptions of the
firm by customers. Higher attention paid to the quality of products and
services offered can be considered part of CSR, according to Carroll
(1979) and Maignan et al. (1999): Galbreath and Shum (2012) and
Saeidi et al. (2015) demonstrated that customer satisfaction mediates
the relationship between CSR and firm performance. Business-con-
sumer companies, such as restaurants, experience a high level of sta-
keholder scrutiny, and therefore could use sustainable practices to
achieve competitive advantages (Perramon et al., 2014): Through these
practices, they can improve their image, attract new green customers
and introduce new elements of satisfaction in existing customers, which
would improve their market position. Further, competitiveness can be
linked with corporate resources and capabilities developed through
CSR practices (Porter and Kramer, 2007). Starting from these motiva-
tions and literature gaps, the present study suggests a new model of
relationships to examine sustainability in restaurants (Fig. 1), setting
the following research hypotheses:
H1. Sustainability attitude positively affects sustainability
implementation.
H2. Barriers negatively affect sustainability implementation.
H3. Sustainability implementation positively affects customer
satisfaction.
H4. Sustainability implementation positively affects competitiveness.
H5. Sustainability implementation positively affects firm performance,
but only through (H5a) customer satisfaction, (H5b) competitiveness,
and (H5c) both customer satisfaction and competitiveness (double
mediation).
3. Method
A cross-sectional research design was applied, relying on a survey in
Italy’s restaurant industry. The questionnaire included multiple-item
measures for all the research constructs. All items were derived from
existing studies and were measured on Likert-type, five-point scales
with extremes being 1 = totally disagree and 5 = totally agree. Table 2
provides the complete list of the items used in this study together with
the detailed indication of their sources.
Data collection occurred in May–July 2018, using a list of 1786
restaurants extracted from AIDA, the Bureau Van Dijk database of
Italian financial statements, integrated with some other restaurants’
names gathered from a local trade association. All the restaurants are
located in the North of Italy. We sent each firm an email with a link to
the online questionnaire; after the first round of emails, we contacted
nonrespondents by telephone, to solicit their participation in the
survey. We sent reminder emails to nonrespondents three and six weeks
after the first invitation. Overall, 334 usable responses were received,
yielding a response rate of 18.7 %. The questionnaires were mostly
completed by owners (n = 195) and managers (n = 51), followed by
chefs and administrative staff. The vast majority of the participating
firms were small-sized firms. Only 31 firms reported annual revenues
equal to or higher than 1 million euros, and only 64 firms had 50 or
more permanent employees. Moreover, the average number of indoor
seats was 98.21 and of outdoor seats was 71.11 (for the 156 restaurants
that had outdoor spaces).
Respondents and nonrespondents were compared using data ex-
tracted from AIDA. Nonresponse bias was also evaluated by comparing

4
S. Cantele and F. Cassia
Fig. 1. The research model.
early and late respondents using t-tests with several key variables, as
suggested by Armstrong and Overton (1977). The analysis showed no
significant difference.
We conducted data analysis using covariance-based structural
equation modeling (CB-SEM) because our focus was on theory testing
instead of developing theory, which is typical of exploratory research
(Hair et al., 2011). The software IBM SPSS Amos 25 was used for this
purpose. Before using CB-SEM, we checked that the assumptions of
normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity were met (Kline, 2011). As
regards collinearity, we ran a set of multiple regressions, each with a
different variable as the dependent variable and the others as the in-
dependent variables, finding that for all the regressions, R2 was smaller
than the cutoff of 0.90 (Kline, 2011). Moreover, we examined the
highest values for skewness and kurtosis, which were respectively 1.803
and 3.381, significantly below the cutoffs of 3 and 8 (Kline, 2011). We
also inspected the values of the Mahalanobis distance (D) for each case
to assess the absence of outliers. Based on these analyses, we concluded
that data were normally distributed. In addition, we checked and
confirmed linearity and homoscedasticity by examining the plot of re-
siduals.
4. Results
Before testing the hypotheses, we evaluated the measurement
model, using a two-step approach. First, we ran a confirmatory factor
analysis with all the first-order constructs. The findings revealed a good
overall model fit (Bagozzi and Yi, 2012; Kaplan, 2009). In detail, χ2 (df
= 475) was 754.580, resulting in a value of χ2/df of 1.589, which is
well below the cutoff of 3 (Kline, 2011). Moreover, CFI was 0.954,
above the suggested levels of 0.93 (Bagozzi and Yi, 2012) and 0.90 (Hu
and Bentler, 1999). Finally, RMSEA was 0.042 (pclose = 0.991) and
SRMR was 0.054, both below the thresholds of respectively 0.06 and
0.08 (Hu and Bentler, 1999).
All the standardized factor loadings were greater than 0.70, apart
from four factor loadings, which were nonetheless greater than 0.60.
Hence, good indicator reliability was obtained (Bagozzi and Yi, 2012).
In addition, the values of the average variance extracted (AVE) for each
latent construct reached or exceeded 0.50, while the values of compo-
site reliability were all greater than 0.70 (Table 2). Therefore, con-
vergent validity was confirmed (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Then,
discriminant validity was confirmed by checking that the AVE of each
latent construct was higher than the construct’s highest squared cor-
relation with any other construct (Table 3; Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Subsequently, we ran another confirmatory factor analysis, in-
troducing sustainability implementation as the second-order factor of
5
International Journal of Hospitality Management 87 (2020) 102510
the following five dimensions: customers, suppliers, employees, com-
munity, and environmental sustainability. Again, the overall model fit
was good: χ2 (df = 500) = 848.503, χ2/df = 1.697, CFI = 0.942,
RMSEA = 0.046 (pclose = 0.908), SRMR = 0.066. Moreover, both
convergent (AVE = 0.54) and discriminant validity were confirmed
(see Table 4). After confirming the validity of the measurement model,
we could use the corresponding latent variables in the structural model.
The structural model showed satisfying fit (Table 5 and Fig. 2). Chi-
square (df = 507) was 889.607 and the value of χ2/df was 1.755, well
below the recommended threshold of 3 (Kline, 2011). CFI was 0.936,
thus meeting the minimum requirements of 0.93 (Bagozzi and Yi, 2012)
and 0.90 (Bentler and Huang, 2014). Moreover, the values of RMSEA
(0.048) and SRMR (0.078) did not exceed the suggested thresholds of
respectively 0.06 and 0.08 (Rigdon, 2014).
The results highlight that sustainability attitude positively influ-
ences sustainability implementation (β = 0.653, p < 0.01). Therefore,
Hypothesis 1 is supported. In addition, barriers have a negative impact
on sustainability implementation (β = −0.101, p < 0.10). Therefore,
Hypothesis 2 is also supported. The analysis also highlights that sus-
tainability implementation positively influences both customer sa-
tisfaction (β = 0.491, p < 0.01) and competitiveness (β = 0.360,
p < 0.01). Hence, Hypotheses 3 and 4 are supported.
Next, we examined the hypothesized relationships linking sustain-
ability implementation to performance through satisfaction (H5a) and
competitiveness (H5b) and through both of them, that is, double
mediation (H5c). To assess the existence of the suggested double
mediation effects, the absence of a significant direct impact of sus-
tainability implementation on performance was checked and confirmed
(β = −0.111, n.s.). Then, we tested the significance of the indirect
effects using the bootstrapping technique (500 replications). The in-
direct effect from sustainability implementation to performance
through satisfaction was significant (β = 0.134, p < 0.05), supporting
Hypothesis 5a. Similarly, the indirect effect from sustainability im-
plementation to performance through competitiveness was significant
(β = 0.289, p < 0.01). Hence, Hypothesis 5b was supported as well.
Finally, the indirect effect from sustainability implementation to per-
formance through first satisfaction and then competitiveness (double
mediation) was significant (β = 0.166, p < 0.01). Therefore,
Hypothesis 5c was supported.
5. Discussion and conclusion
This study proposes and tests a new model of causal relationships
about sustainability in restaurants. In this model, the decision to adopt
sustainability practices is influenced by two contrasting forces: the
 S. Cantele and F. Cassia

Table 2
Measurement scales.
Construct Item Source Cronbach’s alpha CR AVE

Customers CU1: The firm is committed to customers’ health and safety and provides training to employees Alonso-Almeida et al. (2018); Kasim and Ismail (2012); GRI 416 0.75 0.76 0.51
on these issues.
CU2: The firm is committed to product and service quality. Llach et al. (2013)
CU3: Compliance with quality and safety is monitored, and deviations are corrected. Alonso-Almeida et al., 2018; Kasim and Ismail (2012); GRI 416
Suppliers SU1: The firm selects suppliers not involved in human rights or other social issues violations. GRI 412 0.73 0.75 0.50
SU2: The firm collaborates with suppliers for improving the product/service. Llach et al. (2013)
SU 3: The firm engages suppliers in CSR and green management choices. Kasim and Ismail (2012)
Employees EM1: The firm is committed to maintaining employment. Alonso-Almeida et al. (2018); Bagur-Femenías et al. (2015); 0.80 0.82 0.54
EM2: The firm has a good work climate. Alonso-Almeida et al. (2018); Bagur-Femenías et al. (2015)
EM3: The firm has measures to reconcile work and family life. Alonso-Almeida et al. (2018); Bagur-Femenías et al. (2015)
EM4: The firm provides procedures that help to insure the health and safety of its employees. Lindgreen et al. (2009)
Community CO1: The firm is engaged in cooperating with the community for development and local GRI 413; Jang et al. (2017) 0.74 0.74 0.59
territory programs.
CO2: The firm is recognized for its commitment to social issues. Alonso-Almeida et al., 2018; Kasim and Ismail (2012); GRI 416
Environmental sustainability EN1: The firm implements water-saving practices. Perramon et al. (2014) 0.90 0.90 0.64
EN2: The firm implements energy-saving practices. Perramon et al. (2014)

6
EN3: The firm adopts practices to reduce emissions. Rao et al. (2009)
EN4: The firm adopts practices to reduce solid waste. Rao et al. (2009)
EN5: The firm adopts practices to reduce liquid waste. Rao et al. (2009)
Sustainability attitude AT1: I feel that there is a need to start a path toward sustainability. Kasim and Ismail (2012) 0.82 0.84 0.56
AT2: I am concerned about the preservation of the environment. Kasim and Ismail (2012)
AT3: I try to be updated about the topic of sustainability in the restaurant industry. Kasim and Ismail (2012)
AT4: I consider that implementing sustainability practices is on my restaurant’s priority list. Kasim and Ismail (2012)
Barriers BA1: Implementing an environmental management system is too expensive for this restaurant. Kasim and Ismail (2012) 0.79 0.80 0.58
BA2: I feel restricted by environmental regulations, which are difficult to realize. Kasim and Ismail (2012); Chou et al. (2012)
BA3: There is no advantage to implementing sustainability practices. Chou et al. (2012); Kasim and Ismail (2012)
Satisfaction SA1: Our customers are very satisfied with the products/services we offer. Galbreath and Shum (2012) 0.83 0.84 0.57
SA2: The likelihood that our customers will recommend our products/services to others is high. Galbreath and Shum (2012)
SA3: Our customers are very satisfied with the quality of our products/services. Galbreath and Shum (2012)
SA4: The ability to achieve high levels of customer satisfaction is a major strength of our firm. Galbreath and Shum (2012)
Competitiveness CO1: The firm can seize new market opportunities (compared with competitors). Chou et al. (2012); Rao et al. (2009) 0.75 0.76 0.61
CO2: The firm has improved its corporate image (compared with competitors). Rao et al. (2009); Chen et al. (2006); Perramon et al. (2014); Alonso-
Almeida et al. (2018)
Performance PE1: Profits have increased over the past years. Alonso-Almeida et al. (2018); Llach et al. (2013); Perramon et al. (2014) 0.93 0.96 0.81
PE2: The firm has attracted new clients over the past years. Perramon et al. (2014)
PE3: The firm has increased its market share over the past years. Alonso-Almeida et al. (2018); Llach et al. (2013)
PE4: Occupation rate has increased over the past years. Alonso-Almeida et al. (2018); Llach et al. (2013)
International Journal of Hospitality Management 87 (2020) 102510
S. Cantele and F. Cassia International Journal of Hospitality Management 87 (2020) 102510

Table 3 mainly the aversion to strict environmental regulation and the fear of
Average variance extracted and squared correlations among constructs (first- overspending on environmental systems without having concrete ben-
order model). efits. However, the analysis results reveal that these barriers are less
Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 powerful, in contrast with a large part of the literature on small busi-
nesses focused on highlighting the constraints limiting CSR adoption in
1. Customers .51 SMEs (El Baz et al., 2016; Jamali et al., 2009; Jenkins, 2006; Vázquez-
2. Suppliers .36 .50
Carrasco and López-Pérez, 2013).
3. Employees .41 .33 .54
4. Community .22 .45 .13 .59 When sustainability is implemented in restaurants, some positive
5. Environmental .17 .41 .26 .23 .64 effects occur: Customer satisfaction and competitiveness are positive
sustainability outcomes of sustainability, but also act as mediators in the indirect
6. Satisfaction .22 .11 .24 .12 .08 .57
relationship between sustainability and firm performance. These results
7. Competitiveness .17 .17 .24 .19 .12 .36 .61
8. Performance .05 .01 .07 .04 .00 .13 .22 .81
highlight that the search for the direct impact of sustainability on fi-
9. Sustainability attitude .13 .29 .17 .22 .35 .08 .23 .01 .56 nancial performance could be worthless because the implementation of
10. Barriers .07 .03 .02 .08 .02 .00 .03 .06 .06 .58 social and environmental practices is insufficient to attain positive
outcomes unless firms do communicate regarding these efforts to cus-
Model fit statistics: χ2 (df = 475) = 754.580; χ2/df = 1.589; CFI = 0.954; tomers and other stakeholders to gain a positive image and to capitalize
RMSEA = 0.042 (pclose = 0.991); SRMR = 0.054.
a competitive advantage in terms of differentiation strategy.
Bold values on the diagonal indicate the average variance extracted for each
From a theoretical perspective, this study has three main con-
construct. Values below the diagonal show the squared correlations.
tributions. First, compared with other studies, it presents a more com-
prehensive conceptualization and measurement of sustainability, which
Table 4
Average variance extracted and squared correlations among constructs (second-
encompasses environmental practices together with social and eco-
order model). nomic practices toward different categories of stakeholders (i.e., em-
ployees, customers, suppliers, and the community). Previous studies
Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6
were almost exclusively focused on the environmental dimension of
1. Satisfaction .57 sustainability: The analyzed constructs included in various models were
2. Competitiveness .36 .61 environmental practices (Bagur-Femenöas et al., 2015), green practices
3. Performance .13 .22 .81 (Chou et al., 2012; Perramon et al., 2014), EMPs (Alonso-Almeida et al.,
4. Sustainability attitude .08 .23 .01 .56
2018; Llach et al., 2013), or environmental indicators (Rao et al.,
5. Barriers .00 .03 .06 .06 .58
6. Sustainability implementation .26 .31 .05 .43 .06 .54 2009). Among the practices, these studies usually include energy- and
water-saving practices, selective collection of solid residues and waste
Model fit statistics: χ2 (df = 500) = 848.503; χ2/df = 1.697; CFI = 0.942; management, use of green cleaning products, and purchase of ecolo-
RMSEA = 0.046 (pclose = 0.908); SRMR = 0.066. gical products, whereas they consider management practices related to
Bold values on the diagonal indicate the average variance extracted for each the environment in terms of employee environmental training, ecolo-
construct. Values below the diagonal show the squared correlations. gical arguments in marketing campaigns, and the pursuit of environ-
mental strategies. The present study presents an environmental sus-
Table 5 tainability construct that includes the impact of main restaurants in
Structural effects. terms of inputs (water and energy consumption) and outputs (emissions
Unst. coeff. SE Std. coeff. and solid and liquid wastes).
Conversely, fewer studies have considered CSR practices. Among
Structural effects
these, most measured CSR using ESG indicators included in secondary
Sustainability attitude → 0.504** 0.063 0.653
Sustainability implementation databases, while only two studies (Alonso-Almeida et al., 2018; Bagur-
Barriers → Sustainability −0.087* 0.049 −0.101 Femenías et al., 2015) presented social management practices as a se-
implementation parate construct mainly dedicated to employees, including practices on
Sustainability implementation → 0.472** 0.073 0.491 work climate, work–life balance, training programs, and equal oppor-
Satisfaction
Sustainability implementation → 0.481** 0.101 0.360
tunity programs. More recent studies have tried to expand this point of
Competitiveness view by proposing constructs dedicated to sustainability, such as en-
Sustainability implementation → −0.200 0.139 −0.111 vironmental sustainability performance (Jang et al., 2017) or sustain-
Performance able service (Chou et al., 2018); however, in these studies as well the
Satisfaction → Competitiveness 0.587** 0.108 0.422
environmental topic previously presented in the literature prevails with
Satisfaction → Performance 0.283* 0.147 0.152
Competitiveness → Performance 0.601** 0.128 0.446 some limited extensions dedicated to community support or sustainable
Model fit food.
χ2 889.60, df = 507, p < 0.01 The present study combines previously tested scales of environ-
RMSEA 0.048 [0.042 − 0.053] (pclose = 0.77) mental practices with social practices without limiting them to em-
SRMR 0.078
CFI 0.936
ployees (e.g., work climate, health and safety, work–life balance, and
job security), but instead including other relevant stakeholders (i.e.,
* p < 0.10. customers, suppliers, and the community) and considering items sug-
** p < 0.01. gested by universally recognized sustainability standards, such as the
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). In the present model, social respon-
attitude of owners/managers to sustainability as the enabling factor, sibility toward customers is intended in terms of service quality and
and the barriers of implementation perceived as hindering factors. commitment on health and safety issues in serving them; action towards
These two forces have different effects on sustainability: The stronger suppliers include collaboration aimed at improving the quality of food
impact is that of entrepreneurs’ attitude to sustainability, that is their or service and engagement on CSR and environmental issues; commu-
personal concern about the environment and the moral push to be in- nity engagement is measured in terms of cooperation for local devel-
volved in this issue, the idea that sustainability is a priority in restau- opment and firm’s commitment toward territorial social issues.
rant management, and that the industry is moving in this direction. This The second contribution of this research resides in having tested an
positive attitude is counterbalanced by some perceived constraints, indirect relationship path from sustainability to firm performance, via

7
S. Cantele and F. Cassia
Fig. 2. The structural model.
customer satisfaction and competitiveness. Previous studies have
mainly considered direct relationships: Some showed a direct positive
relationship between environmental practices and financial perfor-
mance (Alonso-Almeida et al., 2018; Llach et al., 2013) and others a
negative one (Perramon et al., 2014). In most studies, performance has
been measured with reference to two different and separated con-
structs, dedicated to financial and nonfinancial performance (Jang
et al., 2017), or similarly to overall impression and operating profits
(Chou et al., 2018), but without testing mediating effects of operational
measures of success on financial performance.
One study (Bagur-Femenías et al., 2015) found that CSR positively
influences competitiveness and that competitiveness positively affects
financial performance, but it did not test mediating effects of compe-
titiveness. Further, Perramon et al. (2014) found that green practices
negatively affect firm performance if considering a direct relationship,
whereas the indirect relationship mediated by competitiveness is posi-
tive: Green practices positively influence competitiveness, which, in
turn, affects firm performance.
The present study shows that sustainability implementation has
positive effects on two intermediate measures of firm success, namely,
customer satisfaction and competitiveness, and indirectly affects firm
performance via these two mediators. The constructs used to test the
effects of sustainability are based on scales already tested in the lit-
erature and refer to conceptually distinguished outcomes. Customer
satisfaction refers to the service and product quality and to the will-
ingness to recommend the restaurant; competitiveness refers to the
superior image and perceived differentiation from competitors; and
firm performance is, in fact, a synthesis of improvements in financial
performance in terms of profits, number of customers and market share,
and occupation rate.
As for the third contribution, the model presented here is a com-
prehensive one, which not only shows the impact of sustainability on
various kinds of performance, but also explains the pressures perceived
8
International Journal of Hospitality Management 87 (2020) 102510
in terms of enabling and deterring factors of sustainability. In fact, two
causal relationships were included as antecedents of sustainability: the
positive impact of awareness and attitude of entrepreneur/manager of
the restaurant to social and environmental responsibility, and the ne-
gative pressure exerted by perceived difficulties in implementing sus-
tainability. In particular, this model not only tests the effects of barriers
such as perceived costs and low convenience, but also aversion to en-
vironmental regulation, which is typical of SMEs, who fear bureaucracy
and express difficulties in implementing systems that are designed for
large companies but imposed also on small businesses, regardless of
their resource constraints.
Only a few studies have presented comprehensive models of drivers
and impact of sustainability. Perramon et al. (2014) considered a single
construct dedicated to environmental pressures as influencing green
practices. They showed that pressures from customers, suppliers, the
government, competitors, and other stakeholders exert a positive push
on the decision to adopt such practices. Jang et al. (2017) found that
leadership and stakeholder engagement mediates the relationship be-
tween values and environmental sustainability performance. Further,
Chou et al. (2012) analyzed behavioral intention regarding green
practices and found positive effects from attitude and perceived beha-
vioral control, but did not include sustainability practices or perfor-
mance effects in the model. From the point of view of barriers, only
Kasim and Ismail (2012) studied some factors deterring environment-
friendly practices, such as cost considerations, regulation or supply
chain constraints, or the perceived lack of financial benefits. Never-
theless, they did not test the causal relationship in a statistical model.
Some managerial implications can be deduced from this discussion:
Restaurants can benefit from adopting sustainability, intended as a
holistic implementation of environmental practices, and positive re-
lationships with the most important stakeholders (i.e., employees,
customers, suppliers, and the community). Examples of sustainability
practices emerging from some preliminary interviews with restaurant
S. Cantele and F. Cassia
owners participating in the survey are as follows: the use of LED lamps,
waste reduction, doggy bags for taking home food not eaten in the
restaurant, use of local and seasonal products, selective waste collec-
tion, and vegan or gluten-free menus, as well as training of human
resources about health and safety in food preparation and service. All
these practices can be introduced without huge investments and can
yield positive spillovers in terms of relationships with customers and
employees. The benefits of this approach are also financial, but to reach
this second-level result, restaurants have to communicate their in-
itiatives to customers to increase customer satisfaction, firm image, and
those critical success factors that distinguish the restaurant from its
competitors: These recommendations stem from the proved mediation
relationships included in our model, which indicate that sustainability
practices can have a positive impact on financial performance only
when triggered either by customer satisfaction or competitiveness or by
both of them with customer satisfaction influencing competitiveness
(i.e., double mediation). The motivation for implementing sustain-
ability stems not only from such expectations benefits but also from the
attitude of the entrepreneurs, which can be triggered by spreading the
sustainability culture in the industry and by boosting their respon-
siveness to responsible consumers. In this study, possible resistance
based on cost concerns, fear of regulations, and low perception of
benefits was proved to be weaker than the positive pressure of the
aforementioned enabling factors; this means that a proactive manage-
rial approach to sustainability can act to increase success and perfor-
mance, even in presence of some constraints These results should
therefore encourage restaurant entrepreneurs and managers to include
sustainability in their strategic purposes and business operations, to
proactively implement the sustainable development agenda.
Nevertheless, this study has some limitations. First, the model is
based on a self-administered survey that asked the respondents to ex-
press their perceptions about firms’ practices and some operational and
financial measures of performance. Although this method of data col-
lection is frequently used to test and validate models in management
studies, it could present some risk of bias, compared with studies using
secondary or more objective data. Another source of possible bias is
having a single informant for each restaurant, who could occupy dif-
ferent positions ranging from owner to chef or manager. Their different
roles imply that they have different information levels and viewpoints
in describing restaurants practices and performance. Third, the study is
based on a sample of restaurants located in a single country (Italy), and
thus, the results need to be tested in different contexts.
Further studies could be dedicated to deepening the antecedents of
sustainability by including in the model different types of barriers not
included in this study, and drivers different from owners’ attitude.
Moreover, further mediation paths could be added in future studies:
Specific constructs dedicated to image and reputation or employee
commitment, already tested in studies outside the restaurant sector,
could be added to new models dedicated to this industry. Moderating
variables, such as the restaurant’s market positioning (e.g., upscale
versus other restaurants) could enrich the model, as well. Finally,
qualitative studies based on interviews can deepen the results obtained
by this study by adding further details and insights that a quantitative
model could not provide.
Acknowledgements
This article presents some results of the project “Modello di
responsabilità sociale d’impresa per l’ecosistema di business della ris-
torazione”, cod. 1172-1-948-2016, funded by Veneto Region (Italy).
References
Al-aomar, R., Hussain, M., 2017. An assessment of green practices in a hotel supply chain:
a study of UAE hotels. J. Hosp. Tour. Manage. 32, 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhtm.2017.04.002.
9
International Journal of Hospitality Management 87 (2020) 102510
Alonso-Almeida, M. del M., Bagur-Femenías, L., Llach, J., Perramon, J., 2018.
Sustainability in small tourist businesses: the link between initiatives and perfor-
mance. Curr. Issues Tour. 21 (1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2015.
1066764.
Ambec, S., Lanoie, P., 2008. Does it pay to be green? A systematic overview. Acad.
Manage. Perspect. 22 (4), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2008.35590353.
Armstrong, J.S., Overton, T.S., 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J.
Mark. Res. 14 (3), 396–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377701400320.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 2012. Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural
equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 40 (1), 8–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-
011-0278-x.
Bagur-Femenías, L., Martí, J., Rocafort, A., 2015. Impact of sustainable management
policies on tourism companies’ performance: the case of the metropolitan region of
Madrid. Curr. Issues Tour. 18 (4), 376–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.
2014.932757.
Battisti, M., Perry, M., 2011. Walking the talk? Environmental responsibility from the
perspective of small-business owners. Corp. Soc. Responsibility Environ. Manage. 18
(3), 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.266.
Baumgartner, R.J., Rauter, R., 2017. Strategic perspectives of corporate sustainability
management to develop a sustainable organization. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 81–92.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.146.
Bentler, P.M., Huang, W., 2014. On components, latent variables, PLS and simple
methods: reactions to Ridgon’s rethinking of PLS. Long Range Plann. 47 (3), 138–145.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2014.02.005.
Beske, P., Land, A., Seuring, S., 2014. Sustainable supply chain management practices and
dynamic capabilities in the food industry: a critical analysis of the literature. Int. J.
Prod. Econ. 152, 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.12.026.
Bocken, N.M.P., Short, S.W., Rana, P., Evans, S., 2014. A literature and practice review to
develop sustainable business model archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 42–56. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039.
Boons, F., Lüdeke-Freund, F., 2013. Business models for sustainable innovation: state-of-
the-art and steps towards a research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 45, 9–19. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.007.
Brammer, S., Hoejmose, S., Marchant, K., 2012. Environmental management in SME s in
the UK: practices, pressures and perceived benefits. Bus. Strategy Environ. 21 (7),
423–434. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.717.
Cantele, S., Francescato, A., Campedelli, B., 2015. Corporate social performance and fi-
nancial performance: further suggestions from a literature review. Proceedings of 8th
Annual Conference of the EuroMed Academy of Business (EMAB) 2511–2514.
Cantele, S., Zardini, A., 2018. Is sustainability a competitive advantage for small busi-
nesses? An empirical analysis of possible mediators in the sustainability–financial
performance relationship. J. Clean. Prod. 182, 166–176.
Carroll, A.B., 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance.
Acad. Manage. Rev. 4 (4), 497–505. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1979.4498296.
Chen, et al., 2006. The influence of green innovation performance on corporate ad-
vantage in Taiwan. J. Bus. Ethics 67 (4), 331–339.
Chou, C.J., Chen, K.S., Wang, Y.Y., 2012. Green practices in the restaurant industry from
an innovation adoption perspective: evidence from Taiwan. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 31
(3), 703–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.09.006.
Chou, S.F., Horng, J.S., Liu, C.H., Gan, B., 2018. Explicating restaurant performance: the
nature and foundations of sustainable service and organizational environment. Int. J.
Hosp. Manage. 72 (April 2017), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.01.004.
Dean, T., Brown, R., Stango, V., 2000. Environmental regulation as a barrier to the for-
mation of small manufacturing establishments: a longitudinal examination. J.
Environ. Econ. Manage. 40 (1), 56–75. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1999.1105.
El Baz, J., Laguir, I., Marais, M., Staglianò, R., 2016. Influence of national institutions on
the corporate social responsibility practices of small- and medium-sized enterprises in
the food-processing industry: differences between France and Morocco. J. Bus. Ethics
134 (1), 117–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2417-z.
Engert, S., Rauter, R., Baumgartner, R.J., 2016. Exploring the integration of corporate
sustainability into strategic management: a literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 112,
2833–2850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.031.
Fassin, Y., 2008. SMEs and the fallacy of formalising CSR. Bus. Ethics 17 (4), 364–378.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2008.00540.x.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18 (1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.
1177/002224378101800104.
Frederick, W.C., 1994. From CSR1 to CSR2: the maturing of business-and-society thought.
Bus. Soc. 33 (2), 150–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039403300202.
Gadenne, D.L., Kennedy, J., McKeiver, C., 2009. An empirical study of environmental
awareness and practices in SMEs. J. Bus. Ethics 84 (1), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10551-008-9672-9.
Galbreath, J., 2010. How does corporate social responsibility benefit firms? Evidence
from Australia. Eur. Bus. Rev. 22 (4), 411–431. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09555341011056186.
Galbreath, J., Shum, P., 2012. Do customer satisfaction and reputation mediate the
CSR–FP link? Evidence from Australia. Aust. J. Manage. 37 (2), 211–229. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0312896211432941.
Gao, Y.L., Mattila, A.S., Lee, S., 2016. A meta-analysis of behavioral intentions for en-
vironment-friendly initiatives in hospitality research. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 54,
107–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.01.010.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2011. PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark.
Theory Pract. 19 (2), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202.
Higgins-Desbiolles, F., Moskwa, E., Wijesinghe, G., 2017. How sustainable is sustainable
hospitality research? A review of sustainable restaurant literature from 1991 to 2015.
Curr. Issues Tour. 22 (13), 1551–1580. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.
S. Cantele and F. Cassia
1383368.
Hsiao, T.-Y., Chuang, C.M., Kuo, N.W., Yu, S.M.F., 2014. Establishing attributes of an
environmental management system for green hotel evaluation. Int. J. Hosp. Manage.
36, 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.09.005.
Hu, Lt., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 6 (1), 1–55.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
Inwood, S.M., Sharp, J.S., Moore, R.H., Stinner, D.H., 2009. Restaurants, chefs and local
foods: insights drawn from application of a diffusion of innovation framework. Agric.
Human Values 26 (3), 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9165-6.
Jamali, D., Zanhour, M., Keshishian, T., 2009. Peculiar strengths and relational attributes
of SMEs in the context of CSR. J. Bus. Ethics 87 (3), 355–377. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10551-008-9925-7.
Jang, Y.J., Zheng, T., Bosselman, R., 2017. Top managers’ environmental values, lea-
dership, and stakeholder engagement in promoting environmental sustainability in
the restaurant industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 63, 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhm.2017.03.005.
Jenkins, H., 2006. Small business champions for corporate social responsibility. J. Bus.
Ethics 67 (3), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9182-6.
Jeong, E.H., Jang, S.S., Day, J., Ha, S., 2014. The impact of eco-friendly practices on green
image and customer attitudes: an investigation in a café setting. Int. J. Hosp. Manage.
41, 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.03.002.
Kang, K.H., Lee, S., Huh, C., 2010. Impacts of positive and negative corporate social
responsibility activities on company performance in the hospitality industry. Int. J.
Hosp. Manage. 29 (1), 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.05.006.
Kaplan, D., 2009. Structural Equation Modeling: Foundations and Extensions. Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Kasim, A., Ismail, A., 2012. Environmentally friendly practices among restaurants: dri-
vers. J. Sustain. Tour. 20 (4), 551–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.
621540.
Kim, E., Ham, S., 2016. Restaurants’ disclosure of nutritional information as a corporate
social responsibility initiative: customers’ attitudinal and behavioral responses. Int. J.
Hosp. Manage. 55 (December 2014), 96–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.
02.002.
Kim, M.C., Kim, Y.H., 2014. Corporate social responsibility and shareholder value of
restaurant firms. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 40, 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.
2014.03.006.
Kline, R.B., 2011. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed.
Guilford, New York, NY.
Kwok, L., Huang, Y.K., Hu, L., 2016. Green attributes of restaurants: what really matters
to consumers? Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 55, 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.
2016.03.002.
Lee, S., Singal, M., Kang, K.H., 2013. The corporate social responsibility-financial per-
formance link in the U.S. restaurant industry: do economic conditions matter? Int. J.
Hosp. Manage. 32 (1), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.03.007.
Lee, K., Conklin, M., Bordi, P., Cranage, D., 2016a. Restaurants’ healthy eating initiatives
for children increase parents’ perceptions of CSR, empowerment, and visit intentions.
Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 59, 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.07.008.
Lee, K.H., Herold, D.M., Yu, A.L., 2016b. Small and medium enterprises and corporate
social responsibility practice: a Swedish Perspective. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ.
Manage. 23 (2), 88–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1366.
Lindgreen, et al., 2009. Corporate social responsibility: an empirical investigation of U.S.
organizations. J. Bus. Ethics 85 (2), 303–323.
Llach, J., Perramon, J., del Mar Alonso-Almeida, M., Bagur-Femenías, L., 2013. Joint
impact of quality and environmental practices on firm performance in small service
businesses: an empirical study of restaurants. J. Clean. Prod. 44, 96–104. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.10.046.
Lu, W., Chau, K.W., Wang, H., Pan, W., 2014. A decade’s debate on the nexus between
corporate social and corporate financial performance: a critical review of empirical
studies 2002–2011. J. Clean. Prod. 79, 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2014.04.072.
Lüdeke-Freund, F., Carroux, S., Joyce, A., Massa, L., Breuer, H., 2018. The sustainable
business model pattern taxonomy—45 patterns to support sustainability-oriented
business model innovation. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 15, 145–162. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.spc.2018.06.004.
Maignan, I., Ferrell, O.C., Hult, G.T.M., 1999. Corporate citizenship: cultural antecedents
and business benefits. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 27 (4), 455–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0092070399274005.
Margolis, J.D., Walsh, J.P., 2003. Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives by
business. Adm. Sci. Q. 48 (2), 268–305. https://doi.org/10.2307/3556659.
10
International Journal of Hospitality Management 87 (2020) 102510
Murillo, D., Lozano, J.M., 2006. SMEs and CSR: an approach in their own words to CSR. J.
Bus. Ethics 67 (3), 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9181-7.
Namkung, Y., Jang, S.C.S., 2013. Effects of restaurant green practices on brand equity
formation: do green practices really matter? Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 33 (1), 85–95.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.06.006.
Perramon, J., del Mar Alonso-Almeida, M., Llach, J., Bagur-Femenías, L., 2014. Green
practices in restaurants: impact on firm performance. Oper. Manage. Res. 7 (1–2),
2–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-014-0084-y.
Peterson, H.H., Selfa, T., Janke, R., 2010. Barriers and opportunities for sustainable food
systems in northeastern Kansas. Sustainability 2 (1), 232–251. https://doi.org/10.
3390/su2010232.
Porter, M.E., Kramer, M.R., 2007. Strategy and society: the link between competitive
advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harv. Bus. Rev. 85 (6), 136–137.
Porter, M.E., Kramer, M.R., 2011. Creating shared value. Harv. Bus. Rev. 89, 62–77.
Rao, P., Singh, A.K., la O’Castillo, O., Intal Jr., P.S., Sajid, A., 2009. A metric for corporate
environmental indicators for small and medium enterprises in the Philippines. Bus.
Strategy Environ. 18 (1), 14–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.555.
Revell, A., Blackburn, R., 2007. The business case for sustainability? An examination of
small firms in the UK’s construction and restaurant sectors. Bus. Strategy Environ. 16
(October 2005), 404–420. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.
Rhou, Y., Singal, M., Koh, Y., 2016. CSR and financial performance: the role of CSR
awareness in the restaurant industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 57, 30–39. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.05.007.
Rigdon, E.E., 2014. Rethinking partial least squares path modeling: breaking chains and
forging ahead. Long Range Plann. 47 (3), 161–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.
2014.02.003.
Roberts, S., Lawson, R., Nicholls, J., 2006. Generating regional-scale improvements in
SME corporate responsibility performance: lessons from Responsibility Northwest. J.
Bus. Ethics 67 (3), 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9184-4.
Saeidi, S.P., Sofian, S., Saeidi, P., Saeidi, S.P., Saaeidi, S.A., 2015. How does corporate
social responsibility contribute to firm financial performance? The mediating role of
competitive advantage, reputation, and customer satisfaction. J. Bus. Res. 68 (2),
341–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.024.
Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F., Hansen, E.G., 2012. Business cases for sustainability:
the role of business model innovation for corporate sustainability. Int. J. Innov.
Sustain. Dev. 6 (2), 95. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISD.2012.046944.
Sharma, A., Moon, J., Strohbehn, C., 2014. Restaurant’s decision to purchase local foods:
influence of value chain activities. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 39, 130–143. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.01.009.
Starr, A., Card, A., Benepe, C., Auld, G., Lamm, D., Smith, K., Wilken, K., 2003. Sustaining
local agriculture barriers and opportunities to direct marketing between farms and
restaurants in Colorado. Agric. Human Values 20 (3), 301–321. https://doi.org/10.
1023/A:1026169122326.
Stubbs, W., Cocklin, C., 2008. Conceptualizing a sustainability business model. Organ.
Environ. 21, 103–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026608318042.
Theodoulidis, B., Diaz, D., Crotto, F., Rancati, E., 2017. Exploring corporate social re-
sponsibility and financial performance through stakeholder theory in the tourism
industries. Tour. Manage. 62, 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.03.
018.
United Nations General Assembly, 2015. Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development. 25 September Retrieved from. https://
sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld.
Van Beurden, P., Gössling, T., 2008. The worth of values: a literature review on the re-
lation between corporate social and financial performance. J. Bus. Ethics 82 (2),
407–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9894-x.
Vázquez-Carrasco, R., López-Pérez, M.E., 2013. Small & medium-sized enterprises and
corporate social responsibility: a systematic review of the literature. Qual. Quant. 47
(6), 3205–3218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-012-9713-4.
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. Int. J.
Hosp. Manage. 34 (1), 263–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.04.001.
Williamson, D., Lynch-Wood, G., Ramsay, J., 2006. Drivers of environmental behaviour in
manufacturing SMEs and the implications for CSR. J. Bus. Ethics 67 (3), 317–330.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9187-1.
Youn, H., Hua, N., Lee, S., 2015. Does size matter? Corporate social responsibility and
firm performance in the restaurant industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 51, 127–134.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.09.008.
Youn, H., Song, S., Lee, S., Kim, J.H., 2016. Does the restaurant type matter for invest-
ment in corporate social responsibility? Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 58, 24–33. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.07.004.