The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0959-6119.htm

Green human
Green human resource resource
management, perceived green management

organizational support and their

effects on hotel employees’ 3199

behavioral outcomes Received 13 December 2020

Revised 31 March 2021
24 May 2021
Mohammed Aboramadan 26 May 2021
Accepted 29 May 2021
Department of Economics, Universita degli Studi dell’Insubria, Varese, Italy, and
Osman M. Karatepe
Faculty of Tourism, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, Turkey and
Faculty of Finance and Management in Wroclaw, WSB University in Wroclaw, Poland

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to propose a research model that explores perceived green organizational
support (OS) as a mediator of the effect of green human resource management (GHRM) on job performance
(JP) and organizational citizenship behavior toward the organization (OCB-O).
Design/methodology/approach – This paper used data obtained from small- and medium-sized hotels
in Palestine. The associations given above were tested using structural equation modeling.
Findings – The findings reveal that GHRM boosts hotel employees’ perceptions of green OS. That is, the
effective implementation of GHRM is a sign of perceived green OS. Congruent with the study predictions,
employees’ perceptions of green OS activate their JP and OCB-O. Finally, perceived green OS mediates the
impact of GHRM on JP and OCB-O.
Practical implications – Management should take advantage of green human resource practices to
acquire and retain talented employees whose environmental goals and values fit those of the company.
Employees should be involved in problem-solving on environmental sustainability and green management.
They should also participate in continuous training programs and enhance their awareness of environmental
sustainability and green management.
Originality/value – There is a lack of evidence appertaining to the effects of GHRM and perceived green
OS on non-green positive workplace performance outcomes. More importantly, there is a scarcity of evidence
about the mechanism linking GHRM to these performance outcomes.
Keywords Organizational citizenship behavior, Job performance, Hotel employees,
Green human resource management, Perceived green organizational support
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Astute managers realize that activities with an environmental sustainability and a green
focus help companies build a positive image and influence their competitive advantage, as
well as long-term survival (Luu, 2019a; Okumus et al., 2019; Sharma et al., 2020; Yong et al., International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality
2020a). Bruns-Smith et al. (2015) found that environmental and social practices in resorts Management
consisted of green training for employees, green teams, sustainability communication to Vol. 33 No. 10, 2021
pp. 3199-3222
employees or customers and green meeting program. In the same study, it was reported that © Emerald Publishing Limited
0959-6119
Marriott was named the greenest hotel company in the UK in 2011. These practices are the DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-12-2020-1440
IJCHM signs of green human resource management (GHRM), which is defined as “[. . .]the
33,10 systematic, planned alignment of typical human resource management practices with the
organization’s environmental goals[. . .]” (Jabbour, 2013, pp. 147–148). Leading companies
such as Accor Hotels seek their employees’ involvement in the process to have effective
environmental management and accomplish environmental goals (Accor Hotels’
Environmental Footprint, 2020). This is so important because “[. . .]the alignment of human
3200 resources and environmental issues can have synergistic effects” (Yong et al., 2020b, p. 212).
GHRM highlights the injection of green practices into human resource management
functions. However, management should walk the talk by demonstrating that the company has
already invested much in its GHRM practices and environmental sustainability program (Ari
et al., 2020). Employees who perceive that management is really committed to the successful
implementation of GHRM support and accept the company’s activities with an environmental
sustainability and a green focus (Yong et al., 2020b). Once accepted by employees, GHRM
practices (e.g. training and rewarding) motivate them to be involved in the organization’s
environmental sustainability program (Ansari et al., 2021; Yong et al., 2020a).
GHRM practices contribute to the development of perceived green organizational
support (OS), which refers to “[. . .]the specific beliefs held by employees concerning how
much the organization values their contributions toward sustainability” (Lamm et al., 2015,
p. 209). Ramus (2011) persuasively argues that OS is important for motivating employees to
exhibit eco-friendly behaviors and such employees may be eco-innovators. As propounded
by OS theory, human resource practices and favorable job conditions foster OS (García-Chas
et al., 2016; Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). Employees’ interpretation of these initiatives and
conditions is the basis for perceived OS (García-Chas et al., 2016). Based on this theoretical
reasoning, we contend that GHRM initiatives send strong signals to employees that the
organization values their contributions toward environmental sustainability and green
management and become the basis for perceived green OS (Pinzone et al., 2019).
OS engenders positive behavioral outcomes. This is supported by social information
processing theory (SIP) (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978). That is, employees exhibit high levels of
workplace performance, as they interpret the company’s investment in the development of
their skills, knowledge and abilities as cues of OS (Aryee et al., 2012). Through various
GHRM initiatives, employees perceive that the organization takes pride in their
accomplishments toward environmental sustainability and green management and cares
about their well-being (Pinzone et al., 2019). They, in turn, are expected to display pro-
environmental behaviors. Such employees are also expected to exhibit elevated levels of job
performance (JP) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) toward the organization
(OCB-O). JP refers to the behaviors needed to carry out the tasks and responsibilities given
in a formal job description, while OCB-O refers to employees’ discretionary behaviors
toward the organization (Williams and Anderson, 1991).
To this end, this paper proposes a research model where perceived green OS mediates the
impact of GHRM on JP and OCB-O. The objectives of this empirical investigation are to
assess:
 the impact of GHRM on perceived green OS;
 the influence of perceived green OS on JP and OCB-O; and
 perceived green OS as a mediator in the aforesaid associations.

This paper enhances the GHRM and perceived green OS research in the following ways.
First, hospitality companies encounter massive challenges, which require them to pay
utmost attention to environmental sustainability and green management (Islam et al., 2020;
Shafaei et al., 2020). To respond to these challenges, hospitality companies should focus on Green human
novel green management practices such as GHRM (Kim et al., 2019). These companies can resource
take advantage of GHRM and achieve a sustainable competitive advantage (Yong et al.,
2020b). Despite this realization, there is still a scarcity of evidence regarding the
management
consequences of GHRM in the hospitality literature. This observation is supported by Pham
et al.’s (2020a) comprehensive review, which highlights less than a handful of empirical
studies on GHRM published in hospitality and tourism journals. More importantly, a recent
study has underscored the lack of evidence concerning the consequences of GHRM among 3201
service workers (Shafaei et al., 2020). Recent research has also started to focus on non-green
work outcomes of GHRM such as employee performance (Amjad et al., 2021). In addition,
hospitality companies cannot accomplish their environmental sustainability goals and
implement their green management programs effectively without employees’ involvement
in the process (Yusliza et al., 2019). Though many studies have investigated human resource
management (Ali et al., 2019), evidence appertaining to employees’ perceptions of GHRM is
sparse. Therefore, the current paper uses data gathered from hotel employees.
Second, instead of following the mainstream literature, which demonstrates a positive
linkage between GHRM and green outcomes (Hameed et al., 2020; Pham et al., 2019a, 2019b),
this paper focuses on the impact of GHRM on positive non-green outcomes. This is so
critical because GHRM practices do not trigger only pro-environmental behaviors but also
can boost non-green positive attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Such gap is apparent in
the extant literature and has been highlighted in Chaudhary’s (2019a), Shafaei et al.’s (2020)
and Shen et al.’s (2018) studies. Accordingly, it is important to investigate whether GHRM
can enhance workplace attitudes and behaviors. However, to the best of the authors’
knowledge, there are only two studies, which have examined the effects of green human
resource practices on hotel employees’ workplace outcomes such as job satisfaction (Shafaei
et al., 2020) and quitting intent (Islam et al., 2020) so far. In light of this, the present study set
out to fill in the aforesaid gap.
Third, notably, the relevant literature is bereft of evidence regarding the effect of GHRM
on perceived green OS. This void is evident in a number of recent review studies on GHRM
(Amrutha and Geetha, 2020; Pham et al., 2020a; Yong et al., 2020a). In addition, evidence
about the effect of perceived green OS on employees’ workplace outcomes is meager (Lamm
et al., 2015; Paillé and Raineri, 2015). The aforesaid gaps are unforeseen, as the availability of
green human resource practices is an important signal to employees that the organization
treats employees well and cares about their well-being. Accordingly, this paper tests the
linkage between GHRM and perceived green OS and the influence of perceived green OS on
non-green workplace performance variables such as JP and OCB-O.
Fourth, the current literature delineates several studies, which report the mechanism
underlying the association between GHRM and pro-environmental behaviors (Chaudhary, 2019b;
Kim et al., 2019). There is no empirical study that has explored the underlying process through
which GHRM influences hotel employees’ non-green positive workplace performance outcomes
such as JP and OCB-O so far. Ari et al. (2020) also underscore the need to advance the GHRM
research in the hospitality literature by examining the consequences of GHRM and the potential
intervening mechanism(s) between GHRM and its outcomes. With this realization, this paper uses
perceived green OS as an intervening mechanism between GHRM and JP and OCB-O.
Finally, recent studies have emphasized the need for more research about the consequences
of GHRM in the Asian region (Cooke et al., 2020). Therefore, the current paper responds to calls
for more research about GHRM in the Asian context by using data collected from hotel
employees in Palestine. Due to increasing pressures to pay utmost attention to green
management practices in Palestine [EQA (Palestinian Environment Quality Authority), 2010],
IJCHM hotels are invited to address environmental issues in a proper manner. In light of this, the model
33,10 proposed in our paper is of great importance to the sector as it provides insights to hotel
managers/owners in the country concerning environmental sustainability in a way to better
promote and employ green management practices and adhere to the environmental policies
given by the Palestinian environmental quality authority.

3202 Palestine and its hotel industry

The hotel industry is a major contributor to the economy in Palestine. In such a marketplace,
the environment quality authority has highlighted the effective management of
environmental issues as a source of sustainability, which requires support and significant
attention (EQA, 2010). In general, Palestine is a member of various international and
regional treaties on environmental management to embrace better environmental practices
(EQA, 2010). More specifically, the environmental quality authority has adopted the
environment sector strategy 2017–2022 where it emphasizes the necessity to implement
environmental management practices in all sectors including the hotel industry (Thoni and
Matar, 2019). This has generated an implication for the hotel industry where they are
obliged to adopt the environmental policies of the environmental quality authority.
In addition, given the importance of the tourism industry in Palestine represented by its
geography and historical variety and significant contribution to the Palestinian economy
(Karatepe et al., 2020), the hotel industry is focused more than ever on promoting green
initiatives to respond to the environmental demands in a market environment characterized
by instability and lack of resources. Hotels operating in this country seek to obtain green
globe certification.

Literature review and hypotheses

Green human resource management
In today’s competitive market environment, the management of hospitality companies tries
to attract and acquire a number of potential buyers by complying with environmental
sustainability via the effective implementation of GHRM practices (Kim et al., 2019). Not
surprisingly, astute buyers with an interest in green consumption pay utmost attention to
hotels’ environmental sustainability programs (e.g. reduction in water and energy
consumption, adoption of green policies) and environmentally friendly attributes (Assaker,
2020).
Hotels now recognize the value of GHRM practices to implement their environmental
management programs successfully (Alonso-Almeida et al., 2017). Examples of green
recruitment and hiring in the hotel industry include launching online application systems to
avoid the waste of printed materials. Green training includes implementing orientation
programs to increase employees’ environmental/green consciousness. This can be achieved
using web-based and online modules and tools. Green rewarding in hotels consists of providing
monthly bonuses to employees as an appreciation of their green efforts. In addition, hotels in
different developing countries have embarked on GHRM practices to promote eco-friendly
behaviors (Kim et al., 2019; Pham et al., 2019b). Palestine, as a developing country, has adopted
an environmental management strategy where all organizations, including hotels, are required
to consider green management practices to contribute to the conservation of the historical,
cultural and natural heritage.
A detailed examination of the relevant literature presents limited evidence about GHRM
in environmental sustainability research. For example, the findings of a study carried out
among travel agency managers showed that GHRM was not implemented due to constraints
surfacing from both managers and employees (Al-Romeedy, 2019). A study conducted in the
hotel industry revealed that green training activated environmental commitment, OCB Green human
toward the environment and environmental performance (Pham et al., 2020b). Pham et al.’s resource
(2019a) research in the same setting illustrated that green training, performance
management and employee involvement positively influenced OCB toward the
management
environment. Again Pham et al.’s (2019b) research in the same setting found that green
training and rewards boosted employees’ commitment toward the environment. The
findings of another study revealed that green recruitment and selection, training and
compensation fostered hotel employees’ perceptions of environmental performance (Yusoff 3203
et al., 2020).
Evidence associated with tour companies indicated that GHRM had an indirect positive
effect on green recovery performance through environmental commitment (Luu, 2018). An
additional study carried out among tour operators documented that collective green crafting
partly mediated the linkage between green human practices and individual and collective
OCB for the environment (Luu, 2019b).
GHRM or its indicators were reported to be related to green or non-green outcomes.
Specifically, a study in the health-care industry indicated that green training enhanced job
satisfaction (Pinzone et al., 2019). An empirical investigation denoted that GHRM and
environmental performance mediated the impact of corporate social responsibility on hotel
performance (Úbeda-García et al., 2021). Farooq et al.’s (2021) work in the hotel industry
denoted that green self-efficacy mediated the association between GHRM and green
creativity. Moreover, Amjad et al. (2021) reported that both environmental and employee
performances mediated the impact of GHRM on organizational sustainability in the textile
industry.

Perceived green organizational support

Green human resource practices in a company are important for green OS. For example,
employees who attend training programs about the company’s environmental sustainability
are treated as strategic partners for the accomplishment of environmental goals. Employees
who receive rewards for their pro-environmental behaviors perceive that the organization
values their contributions toward the environment. This makes GHRM the basis for green
OS, which has been rarely subjected to empirical inquiry (Pinzone et al., 2019). Specifically,
Lamm et al.’s (2013) research revealed that affective commitment completely mediated the
effect of perceived OS on OCB toward the environment. Lamm et al.’s (2015) empirical
inquiry indicated that psychological empowerment partly mediated the impact of perceived
OS toward the environment on job satisfaction, quitting intentions, organizational
identification and OCB toward the environment.
Paillé and Raineri’s (2015) research documented that perceived OS partly mediated the
association between corporate environmental policies and employees’ eco-initiatives. Paillé
and Raineri’s (2016) work disclosed that job satisfaction partly mediated the influence of OS
on employees’ pro-environmental behaviors. Erdogan et al. (2015) found that perceived OS
strengthened the positive linkage between management commitment to the environment
and procedural justice and organizational commitment.

Work-related performance
Exploring the antecedents of work-related performance in the hospitality industry is
significant as work-related performance is considered a pillar because of its effect on the
delivery of exceptional services and customer satisfaction. Research showed that hotel
employees’ overall work-related performance was affected by a bundle of human resource
practices (Karatepe, 2013). In general, GHRM practices influenced OCB through the full
IJCHM mediation of organizational identification (Shen et al., 2018). In hospitality research, service-
33,10 oriented-OCB was reported as an outcome of a system of human resource management
practices through the mediation of work engagement (Kloutsiniotis and Mihail, 2020).

Overall evaluation
The literature delineates evidence about how GHRM has been operationalized. For instance,
3204 several studies have gauged the individual effects of GHRM practices (e.g. green training
and green rewarding) on employees’ green work outcomes (Pham et al., 2019b, 2020b) or the
impact of top management commitment and corporate social responsibility on these GHRM
practices (Yusliza et al., 2019). There are studies that have conceptualized GHRM as a
second-order construct (Tang et al., 2018). The literature also presents evidence that GHRM
is widely measured using one scale without sub-dimensions (Kim et al., 2019; Shen et al.,
2018).
An immediate conclusion that can be drawn from the previously mentioned pieces is that
research about GHRM and perceived green OS is in the development stage. Interestingly, the
literature presents no evidence concerning perceived green OS as a mediator between
GHRM and non-green positive workplace outcomes such as JP and OCB-O. That is, based on
the above review, excluding three studies in the management literature (Amjad et al., 2021;
Shen et al., 2018; Pinzone et al., 2019) and two studies in the hospitality setting (Islam et al.,
2020; Shafaei et al., 2020), we notice that the main focus of these studies is to investigate the
effect of GHRM on employees’ green behaviors. Therefore, this study is unique as it
examines the impact of GHRM on non-green work-related behaviors, namely, JP and OCB-O,
which have not yet been investigated in the hospitality literature as the consequences of
GHRM and perceived green OS. This is critical because the management of companies
should ascertain whether an investment in GHRM and provision of green OS give rise to
positive job-related performance outcomes in addition to pro-environmental behaviors. With
this realization, this paper develops hypotheses in light of OS (Rhoades and Eisenberger,
2002), attribution (Nishii et al., 2008), SIP (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978) and conservation of
resources (Hobfoll, 2001) theories and tests perceived green OS as a mediator between
GHRM and JP and OCB-O.

Hypotheses
Green human resource management and perceived green organizational support. The
literature provides evidence about the impacts of human resource practices on OS. For
instance, Rhoades and Eisenberger’s (2002) meta-analytic work illustrated that a number of
human resource practices such as job security, autonomy and promotion were reported to be
positively associated with OS. Allen et al.’s (2003) study conducted in different service
settings demonstrated that employees’ participation in the decision-making process, fairness
of reward and opportunity for growth boosted OS. García-Chas et al.’s (2016) research
reported that high-performance work systems activated OS.
On the other hand, evidence regarding the linkage between GHRM and green OS is
scarce. GHRM is critical to boosting employees’ perceptions of green OS. GHRM practices
such as green selection, training and rewards signal that the company values employees’
contributions toward environmental sustainability and green management and cares about
their well-being (Pinzone et al., 2019). These green human resource practices have been
shown as the indicators of GHRM (Amrutha and Geetha, 2020; Yong et al., 2020a). More
specifically, rigorous selection criteria can be used to hire candidates who possess
environmental sensitivity, knowledge and motivation (Jabbour et al., 2010). This is likely to
enable management to acquire and retain employees who can contribute to the company’s
environmental program. Training programs with a focus on environmental sustainability Green human
and the company’s environmental management initiatives enable employees to understand resource
the importance of various issues such as less consumption of water and energy, utilization of
recycled materials and reduction of gas emission and trigger their sensitivity to the
management
environment (Renwick et al., 2013; Yusliza et al., 2019). These programs are effective tools
for the foundation of an eco-culture in the company (Yusliza et al., 2019).
Rewarding employees for green behaviors or pro-environmental behaviors would enable
them to achieve the company’s environmental goals and help the company fulfill the 3205
requirements of its environmental management program (Jackson et al., 2014). When a
company enables its employees to participate in the decision-making process about
environmental sustainability and green management, these employees promote the
organization’s environmental sensitivity and its efforts targeted at green management.
The abovementioned GHRM practices contribute to the development of green OS. The
hypothesis regarding the influence of GHRM on perceived OS is developed through OS and
attribution theories. According to OS theory, “[. . .]to determine the organization’s readiness
to reward increased work effort and to meet socioemotional needs, employees develop global
beliefs concerning the extent to which the organization values their contributions and cares
about their well-being” (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002, p. 698). This theory contends that
rewards and favorable job conditions enhance employees’ perceptions of OS (García-Chas
et al., 2016; Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). However, employees should perceive that such
rewards, favorable job conditions or human resource practices surface from the
organization’s voluntary actions (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002).
According to attribution theory, employees can attach different meanings to the company’s
human resource practices (Nishii et al., 2008). For example, if management intends to reduce
costs and exploit employees through human resource practices, then employees are likely to
display negative consequences. However, if management’s intent is to design human resource
practices to enhance service quality and increase staff well-being, then employees perceive that
the company invests in the development of their knowledge and skills and cares about them.
In light of this, it is surmised that employees have favorable perceptions of green OS if
management designs green human resource practices to increase employees’ awareness about
environmental sustainability and green efforts and motivate them to be eco-citizens for the
company and the global environment.
The company’s investment in green human resource practices such as training and
rewards are signals of a supportive environment. Employees would interpret these signals
as the basis for OS (García-Chas et al., 2016).

H1. GHRM relates positively to employees’ perceptions of green OS.

Perceived green organizational support and job performance and organizational citizenship
behavior toward the organization
As OS theory posits, employees who perceive that the organization recognizes and rewards
employees’ good performance at work feel an obligation to help the company accomplish its goals
(Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). This is due to the fact that the caring, approval and respect
signified by perceived OS lead to better employee performance (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002).
Broadly speaking, employees would display diligent work performance and discretionary
behaviors when they feel that their environmental contributions are appreciated and valued by
the organization. Employees feel supported in a workplace where their environmental
contributions and achievements are valued by the organization (Paillé and Meija-Morelos, 2019).
Under these circumstances, they would fulfill the requirements of the job and display OCB-O.
IJCHM According to SIP theory, “[. . .]individuals, as adaptive organisms, adapt attitudes,
33,10 behavior and beliefs to their social context and to the reality of their own past and present
behavior and situation” (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978, p. 226). Employees collect information in
their social environment to have an understanding of events. They use cues to interpret
organizational events and develop behaviors (Aryee et al., 2012). As proposed by SIP theory,
the social environment where employees work influences their attitudes and behaviors
3206 (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978). Employees gather information and make observations about
the company’s investment in environmental sustainability and green activities. If they
perceive that the organization dedicates great importance to environmental contributions
and green activities, such employees carry out their tasks effectively and exhibit
discretionary behaviors such as OCB-O. That is, if the organization invests in the
development of employees’ green skills and knowledge, they interpret such investments as
cues of green OS, and therefore exhibit positive workplace outcomes.
A synthesis of the extant literature presents empirical findings regarding the association
between perceived OS and workplace performance outcomes. For example, it was reported
that perceived OS was positively linked to in- and extra-role performances (Rhoades and
Eisenberger, 2002). However, the extant literature is bereft of evidence with respect to the
impact of perceived green OS on non-green positive workplace outcomes. This is surprising
because management should know whether employees would carry out the daily tasks
successfully and go beyond the role requirements when necessary as a result of green
support provided by the company. In light of OS and SIP theories, as well as the empirical
findings given above, it is posited that employees are likely to exhibit JP and OCB-O as a
result of green OS.

H2. Perceived green OS relates positively to JP.

H3. Perceived green OS relates positively to OCB-O.

Perceived green organizational support as a mediator

The hypothesized linkages between H1 and H3 implicitly suggest that perceived green OS
functions as a mediator of the impact of GHRM on JP and OCB-O. OS theory provides
guidance to develop the abovementioned relationships. According to this theory, perceived
OS nourishes employees’ beliefs that the company recognizes and rewards effective
performance at work (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). This process gives rise to positive
workplace outcomes such as JP and OCB-O (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002).
Using OS theory as the theoretical focus (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002), it is argued
that GHRM is one of the main foundations of green OS because employees perceive GHRM
as an investment in the development of their skills, knowledge and abilities about
environmental sustainability and green management. Green OS sends strong signals to
employees that the organization values their contributions toward ecological sustainability
and green management and cares about their well-being (Pinzone et al., 2019). It is surmised
that employees with favorable perceptions of green support provided by the organization
exhibit positive workplace performance outcomes, as they perceive that management
invests in environmental sustainability and GHRM.
Conservation of resources theory also presents guidelines to develop the hypotheses
concerning perceived green OS as a mediator of the influence of GHRM on JP and OCB-O.
This theory contends that individuals seek to acquire and protect certain resources such as
personal characteristics and energies (Hobfoll, 2001). According to Halbesleben and Wheeler
(2015), “[. . .]predict resource investment behaviors (OCB) by understanding one’s
fluctuating perceptions regarding resources (support) received from a coworker, which Green human
increases the belief that future investment in that coworker will yield additional resource gains resource
(trust)” (p. 1629). In view of this, we surmise that employees’ resource investment behaviors management
such as JP and OCB-O can be ascertained by understanding their favorable perceptions about
support (green OS) obtained from the organization, which shows that future investment in that
organization will give more resource gains (GHRM practices).
In empirical terms, Pinzone et al. (2019) reported that perceived green OS partly mediated 3207
the effect of green training on job satisfaction. Shen et al. (2018) found that organizational
identification partly mediated the influence of GHRM on in-role performance, OCB-O and
quitting intentions. The following hypotheses are postulated on the basis of OS and
conservation of resources theories, as well as evidence presented above:

H4. Perceived green OS mediates the effect of GHRM on JP.

H5. Perceived green OS mediates the effect of GHRM on OCB-O.
The research model is shown in Figure 1. The direct and mediating effects are given in the
model.

Method
Measures
The survey was originally prepared in English and then translated into Arabic via the back-
translation method. We aimed to find out whether the potential participants had any

Predictor variable: Green Mediator: Perceived green Criterion variables: Non-

human resource managemennt organizational support green positive workplace
performance outcomes

Job
performance

H2 (+)

Green human H1 (+) Perceived green

resource organiational
management support
H4 and H5

H3 (+)
Organizational
citizenship
Control variables behavior toward
Gender and organizational the organization
tenure

H4. Perceived green organizational support mediates the impact of green human resource management on job performance.
Figure 1.
H5. Perceived green organizational support mediates the impact of green human resource management on organizational Research model
citizenship behavior toward the organization.
IJCHM problems regarding the readability and understandability of the items, as well as the
33,10 implementation of GHRM practices. To do this, we followed the other studies concerning the
number of employees to be included in the pilot study (Kaya and Karatepe, 2020).
Accordingly, five employees took part in the pilot study, which did not result in any
significant amendments.
The items in GHRM, perceived green OS, JP and OCB-O were anchored with “7 =
3208 strongly agree” to “1 = strongly disagree”. Supervisor religiosity in terms of praying or
religious practice, which was not theoretically related to study variables, was used as a
marker variable. Using a single item is also observed in the current literature (Kim et al.,
2014). It was measured with a single item, which was anchored with a five-point scale (“5 =
very religious” to “1 = not religious at all”).
The current study followed the recommendation given by Hinkin (1998) to keep the
scales short to minimize response bias generated by boredom or fatigue. To check the
content validity of the two scales (GHRM and perceived green OS), the items adapted from
the relevant sources and the definitions of these constructs were given to three academicians
in the field of human resource management. They were asked to match the items with their
corresponding constructs (Hinkin, 1998). All items in GHRM and perceived green OS were
correctly classified by these academics, confirming the content validity of the constructs.
GHRM. Five items were derived based on the major functions of GHRM such as green
selective staffing, training, performance management, rewards and employee involvement
using different sources such as Kim et al. (2019), Renwick et al. (2013), Tang et al. (2018) and
Yong et al. (2019). Using GHRM as a uni-dimensional construct is congruent with the works
of Ansari et al. (2021) and Kim et al. (2019). An exploratory factor analysis using principal
components with varimax rotation was used. The findings showed a single factor with an
eigenvalue > than 1.0. This factor accounted for 75.2% of the variance. The factor loadings
ranged from 0.78 to 0.91. a (coefficient alpha) for this scale was 0.91.
Perceived green OS. Seven items from Eisenberger et al. (1986) were adapted to measure
perceived green OS. We used exploratory factor analysis via principal components with
varimax rotation. The findings demonstrated a single factor with an eigenvalue > than 1.0.
This factor accounted for 59.7% of the variance. The factor loadings were between the
ranges of 0.68–0.82. a for this scale was 0.88.
JP. Six items were drawn from Williams and Anderson (1991) to assess employees’ JP. A
number of studies used this scale to operationalize JP (Johari et al., 2019). a for JP was 0.90.
OCB-O. We investigated the effects of GHRM and perceived green OS on OCB-O in lieu
of OCB-individual. This is because of the fact that OCB-individual can be affected by
various factors such as coworkers’ OCB (Shen et al., 2018). The extant literature delineates a
prevalent use of this scale (Teng et al., 2020). a for OCB-O was 0.86.
Controls. Gender and organizational tenure were the control variables used to avoid
statistical confounds (Luu, 2018; Shen et al., 2018).

Respondents and data collection

Data were collected from Arab employees in the small- and medium-sized hotels in
Palestine, which is a country in the Middle East region in Asia. The information received
from the Palestinian Information Center demonstrated that there were 88 hotels in the
country, which represented the size of the population. In light of this, the researcher decided
to adopt a complete sampling frame in which all these hotels were considered for the study.
This approach is usually considered when the population size is relatively small.
In total, 70 hotels were rated as three-star, 13 as four-star and 5 as five-star. The
researcher contacted the hotels by phone. During these calls, the researcher inquired if these
hotels adopted green management practices. The researcher received satisfactory responses Green human
as these hotels adopted the strategies of the environmental quality authority (EQA, 2010) to resource
encourage green practices. Among the practices explained during these phone calls were
hiring employees with a green mindset and familiarity with environmental issues such as
management
energy control, recycling and minimum waste policies. Furthermore, management of these
hotels indicated that they ran workshops and training sessions for their employees on green
management and rewarded their employees on green practices through vouchers and
bonuses. However, 55 three-star hotels agreed to partake in this study. 3209
In light of the purposive sampling technique, we used two criteria to select the
respondents. First, full-time employees partook in the study, as they spent more time and
were more familiar with the company’s environmental sustainability initiatives and green
practices than part-time employees. Second, management’s good intentions about GHRM do
not mean much unless non-managerial employees perceive them as such. Therefore, data
came from these employees. This is also concordant with the works of Kim et al. (2019) and
Shafaei et al. (2020), which have investigated the consequences of GHRM.
The drop-off and pick-up method was tapped to collect data from the participants, who
were used in the departments or outlets such as reception, restaurant, food production, room
service, accounting and maintenance. Six surveys were distributed to each hotel to ensure
the full coverage of employees working in different departments or outlets. Data collection
was completed in four weeks in November 2019.
To minimize the risk of non-response bias, the researcher used several remedies.
Specifically, the researcher received support from the management of each hotel for data
collection and participation in the study was voluntary. Each hotel allowed the researcher to
directly distribute the surveys to employees. The researcher collected the completed surveys
in envelopes in the reception of each hotel. Each survey had a cover letter, which highlighted
anonymity, confidentiality and honesty and further indicated that “there were no wrong or
right answers to the items”. The limited number of items motivated employees to fill out the
survey. These procedural remedies also minimized the risk of common method variance
(Podsakoff et al., 2003).
In total, 330 surveys were distributed to hotel employees. The researcher obtained 237
surveys from the participants. However, two of them were discarded due to some missing
information. We proceeded to analyze the data with 235 surveys. The response rate was
71.2% (235/330). Respondents’ profile is depicted in Table 1. Based on the findings of
independent samples t-test and analysis of variance, there were no differences among
respondents pertaining to age, gender, education, organizational tenure and the department
in terms of GHRM and perceived green OS.

Data analysis
SPSS24 was used to report the participants’ profile and summary statistics and correlations
of observed variables, as well as evidence of normality of the data. Confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) were performed via AMOS22.
We checked the normality of the data using skewness and kurtosis values. The skewness
value for GHRM perceived green OS, JP and OCB-O were 1.692, 0.622, 0.744 and
0.743, respectively. The kurtosis value for GHRM perceived green OS, JP and OCB-O were
3.930, 0.011, 0.459 and 0.005, respectively. These findings lent support to the normality of
the data, as each skewness (kurtosis) value was below 3.00 (8.00) (Kline, 2011).
This paper examined the adequacy of the four-factor measurement model through CFA
to report the findings regarding convergent and discriminant validity and composite
reliability (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Then the linkages were tested via SEM. The
IJCHM Variables Frequency (%)
33,10
Age (years)
21–25 99 42.1
26–30 12 5.1
31–35 56 23.8
Older than 35 68 29.0
3210
Gender
Male 169 71.9
Female 66 28.1
Education
Less than high school 39 16.6
Two-year college degree 91 38.7
Four-year college degree 75 31.9
Master degree 30 12.8
Organizational tenure (years)
1–5 126 53.6
6–10 36 15.3
11–15 71 30.2
Longer than 15 2 0.9
Department
Reception 29 12.3
Food production 33 14.0
Restaurant 65 27.8
Table 1. Room service 71 30.2
Respondents’ profile Accounting 21 8.9
(n = 235) Maintenance 16 6.8

maximum likelihood estimation was used. The Sobel test and bootstrapping technique were
used to report the significance of the mediating impacts (Chang and Busser, 2020).
The current paper used several fit statistics to assess the measurement and structural
models: “ x 2/df, comparative fit index (CFI), parsimony normed fit index (PNFI), Tucker-
Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), standardized root
mean square residual (SRMR) and Akaike information criterion (AIC)” (Kaya and Karatepe,
2020). The covariance matrix was used to employ the aforesaid analyses.

Results
Measurement results
The confirmatory factor analysis findings provided support for the four-factor measurement
model. More specifically, analysis of the measurement model resulted in an adequate fit:
x 2 = 553.11, df = 243, x 2/df = 2.28; CFI = 0.91; PNFI = 0.76; TLI = 0.90; RMSEA = 0.074;
SRMR = 0.062; AIC = 715.11. As given in Table 2, all loadings were above 0.50 and were
significant. That is, all items served as strong measures of their respective variables.
The average variance extracted by each latent construct was > than 0.50. These results
indicated that convergent validity was confirmed (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
The shared variance between each pair of variables was compared against the average
variances extracted for these variables. For instance, the shared variance between GHRM
and perceived green OS was 0.27 [(0.52)2]. This was done for the rest of the pair of variables.
The shared variance was < than the average variances extracted by these variables. The
 Standardized
Green human
Item loading t-value AVE CR resource
management
Green human resource management 0.70 0.92
Our hotel hires candidates with green values, knowledge and 0.80 16.31
awareness
Our hotel provides green training programs to develop employees’ 0.90 F
green skills and behaviors 3211
Our hotel evaluates employees’ green behaviors in the performance 0.85 18.51
management process
Our hotel provides employees with opportunities to participate in 0.90 20.52
green management
Our hotel rewards employees for their green behaviors 0.71 13.14
Perceived green organizational support 0.51 0.88
Our hotel values my contribution to green management issues 0.64 9.03
Our hotel really considers my environmental values and goals 0.71 F
Our hotel cares about my opinions on green management issues 0.72 14.25
Our hotel takes pride in my accomplishments on green 0.64 9.00
management issues
Our hotel would ignore any complaint from me on green 0.78 10.79
management issues (R)
Our hotel values extra effort from me on green management issues 0.74 10.21
Our hotel cares about my satisfaction with green management 0.75 10.40
issues
Job performance 0.60 0.90
I adequately complete the assigned tasks to me 0.63 9.71
I fulfill the responsibilities specified in the job description 0.74 11.64
I perform tasks that are expected from me 0.77 F
I meet the formal performance requirements of my job 0.85 13.75
I engage in activities that will directly affect my performance 0.81 12.94
evaluation
I neglect aspects of the job I am obliged to do (R) 0.82 13.09
Organizational citizenship behavior toward the organization 0.52 0.87
I give advance notice when I am unable to come to work 0.59 8.49 Table 2.
I take an undeserved work break (R) 0.81 11.73 Standardized
I complain about insignificant things at my work (R) 0.82 11.75 loadings, average
I conserve and protect organizational property 0.77 11.07 variances extracted
I adhere to the informal rules devised to maintain order 0.73 F
and composite
For me, attendance at work is above the norm 0.59 8.44
reliabilities from
Notes: AVE = Average variance extracted; CR = Composite reliability; F = Loading was initially set to confirmatory factor
1.00 to fix the scale of the latent variable. (R) denotes reverse-coded items analysis

findings of Heterotrait-Monotrait ratios in Table 3 were < than 0.85. Accordingly,

discriminant validity was confirmed (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Kline, 2011). Composite
reliability for each latent construct was > than 0.60, demonstrating that internal consistency
reliability was achieved (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Descriptive statistics and correlations of
observed constructs were given in Table 4.

Common method variance check

Common method variance was also controlled using statistical remedies, as this study used
self-report data (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Both Harman’s single-factor test and a marker
variable were used to control the threat of common method variance (Lindell and Whitney,
2001; Podsakoff et al., 2003). The results of unrotated exploratory factor analysis illustrated
IJCHM that the first factor explained 36.0% of the variance. This was < than 50–60% of the
33,10 variance (Fuller et al., 2016). As reported in Table 4, supervisor religiosity did not have a
significant association with any of the variables in this study. Overall, it appeared that
common method variance was not a concern.

3212 Tests of research hypotheses

The hypothesized model ( x 2 = 589.00, df = 286) was compared with the partially mediated
model ( x 2 = 588.43, df = 284) using the x 2 difference test. The test result was not significant
(D x 2 = 0.57, Ddf = 2, p > 0.05). Therefore, the hypothesized model ( x 2 = 589.00, df = 286,
x 2/df = 2.06; CFI = 0.92; PNFI = 0.75; TLI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.067; SRMR = 0.061; AIC =
719.00), which demonstrated a better fit to the data, was used for further analysis.
The findings for research hypotheses were presented in Figure 2. H1 predicted that
GHRM is positively related to perceived green OS. The path estimate regarding the linkage
between GHRM and perceived green OS was positive ( b = 0.53, t = 7.09). Therefore, H1
received empirical support. H2 suggested that perceived green OS relates positively to JP.
The findings revealed that perceived green OS depicted a positive association with JP ( b =
0.63, t = 7.69), supporting H2. H3 was also supported because perceived green OS positively
influenced OCB-O ( b = 0.43, t = 5.41).
The Sobel test was tapped to confirm the significance of the mediating impacts. The
Sobel test result concerning the indirect impact of GHRM on JP through perceived green OS
was significant (z-value = 5.58). The Sobel test finding with respect to the indirect effect of
GHRM on OCB-O via perceived green OS was also significant (z-value = 4.46). In addition to
the Sobel test, we applied the 5,000-sample bootstrapping approach. The findings showed
that none of the confidence intervals consisted of zero. That is perceived green OS
significantly and completely mediated the association between GHRM and JP
(Unstandardized indirect point estimate = 0.32, Standard error = 0.09, lower level confidence
interval, LLCI = 0.19; upper-level confidence interval, ULCI = 0.51) and the linkage between
GHRM and OCB-O (Unstandardized indirect point estimate = 0.31, Standard error = 0.09,
LLCI = 0.17; ULCI = 0.53). The results collectively revealed that perceived green OS
completely mediated the impact of GHRM on JP (H4) and OCB-O (H5).
As mentioned earlier, GHRM and perceived green OS do not enhance only pro-
environmental or eco-friendly behaviors but also can activate employees’ work outcomes
such as JP and OCB-O, which are not categorized as green attitudes and behaviors. The
findings showed that hotel employees’ favorable perceptions of GHRM were the basis for
perceived green OS, which, in turn, fostered their JP and OCB-O.
Organizational tenure had a positive linkage with OCB-O ( g = 0.16, t = 2.46). This
finding indicates that employees who have longer tenure in the company are more inclined
to exhibit OCB-O. The findings explained 28% of the variance in perceived green OS, 40%
in JP and 20% in OCB-O.

Variables 1 2 3 4

1. Green human resource management

Table 3. 2. Perceived green organizational support 0.616
Heterotrait-monotrait 3. Job performance 0.422 0.638
ratios 4. Organizational citizenship behavior toward the organization 0.282 0.436 0.333
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Gender 0.28 0.45

2. Organizational tenure 1.78 0.91 0.024
3. Supervisor religiosity 2.54 0.83 0.007 0.002
4. Green human resource management 5.91 1.11 0.062 0.042 0.020
5. Perceived green organizational support 5.71 0.92 0.048 0.050 0.016 0.492**
6. Job performance 5.53 1.10 0.056 0.030 0.016 0.370** 0.559**
7. Organizational citizenship behavior toward the organization 5.29 1.32 0.027 0.134* 0.066 0.254** 0.370** 0.307**

Notes: SD = Standard deviation. Gender was coded as a dichotomous variable (“0 = male and 1 = female”). Organizational tenure was measured in four
categories. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01

and correlations of
Descriptive statistics
resource

Table 4.
3213

observed variables
Green human

management
IJCHM Predictor variable: Green
human resource managemennt
Mediator: Perceived green
organizational support
Criterion variables: Non-
green positive workplace
33,10 performance outcomes

H2 Job
β = 0.63, t = 7.69 performance

H1
3214 Green human β = 0.53, t = 7.09 Perceived green
resource organiational
management support

H3 Organizational
β = 0.43, t = 5.41 citizenship
behavior toward
the organization
H1. GHRM relates positively to employees’ perceptions of green organizational support. (Supported)
H2. PGOS relates positively to job performance. (Supported)
H3. PGOS relates positively to organizational citizenship behavior toward the organization. (Supported)

z-value
GHRM → PGOS → Job performance 5.58
GHRM → PGOS → Organizational citizenship behavior toward the organization 4.46

H4. PGOS mediates the effect of GHRM on job performance. (Supported)

H5. PGOS mediates the effect of GHRM on organizational citizenship behavior toward the organization. (Supported)

Organizational tenure → Organizational citizenship behavior toward the organization 0.16 (γ) 2.46 (t- value)

R 2 for PGOS 0.28; Job performance 0.40; and Organizational citizenship behavior toward the organization 0.20

Notes: All path estimates were significant. T- values: two-tailed test t > 1.96, p < 0.05; t > 2.58,
Figure 2.
p < 0.01. GHRM = Green human resource management; PGOS = Perceived green
Model test results
organizational support

Discussion
Conclusions
This paper developed and tested a parsimonious model which investigated the
interrelationships of GHRM, perceived green OS, JP and OCB-O. In the process, the effect of
GHRM on JP and OCB-O via perceived green OS was tested. The study relationships
received support from the empirical data, which came from hotel employees. The findings
are discussed below.
First, the findings suggest that GHRM is an antecedent to employees’ perceptions of
green OS. Management can offer various green human resource practices such as green
training, rewards and selective staffing to employees (Luu, 2018; Pham et al., 2019b).
Concordant with OS theory (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002), the company’s voluntary
actions targeted at these green human resource practices strengthen employees’ beliefs
about green OS. The presence of green human resource practices signals that management
invests in the development of employees’ knowledge, skills and abilities regarding
environmental sustainability and green management and becomes the basis for perceived
green OS (García-Chas et al., 2016). As a result, these green human resource practices
highlight that the organization values employees’ contributions toward environmental
issues and green management and cares about their well-being (Pinzone et al., 2019).
The finding concerning the linkage between GHRM and perceived green OS is concordant
with OS theory that favorable job conditions and GHRM practices emerge from the company’s
voluntary actions are the basis for green OS (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). This is also in
accord with attribution theory that employees have favorable perceptions of OS when they find Green human
that the company designs a number of GHRM practices to increase employees’ awareness resource
about environmental sustainability and green efforts and motivate them to adhere to rules and
regulations about environmentally responsible behaviors (Nishii et al., 2008).
management
Second, the findings further suggest that perceived green OS fosters employees’ non-
green positive workplace outcomes such as JP and OCB-O. As OS theory contends (Rhoades
and Eisenberger, 2002), employees who find that management recognizes and rewards
employees’ good performance at work feel obliged to contribute to the accomplishment of 3215
the organization’s environmental goals. Consistent with the tenets of SIP theory (Salancik
and Pfeffer, 1978), employees also interpret green human resource practices as cues of green
OS. Employees with such perceptions exhibit JP and OCB-O at elevated levels. Though the
literature is replete with evidence about the effect of OS on behavioral outcomes (Rhoades
and Eisenberger, 2002), the findings reported above make significant additions to current
knowledge about the effect of perceived green OS on JP and OCB-O simultaneously.
Third, perceived green OS completely mediates the impact of GHRM on JP and OCB-O.
This is in line with the precepts of OS theory (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). More
specifically, in a workplace where employees avail themselves of green human resource
practices, they perceive that the company supports employees’ environmental efforts, values
their contributions toward environmental protection and cares about their well-being. Under
these circumstances, these employees display better JP and OCB-O. The aforementioned
findings are also in agreement with COR theory (cf. Halbesleben and Wheeler, 2015). That is,
employees’ resource investment behaviors can be determined through their favorable
perceptions about support (green OS) received from the company, which indicates that
future investment in that company will provide more resource gains (GHRM practices). The
findings regarding perceived green OS as a mediator echoes the finding presented by
Pinzone et al. (2019). The findings implicitly suggest that perceived green OS completely
mediates the impact of GHRM on JP and OCB-O. Management’s investment in GHRM is the
basis for green OS. Employees who perceive as such respond to GHRM and green OS by
exhibiting higher JP and OCB-O.

Theoretical implications
Below we discuss the findings considering the contributions to the hospitality literature and
the extant literature. First, hospitality companies should take advantage of novel
management practices to achieve differentiation and gain a sustainable competitive
advantage. GHRM is a response to this (Pham et al., 2020b). However, evidence about the
outcomes of GHRM in the hospitality literature is still scarce (Ari et al., 2020; Pham et al.,
2020a). Second, Shen et al. (2018) convincingly discuss that GHRM may give rise to positive
changes in employees’ performance in the workplace in addition to their pro-environmental
behaviors. Although limited studies have explored the impact of GHRM on employees’
attitudes (Chaudhary, 2019a; Islam et al., 2020), the hospitality literature is bereft of evidence
regarding the association between GHRM and hotel employee performance such as JP and
OCB-O.
Third, employees’ interpretations of GHRM practices represent the basis for green
perceived OS. However, it is still unknown whether GHRM significantly influences
perceived green OS (Amrutha and Geetha, 2020; Yong et al., 2020a). Furthermore, the
relevant research delineates limited evidence regarding the effect of perceived green OS on
workplace outcomes such as OCB-O (Paillé and Raineri, 2015). In light of these, this paper
explores the linkage between GHRM and perceived green OS and the influence of such OS
on JP and OCB-O.
IJCHM Fourth, the relevant literature presents limited studies about the intervening mechanism
33,10 between GHRM and pro-environmental behaviors (Kim et al., 2019). However, what is
missing in the literature is related to the underlying mechanism through which GHRM is
linked to employee outcomes (Ari et al., 2020). This paper fills in this gap by exploring
perceived green OS as a mediator of the impact of GHRM on JP and OCB-O. In closing, the
present study developed the previously mentioned relationships in light of OS (Rhoades and
3216 Eisenberger, 2002), attribution (Nishii et al., 2008), SIP (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978) and
conservation of resources (Hobfoll, 2001) theories and found that the effect of GHRM on JP
and OCB-O was completely mediated by the perceived green OS. Fifth, the current paper
responds to calls for more research about GHRM in the Asian region by gauging perceived
green OS as a mediator of the impact of GHRM on JP and OCB-O based on data gathered
from hotel employees in Palestine (Cooke et al., 2020).

Practical implications
As stated earlier, there are no significant differences among employees regarding GHRM
and perceived green OS in terms of demographic variables and the department.
Accordingly, employees perceive that hotels in Palestine adopt GHRM practices and there is
a good level of green OS. The findings of this study demonstrate that GHRM and perceived
green OS foster employees’ JP and OCB-O and conjure up several recommendations for hotel
managers.
First, management should be highly committed to environmental sustainability and
green management. Without this, any efforts are doomed to failure from the start. Therefore,
having green selective staffing practices in place enables the company to acquire and retain
employees whose environmental goals and values really fit those of the company. This is
important because employees with such goals and values can devote great effort to display
green behaviors and represent the image of the company. Management can select such
candidates by ascertaining the level of their future engagement in the company’s
environmental sustainability and green programs through experiential exercises. Training
programs with a specific focus on environmental sustainability and green management
would create awareness about the significance of the green global hospitality industry.
These employees should also have the chance to get involved in problem-solving on
environmental sustainability and green management.
Using a fair green performance appraisal system and rewarding employees for their
green behaviors would show that management is really committed to GHRM. The ones who
are really committed to environmental sustainability and support the company by
exhibiting elevated levels of work-related performance can be rewarded with a
complimentary family vacation in a green hotel. The abovementioned practices would send
strong signals to employees that the organization values their contributions toward
environmental sustainability and green management and cares about their well-being
(Pinzone et al., 2019). Under these conditions, such employees exhibit higher JP and OCB-O.
Second, management should incorporate GHRM and environmental sustainability into
the company’s vision and mission statements. When these are included in the company’s
agenda, it would be possible to foster a green mindset among employees. However, this can
be accomplished by establishing and maintaining a green culture associated with “go green”
in the workplace. Third, management can organize several workshops on environmental
sustainability and GHRM. In these workshops, employees can be invited to provide
feedback about the company’s green initiatives and voice novel ideas for improvement in
GHRM and environmental management. This practice implicitly shows that employees take
part in the process to accomplish environmental goals.
 Fourth, management can give an opportunity to its talented employees to work in the Green human
international chain hotels in foreign countries. Such employees can gain experiences resource
regarding different management/leadership styles and observe these hotels’ environmental
management programs (e.g. recycling, less use of energy and water and establishment of
management
green workplaces) and different GHRM practices and share them with managers. For
instance, Movenpick hotels in different countries such as Turkey and the United Arab
Emirates do implement green practices at all levels. That is, green hiring includes launching
online application systems to avoid the waste of printed applications. Green training
3217
consists of the implementation of Ecolab training to increase employee’s green
consciousness. Furthermore, these hotels do also implement a zero waste policy and reward
employees for their green efforts.
Finally, in addition to green selective staffing, management may use experiential exercises
to ascertain the candidates’ interest in displaying OCB-O. Such experiential exercises can
include information/questions about the protection of the organizational property, excused
absences from work and attendance at work. This would enable the employer to have some
cues about the candidates’ understanding of OCB-O.

Limitations and future research

In spite of the previously mentioned contributions, several limitations to this study should
be addressed. First, we used self-report data to assess the study hypotheses. Though
common method variance was controlled using both procedural and statistical remedies, in
future studies obtaining time-lagged data and supervisor ratings for workplace behavioral
outcomes would be more beneficial. Second, this study used cross-sectional data. This
precludes inferences on causal mechanisms. With this realization, assessing the study
hypotheses based upon longitudinal data in future studies would enable the researchers to
draw causal inferences.
Third, the positive workplace performance outcomes used in this paper were JP and
OCB-O. Service recovery performance, innovative behavior and adaptive performance are
among the critical workplace performance consequences (Kaya and Karatepe, 2020; Kim
and Lee, 2013). In future research, investigating the effect of GHRM on these outcomes
through perceived green OS would be useful. Finally, we used five derived GHRM practices
from various sources. This is congruent with the work of Kim et al. (2019). However, Tang
et al. (2018) developed and validated a GHRM scale, which consisted of 18 items. In future
studies, measuring GHRM via this scale and testing its psychometric properties in a
different country (e.g. Palestine) would enhance current knowledge.

References
Accor Hotels’ Environmental Footprint (2020), available at: file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/
AccorHotels%20environmental%20Foot%20Print%202016.pdf. (accessed on May 30, 2020)
Ali, F., Park, E., (O)., Kwon, J. and Chae, B. (K). (2019), “30 Years of contemporary hospitality
management: uncovering the bibliometrics and topical trends”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 2641-2665.
Allen, D.G., Shore, L.M. and Griffeth, R.W. (2003), “The role of perceived organizational support and
supportive human resource practices in the turnover process”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 99-118.
Alonso-Almeida, M.D.M., Robin, C.F., Pedroche, M.S.C. and Astorga, P.S. (2017), “Revisiting green
practices in the hotel industry: a comparison between mature and emerging destinations”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 140, pp. 1415-1428.
IJCHM Al-Romeedy, B.S. (2019), “Green human resource management in egyptian travel agencies: constraints
of implementation and requirements for success”, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality
33,10 and Tourism, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 529-548.
Amjad, F., Abbas, W., Zia-Ur-Rehman, M., Baig, S.A., Hashim, M., Khan, A. and Ur-Rehman, H. (2021),
“Effect of green human resource management practices on organizational sustainability: the
mediating role of environmental and employee performance”, Environmental Science and
Pollution Research, Vol. 28 No. 22, doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-11307-9
3218 Amrutha, V.N. and Geetha, S.N. (2020), “A systematic review on green human resource
management: implications for social sustainability”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 247, pp. 119-131.
Ansari, N.Y., Farrukh, M. and Raza, A. (2021), “Green human resource management and employees
pro-environmental behaviors: examining the underlying mechanism”, Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 229-238.
Ari, E., Karatepe, O.M., Rezapouraghdam, H. and Avci, T. (2020), “A conceptual model for green human
resource management: indicators, differential pathways, and multiple pro-environmental
behaviors”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 17, p. 7089.
Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F.O., Seidu, E.Y.M. and Otaye, L.E. (2012), “Impact of high-performance work
systems on individual- and branch-level performance: test of a multilevel model of intermediate
linkages”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 2, pp. 287-300.
Assaker, G. (2020), “The effects of hotel green business practices on consumers’ loyalty intentions: an
expanded multidimensional service model in the upscale segment”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 12, pp. 3787-3807.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Bruns-Smith, A., Choy, V., Chong, H. and Verma, R. (2015), “Environmental sustainability in the
hospitality industry: best practices, guest participation, and customer satisfaction”, Cornell
Hospitality Report, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 6-16.
Chang, W. and Busser, J.A. (2020), “Hospitality career intention: the role of contextual factors and
thriving at work”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 1,
pp. 193-211.
Chaudhary, R. (2019a), “Green human resource management and job pursuit intention: examining the
underlying process”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 26
No. 4, pp. 929-937.
Chaudhary, R. (2019b), “Green human resource management and employee green behavior: an
empirical analysis”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 27
No. 2, pp. 630-641.
Cooke, F.L., Schuler, R. and Varma, A. (2020), “Human resource management research and practice in
asia: past, present and future”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, p. 100778.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), “Perceived organizational support”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 500-507.
EQA (Palestinian Environment Quality Authority) (2010), “Environment sector strategy: executive summary”,
available at: http://environment.pna.ps/ar/files/Environment%20Sector%20Strategy_Executive%
20Summary_en.pdf (accessed 23 October 2020).
Erdogan, B., Bauer, T.N. and Taylor, S. (2015), “Management commitment to the ecological
environment and employees: implications for employee attitudes and citizenship behaviors”,
Human Relations, Vol. 68 No. 11, pp. 1669-1691.
Farooq, R., Zhang, Z., Talwar, S. and Dhir, A. (2021), “Do green human resource management and self-
efficacy facilitate green creativity? A study of luxury hotels and resorts”, Journal of Sustainable
Tourism.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable Green human
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
resource
Fuller, C.M., Simmering, M.J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y. and Babin, B.J. (2016), “Common method variance
detection in business research”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 8, pp. 3192-3198.
management
García-Chas, R., Neira-Fontela. and Varela-Neira, C. (2016), “High-performance work systems and job
satisfaction: a multilevel model”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 451-466.
Halbesleben, J.R.B. and Wheeler, A.R. (2015), “To invest or not? The role of coworker support and trust 3219
in daily reciprocal gain spirals of helping behavior”, Journal of Management, Vol. 41 No. 6,
pp. 1628-1650.
Hameed, Z., Khan, I.U., Islam, T., Sheikh, Z. and Naeem, R.M. (2020), “Do green HRM practices influence
employees’ environmental performance?”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 41 No. 7,
pp. 1061-1079.
Hinkin, T.R. (1998), “A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 104-121.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2001), “The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process:
advancing conservation of resources theory”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 337-421.
Islam, M.A., Jantan, A.H., Yusoff, Y.M., Chong, C.W. and Hossain, M.S. (2020), “Green human resource
management (GHRM) practices and millennial employees’ turnover intentions in tourism
industry in Malaysia: moderating role of work environment”, Global Business Review, pp. 1-21.
Jabbour, C.J.C. (2013), “Environmental training in organizations: from a literature review to a
framework for future research”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 74, pp. 144-155.
Jabbour, C.J.C., Santos, F.C.A. and Nagano, M.S. (2010), “Contributions of HRM throughout the stages of
environmental management: methodological triangulation applied to companies in Brazil”, The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 1049-1089.
Jackson, S.H., Schuler, R.S. and Jiang, K. (2014), “An aspirational framework for strategic human
resource management”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-56.
Johari, J., Shamsudin, F.M., Yean, T.F., Yahya, K.K. and Adnan, Z. (2019), “Job characteristics, employee
well-being, and job performance of public sector employees in Malaysia”, International Journal
of Public Sector Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 102-119.
Karatepe, O.M. (2013), “High-performance work practices and hotel employee performance: the
mediation of work engagement”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 32,
pp. 132-140.
Karatepe, O.M., Aboramadan, M. and Dahleez, K.A. (2020), “Does climate for creativity mediate the
impact of servant leadership on management innovation and innovative behavior in the hotel
industry?”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 8,
pp. 2497-2517.
Kaya, B. and Karatepe, O.M. (2020), “Does servant leadership better explain work engagement, career
satisfaction and adaptive performance than authentic leadership?”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 2075-2095.
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, A., Kim, Y., Han, K., Jackson, S.E. and Ployhart, R.E. (2014), “Multilevel influences on voluntary
workplace green behavior: individual differences, leader behavior, and coworker advocacy”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 1335-1358.
Kim, T.T. and Lee, G. (2013), “Hospitality employee knowledge-sharing behaviors in the relationship
between goal orientations and service innovative behavior”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 34, pp. 324-337.
IJCHM Kline, R.B. (2011), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed., The Guilford Press,
New York, NY.
33,10
Kloutsiniotis, P.V. and Mihail, D.M. (2020), “The effects of high-performance work systems in employees’
service-oriented OCB”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 90, p. 102610.
Lamm, E., Tosti-Kharas, J. and King, C.E. (2015), “Empowering employee sustainability: perceived
organizational support toward the environment”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 128 No. 1,
pp. 207-220.
3220
Lamm, E., Tosti-Kharas, J. and Williams, E.G. (2013), “Read this article, but don’t print it: organizational
citizenship behavior toward the environment”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 38
No. 2, pp. 163-197.
Lindell, M.K. and Whitney, D.J. (2001), “Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional
designs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 114-121.
Luu, T.T. (2018), “Employees’ green recovery performance: the roles of green HR practices and serving
culture”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 1308-1324.
Luu, T.T. (2019a), “Building employees’ organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: the
role of environmentally-specific servant leadership and a moderated mediation mechanism”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 406-426.
Luu, T.T. (2019b), “Green human resource practices and organizational citizenship behavior for the
environment: the roles of collective green crafting and environmentally specific servant
leadership”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 1167-1196.
Nishii, L.H., Lepak, D.P. and Schneider, B. (2008), “Employee attributions of the “why” of HR practices:
their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer satisfaction”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 503-545.
Okumus, F., Koseoglu, M., Chan, E., Hon, A. and Avci, U. (2019), “How do hotel employees’
environmental attitudes and intentions to implement green practices relate to their ecological
behavior?”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 39, pp. 193-200.
Paillé, P. and Meija-Morelos, J.H. (2019), “Organizational support is not always enough to encourage
employee environmental performance: the moderating role of exchange ideology”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 220, pp. 1061-1070.
Paillé, P. and Raineri, N. (2015), “Linking perceived corporate environmental policies and employees
eco-initiatives: the influence of perceived organizational support and psychological contract
breach”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 11, pp. 2404-2411.
Paillé, P. and Raineri, N. (2016), “Trust in the context of psychological contract breach: implications for
environmental sustainability”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 45, pp. 210-220.
Pham, T.N., Hoang, H.T. and Phan, Q.P.T. (2020a), “Green human resource management: a
comprehensive review and future research agenda”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 41
No. 7, pp. 845-878.
Pham, N.T., Tuckova, Z. and Jabbour, C.J.C. (2019a), “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., Tuckova, Z. and Phan, Q.P.T. (2019b), “Greening human resource management and
employee commitment towards the environment: an interaction model”, Journal of Business
Economics and Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 446-465.
Pham, N.T., Thanh, T.V., Tuckova, Z. and Thuy, V.T.N. (2020b), “The role of green human resource
management in driving hotel’s environmental performance: interaction and mediation analysis”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 88, p. 102392.
Pinzone, M., Guerci, M., Lettieri, E. and Huisingh, D. (2019), “Effects of ‘green’ training on pro-
environmental behaviors and job satisfaction: evidence from the italian healthcare sector”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 226, pp. 221-232.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in Green human
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
resource
Ramus, C.A. (2011), “Organizational support for employees: encouraging creative ideas for
management
environmental sustainability”, California Management Review, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 85-106.
Renwick, D.W.S., 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. 3221
Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 698-714.
Salancik, G.R. and Pfeffer, J. (1978), “A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task
design”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 224-253.
Shafaei, A., Nejati, M. and Yusoff, Y.M. (2020), “Green human resource management: a two-study
investigation of antecedents and outcomes”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 41 No. 7,
pp. 1041-1060.
Sharma, T., Chen, J. and Liu, W.Y. (2020), “Eco-innovation in hospitality research (1998-2018): a
systematic review”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 32
No. 2, pp. 913-933.
Shen, J., Dumont, J. and Deng, X. (2018), “Employees’ perceptions of green HRM and non-green
employee work outcomes: the social identity and stakeholder perspectives”, Group and
Organization Management, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 594-622.
Tang, G., Chen, Y., Jiang, Y., Paillé, P. and Jia, J. (2018), “Green human resource management
practices: scale development and validity”, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 56 No. 1,
pp. 31-55.
Teng, C.C., Lu, A.C.C., Huang, Z.Y. and Fang, C.H. (2020), “Ethical work climate, organizational
identification, leader-member exchange (LMX) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB): a
study of three star hotels in Taiwan”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 212-229.
Thoni, V. and Matar, S. (2019), “Solid waste management in the occupied palestinian territory: West
Bank including east Jerusalem and Gaza Strip”, Overview report. Cesvi, available at: www.cesvi.
eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/SWM-in-Palestine-report-Thoni-and-Matar-2019_compressed-1.
pdf (accessed 27 March 2021)
Úbeda-García, M., Claver-Cortés, E., Marco-Lajara, B. and Zaragoza-Saez, P. (2021), “Corporate social
responsibility and firm performance in the hotel industry: the mediating role of green human
resource management and environmental outcomes”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 123,
pp. 57-69.
Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991), “Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors
of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 601-617.
Yong, J.Y., Yusliza, M.Y. and Fawehinmi, O.O. (2020a), “Green human resource management: a
systematic literature review from 2007 to 2019”, Benchmarking: An International Journal,
Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 2005-2027.
Yong, J.Y., Yusliza, M.Y., Ramayah, T. and Fawehinmi, O.O. (2019), “Nexus between green intellectual
Capital and green human resource management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 215,
pp. 364-374.
Yong, J.Y., Yusliza, M.Y., Ramayah, T., Jabbour, C.J.C., Sehnem, S. and Mani, V. (2020b), “Pathways
towards sustainability in manufacturing organizations: empirical evidence on the role of green
human resource management”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 212-218.
IJCHM Yusliza, M.Y., Norazmi, N.A., Jabbour, C.J.C., Fernando, Y., Fawehinmi, O. and Seles, B.M.R.P. (2019),
“Top management commitment, corporate social responsibility and green human resource
33,10 management: a malaysian study”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 26 No. 6,
pp. 2051-2078.
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. 1-18.
3222
Corresponding author
Osman M. Karatepe can be contacted at: osman.karatepe@emu.edu.tr

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