International Journal of Hospitality Management 77 (2019) 353–364

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

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

Environment management in the hotel industry: does institutional T

environment matter?
⁎
Zhe Ouyanga, , Wei Weib, Christina G. Chia,c
a
Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA
b
South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
c
University of Johannesburg, South Africa

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Limited theoretical attention has been paid to understand the underlying drivers of hotels’ engagement in en-
Regulatory environment vironment management (EM). By using institutional theory, this study provides an integrated model that cap-
Normative environment tures various social drivers of hotels’ engagement in EM. The associations between the three dimensions of
Cognitive institutional environment and hotel environmental practices were empirically tested, as well as the moderating
Environment
role of hotel characteristics. A total of 414 usable surveys representing 414 hotels were collected from hotel
Corporate social responsibility
Environmental
managers in China. The results demonstrate positive associations of hotel EM practices with supportive state
Sustainability regulations, shared industry standards, competitors’ EM practices and expectations from various stakeholders
such as employees, local community, and investors. Particularity, the strength of positive relationships between
specific institutional pressures vary across hotel sizes and scales. Theoretical and practical implications are
discussed

1. Introduction Previously, several approaches have been applied to study this

Over the past decades, in response to increasing public concerns on
environmental sustainability, hospitality companies have participated
extensively in environmental management (EM) practices. Various en-
vironmental strategies are embraced by hospitality companies to reduce
the environmental impacts of daily operations, such as creating en-
vironmental policies, developing a formal training program, or in-
stigating routine environmental auditing. For instance, Marriott edu-
cates its employees and customers to conserve and preserve resources,
and utilizes an auditing tool - the Energy and Environmental Action
(EEAP) plans to make sure its properties achieve energy and water re-
duction goals (Marriott International, 2015). Previous studies have re-
ported that effective management of hotel’s environmental perfor-
mance can significantly reduce energy consumption and operational
costs, create an environmentally friendly atmosphere for customers and
staff (Cooper, 1998), and eventually enhance the favorable brand image
for a company to gain competitive advantages (Mensah, 2006). These
studies identified the benefits of applying EM in the hotel industry, but
one important question remains inconclusive, that is, what are the
factors that influence hospitality companies’ adaptation of environ-
mental management (EM) strategies that go beyond the regulatory
compliance?
question in the marketing literature. First, EM is viewed as an important
component of companies’ strategic initiatives to generate potential fi-
nancial benefits from the economic perspective. Numerous empirical
studies have examined the levels of EM and its relationship with com-
pany performance, which revealed a positive impact of environmental
proactivity on company performance, such as favorable brand image
and reputation, competitive advantages and financial outcomes (e.g.,
Angell and Klassen, 1999; Christmann, 2000; Klassen and McLaughlin,
1996; Melnyk et al., 2003; Molina-Azorı´n et al., 2009; Russo and Fouts,
1997). By investigating the positive association between the EM and
company performance, these scholars intended to argue that the ex-
pected long-term benefits of EM have motivated organizations to be-
have environmental friendly. Other scholars argue that firms’ engage-
ment in EM is driven by internal factors (Aragón-Correa et al., 2008; Gil
et al., 2001), such as organizational structure (Ramus and Steger, 2000)
and attitudes of top management (Park et al., 2012). In recent years,
hospitality researchers have also recognized the role of various stake-
holders in promoting EM among hotel companies. For example, various
levels of governments (Russo and Fouts, 1997), and environmental in-
terest groups (Lawrence and Morell, 1995) have played an important
role in leading to hotels’ engagement in environmental practices.
In the hospitality literature, the approach guiding prior research on

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: zhe.ouyang@wsu.edu (Z. Ouyang), weiweitour@163.com (W. Wei), christina.chi@wsu.edu (C.G. Chi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.07.015
Received 10 October 2017; Received in revised form 2 July 2018; Accepted 27 July 2018
Available online 08 August 2018
0278-4319/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Z. Ouyang et al.
the drivers of EM is mainly economic rationalism, while comparatively
little attention has been paid to the social processes whereby EM
practices are implemented. The social relationships between actors in a
more macro system, studies of which might enhance our understanding
of the implementation of EMs in the hospitality industry, have been
largely ignored with a few exceptions (e.g., Jennings and Zandbergen,
1995; Delmas, 2002; Delmas and Toffels, 2004; Campbell, 2007). The
institutional theory provides a comprehensive model that takes account
of the expectations of multiple stakeholders to examine how different
institutional environments influence the implementation of hotels' EM
practices. However the complexity of the institutional environments
and the ambiguous definitions of some of the key concepts within the
institutional theory have inhibited hospitality EM studies from adopting
an institutional perspective. This study therefore attempts to overcome
the gap in the hospitality literature by applying the institutional theory
that encompasses a spectrum of external and internal factors to provide
a conceptual framework to investigate the determinants of hotels’ EM
initiatives.
Based on the institutional theory or institutional environment
theory (Scott, 1995), not all organizational decisions are deriving from
rational managerial decisions to maximize financial benefits. It pro-
poses that regulative institutions (e.g., laws, governmental regulations),
normative institutions (e.g., professional and trade association) and
cognitive institutions (e.g., conventional behavior, role socialization)
provide organizations with a sense of legitimacy that influences their
practices, such as internal political structure and economic processes
(Rajdeep and Dharwadkar, 2002). Each pillar serves a specific function
that constrains and supports organizations’ behaviors. Accordingly,
hotels’ enrollment in environmentally friendly programs is not only
impelled by the possible financial benefits but also the achievement of
social and political legitimacy (Dacin et al., 2007). In this process,
different stakeholders, such as government agencies, customers, media,
industry associations, and environmental groups, exert coercive or
normative pressures stimulating hotel’s adoption of socially and cul-
turally desired practices (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).
Previous institutional studies of EM in the context of hospitality
industry have emphasized tendencies towards a homogenization pro-
cess by which companies assumedly conform to changes in the in-
stitutional environment (Jennings and Zandbergen, 1995; Delmas,
2002; Delmas and Toffels, 2004; Campbell, 2007). However, scholars
argue that organizations may respond differently to institutional pres-
sures due to the specific situations/characteristics of a company
(Clemens and Douglas, 2005; Greening and Gray, 1994; Greenwood and
Hinings, 1996; Oliver, 1991). Therefore, more effort should be made by
examining hotels’ characteristics that are expected to affect a hotel’s
strategic response to institutional pressures for EM.
Thus, drawing insights from institutional literature, this study ex-
plores how diverse institutional pressures for environmental respon-
siveness are translated into hotels’ engagement in EM by examining the
associations between institutional environments and hotels’ EM activ-
ities. Furthermore, this study seeks to investigate whether hotels with
different sizes and scales apply different strategic responses to institu-
tional pressures for EM.
2. Literature review
2.1. China’s expanding hotel industry and environmental management in
transition
With a focus on economic growth during the past three decades of in-
dustrialization, China has achieved remarkable economic success.
Meanwhile, the rapidly increasing tourism market has fueled the develop-
ment of China's hotel industry. Starting from merely 137 hotels in 1978 (Pine
and Phillips, 2005), China’s hotel industry has experienced a boom and
reached the level of 12,213 hotels in 2016 (The China National Tourism
Administration, 2016). It’s now been viewed as one of the pillar industries in
354
International Journal of Hospitality Management 77 (2019) 353–364
China's service sector.
Recently, the pitfall of economic flourishing in China has drawn
greater scrutiny. The public has realized that the rapid growth comes at
the cost of increased resource and energy consumption, and a high level
of pollution discharge that threatens people’s well-being. An increasing
body of media and communities has criticized the downsides of ig-
noring environmental management and urged the Chinese government
to take measures to reduce pollution and ensure sustainable develop-
ment (Qiu, 2008; Liu et al., 2012). Starting from 2006, the Chinese
government has switched its development priority and launched a
series of initiatives that emphasize resource conservation and en-
vironmental protection and address climate change (He et al., 2012).
Particularly, the newly launched Five-Year Plan specifically states the
importance of green development and underlines an enhanced gov-
ernance on businesses’ environmental performance (The 13th Five Year
Plan, 2017). Along with this trend, hotel companies in China have
started to incorporate EM activities into their business operation. Ap-
proximately 10,000 hotels and restaurants have adopted environ-
mental-friendly programs and were certified as "green hotels/restau-
rants" by the end of the year 2014 (China Green Hotels Development
Report, 2014).
2.2. Environment management (EM) in the hospitality industry
Environmental Management (EM), defined as “the study of all
technical and organizational activities aimed at reducing the environ-
mental impact caused by a company’s business operations” (Cramer,
1998, P.162) has long been considered as a critical component of CSR
activities. Particularly, the more mature legal system for business en-
vironmental practices and increasing attention from the general public
have raised companies’ awareness of environmentally friendly practices
(B. DiPietro et al., 2013). Although the hotel industry does not cause
severe environmental degradation comparing to the manufacturing
industry, it is characterized by a massive amount of activities, and thus
consume a significant amount of water, energy, and non-durable pro-
ducts to maintain daily operations (Chan et al., 2014; Deng and Burnett,
2002; Dobers, 1997; Erdogan and Baris, 2007). A decade ago, the
hospitality industry in the developed countries have noticed the en-
vironmental problem and have started to incorporate EM into their
daily operations to minimize the negative impacts of their hotels on the
environment (Goeldner and Ritchie, 2006; Holcomb et al., 2007). For
instance, Fairmont, Ramada, Marriott, and Sheraton initiated environ-
ment-friendly programs with a focus on reducing energy and water
consumption (Goeldner and Ritchie, 2006). Today, more hotels have
joined in this throng and implemented EM to leverage their financial
performance and environmental performance. ISO 14,001, the first
international standard for environmental management system issued by
a third-party auditor, has been widely applied in the hospitality in-
dustry. According to the latest ISO survey, there were 1772 certified
hotels and restaurants worldwide by the end of 2015, a dramatic in-
crease from only 66 establishments in the year 2000 (ISO, 2015).
EM covers a wide range of practices aimed at reducing the negative
impacts of business operations on the natural environment, and is
generally classified into two categories, that is, operational or technical
practices and organizational or system practices (Álvarez Gil et al.,
2001; González‐Benito and González‐Benito, 2006; Saha and Darnton,
2005; El Dief and Font, 2012; Park et al., 2012). Operational practices
are those practices that can directly improve the environmental per-
formance of the company, such as installing water-saving techniques in
hotel rooms. Particularly, the operational practices of hotels focus on
water conservation, energy saving, and waste management (Park et al.,
2012; Kasim, 2007; Stipanuk, 1996). Unlike operational practices, or-
ganizational practices themselves do not directly reduce the firm’s en-
vironmental impacts. Instead, such practices are relevant to the devel-
opment and implementation of an environmental management system
that monitors and supports the operational practices (El Dief and Font,
Z. Ouyang et al.
2012; Álvarez Gil et al., 2001). It includes establishing environmental
policies, setting environmental objectives, assessing the environmental
performance on a regular basis, and providing environmental training
for employees (Álvarez Gil et al., 2001; Bohdanowicz, 2005;
Bohdanowicz et al., 2011; González‐Benito and González‐Benito, 2006;
Mensah, 2006).
A majority of previous studies about hotels’ EM focuses on in-
vestigating how the adaptation of EM is related to the environmental,
market and financial performance. However, contradictory results were
found. For instance, Dolores López-Gamero et al. (2011) find that the
implementation of environmentally friendly strategies is positively re-
lated to hotels’ environmental performance, while Rivera and de Leon
(2004) identify a negative relationship. Kassinis and Soteriou (2003)
reveal that environmental management practices indirectly influence
market performance by increasing customer satisfaction and loyalty.
Meanwhile, the adaptation of environmental management practices
have been found to generate positive effects on financial performance
in some studies (Álvarez Gil et al., 2001; Garay and Font, 2012; Molina-
Azorı´n et al., 2009; Peiró-Signes et al., 2014; Rodríguez and Cruz,
2007; Singal, 2014), while others fail to find the significant effect of EM
on financial performance (Carmona-Moreno et al., 2004; Claver-Cortés
et al., 2007; Inoue and Lee, 2011). The inconclusive or at least in-
sufficient findings regarding the association between hotels’ EM and
financial performance question the widely accepted notion that eco-
nomic considerations are the main driver for EM participation. Thus, in
this study, we draw insights from institutional theory to provide an
alternative explanation for hotels’ implementation of EM.
2.3. Institutional environments and hotel EM practices
The institutional theory provides a theoretical framework through
which scholars can identify and examine environmental influences that
provide legitimacy to an organization’s practices (DiMaggio and
Powell, 1983, 1991; Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Scott, 2007). Particu-
larly, it argues that organizations are located in an institutional en-
vironment consisting of three pillars, namely regulative, normative and
cognitive pillars. These pillars provide legitimacy to an organization's
behaviors and correspondently influence the organization’s structure
and practices (Scott, 1995). It emphasizes the role of social and cultural
pressures imposed on organizations (Scott, 1995).
The seminal work by DiMaggio and Powell (1983) elaborates the
institutional mechanisms that drive organizations' managerial deci-
sions. The institutional mechanisms create and disseminate shared
rules, values, and norms among organizations in a common industrial
field, and consequently, organizations behave in similar ways to
achieve financial benefits and social legitimacy (DiMaggio and Powell,
1983). Scott (1995) further addresses that the three pillars of the in-
stitutional theory are not equally weighted and have a different em-
phasis. The regulative pillar is politically enforced and emphasizes on
the conformity to rules. Companies can gain legitimacy through oper-
ating in accordance with relevant legal or regulative requirements. The
normative pillar emphasizes on normative rules that incorporate the
obligatory and evaluative dimensions of social life into individuals’ or
organizations’ behaviors (Scott, 1995, p. 37). It includes both values
and norms that address how things should be done for particular in-
dividuals or organizations in specified social positions. The normative
pressures that stem from social norms are imposed by significant others
and then internalized by individuals. The cognitive elements stress the
importance of social identity of an individual or organization. It
emerges in interactions with various social actors and sustains or
changes via ongoing interactions (Davis and Gergen, 1985).
Several studies attempt to explain companies’ implementation of
environmental strategies from an institutional theory perspective. For
instance, Jennings and Zandbergen (1995) examine the impacts of
regulative institutions on organizations’ EM practices. They argue that
law or regulation is the primary stimulus on organizations’ EM
355
International Journal of Hospitality Management 77 (2019) 353–364
practices. Based on the evaluation of potential costs and benefits for
adopting ISO 14,001 Environmental Management System (EMS) inter-
national standard, Delmas (2002) proposes an institutional environ-
mental model to investigate the effects of regulative, normative, and
cognitive institutions. Campbell (2007) proposes an institutional theory
of CSR to better understand the underlying motivations for corporations
to engage in CSR activities.
2.3.1. Regulative environment
The authoritative and governmental organizations are viewed as the
primary regulative institutions that influence companies’ adoptions of
environmental practices (Jennings and Zandbergen, 1995). The per-
ceived regulative environment of an organization is imposed by gov-
ernmental regulations or laws. With regard to hotel’s EM practices, the
mandatory environmental regulations and corresponding penalties for
incompliance may significantly drive hotels to improve their environ-
mental practices.
A majority of previous EM studies have focused on the investigation
of enforced regulations (Carraro et al., 2013; Delmas, 2002; Majumdar
and Marcus, 2001).; Some scholars argue that there are two dis-
tinguished types of regulative forces that work via different mechan-
isms to encourage organizations’ EM practices. For example, Winter and
May (2001) find that both formal environmental regulations and gov-
ernmental support for beyond-compliance environmental practices en-
courage a company to participate in environmental initiatives, and
consequently, result in a superior environmental performance. Simi-
larly, Delmas and Toffels (2004) argue that companies’ involvement in
EM practices are induced by regulative pressure and political pressure.
Regulative pressure represents the degree of sanctions or threats im-
posed on organizations by regulators once the organizations fail to
comply with the regulations. While political pressure refers to the ex-
tent of political support and monitoring to guarantee organizations’
compliance with regulations. Thus, both enforced regulative environ-
ment and supportive regulative environment should be taken into ac-
count to investigate the impacts of the regulative environment on ho-
tels’ EM practices.
Hypothesis 1a. If there are government regulations in place that ensure
organizations’ environmentally responsible behaviors, hotels are more
likely to engage in EM practices.
Hypothesis 1b. If there are government policies in place that facilitate
and support organizations’ environmentally responsible behaviors,
hotels are more likely to engage in EM practices.
2.3.2. Normative environment
Normative institutions, such as professional networks, industry as-
sociations, and academic institutions persuade individual companies to
adopt appropriate organizational practices and structures by creating
and diffusing a common set of values and norms across member orga-
nizations (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). In the context of environmental
practices, the normative institutions that have received predominant
attention in previous studies are industry associations and environ-
mental interest groups, such as non-government organizations (e.g.,
King and Lenox, 2000; Delmas, 2002). Delmas (2002) argues that
companies participating in industry associations face stronger norma-
tive pressure due to the shared norms or uniform standards within the
industry.
Despite the presence of shared industry values and uniform stan-
dards for EM practices, competitors’ behaviors, especially leading or-
ganizations’ practices might form a salient normative force that en-
courages other organizations to engage in environmentally friendly
behaviors. As DiMaggio and Powell (1983) suggest that to gain social
legitimacy, organizations tend to model themselves after organizations
that are perceived to be more successful. Competitors’ successful im-
plementation of EM practices forms normative expectation for players
Z. Ouyang et al.
in the same social position, even cross geographical boundaries. For
instance, Chinese companies have been encouraged by the Western
developed countries to adopt the ISO 14,001 EMS standard to improve
their environmental compliance (Christmann and Taylor, 2001). Thus,
the normative environment represented by shared industry standards
and the awareness of competitors’ EM practices are expected to impose
positive impacts on hotels’ engagement in EM practices.
Hypothesis 2a. If there is an industry standard in place to ensure
organizations’ environmentally responsible behaviors, hotels are more
likely to engage in EM practices.
Hypothesis 2b. If competitors engage in environmentally responsible
behaviors in daily operations, hotels are more likely to engage in EM
practices.
2.3.3. Cognitive environment
Cognitive pressure emerges in interaction with external players,
particularly various stakeholders (Davis and Gergen, 1985). As sug-
gested by institutional theory (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Meyer and
Rowan, 1977), apart from efficient production and sufficient customer
demand, organizational survival and success may also depend upon the
legitimacy acquired from conforming to what is considered to be le-
gitimate in the eyes of the stakeholders (D’Aunno et al., 1991; Meyer
and Rowan, 1977; North, 1990). Thus, institutional conformance to
various stakeholders’ environmental expectations is rewarded. This
desire to gain legitimacy from various stakeholders motivate hotels to
proactively engage in EM. For example, previous studies find that
companies’ engagement in EM practices is significantly motivated by
the desire to improve or maintain relations with local communities
(Henriques and Sadorsky, 1996; Lavelle, 1993). Similarly, when the
stakeholders’ expectations on hotels’ EM performance increase, hotels
are more likely to engage in EM practices to show their commitment to
the stakeholders’ interests. Legitimate stakeholders of a hotel, therefore,
warrant attention. The model for the current study includes five groups
of stakeholders: suppliers, consumers, local community, investors, and
employees. A positive relationship between various stakeholders’ ex-
pectations and hotel EM is proposed.
Hypothesis 3. If there are expectations from stakeholders, i.e., (a) suppliers,
(b) consumers, (c) local community, (d) investors and (e) employees, about
organizations’ environmentally responsible behaviors, hotels are more likely
to engage in EM practices.
2.4. The moderating effect of firm characteristics
Organizations gain legitimacy by conforming with prevailing norms,
beliefs, and practices of multiple institutional constituencies, and through
organizational responses to institutional pressures (DiMaggio and Powell,
1983; Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Zucker, 1977, 1987). However, not all or-
ganizations are equally subject to institutional pressure and the need for
legitimacy (Goodstein, 1994; Powell, 1991; DiMaggio and Powell, 1991;
King and Lenox, 2000). For instance, previous studies show that larger or-
ganizations are held to higher standards of institutional compliance than
smaller organizations, thus, consistently receive greater attention and scru-
tiny from the public, the media, and regulators due to the possible social
impact (Roome and Wijen, 2006; Shrivastava, 1995; Shrivastava et al., 1988;
Zietsma et al., 2002). Moreover, with varying resources companies hold, the
strategic responses to institutional pressures differ significantly among in-
dividual organizations (Clemens and Douglas, 2005; Oliver, 1991), which
suggests varying degree of organizational conformity to the institutional
environment (Oliver, 1991). Subsequent studies empirically test the diverse
strategic choices that organizations make as a response to institutional
pressures (Clemens and Douglas, 2005; Etherington and Richardson, 1994;
Goodstein, 1994; Ingram and Simons, 1995; Milliken et al., 1998). Aligned
with Oliver’s (1991) argument, varying degrees of conformity to institutional
356
International Journal of Hospitality Management 77 (2019) 353–364
pressures for environmental responsibility are expected among hotel com-
panies with various characteristics in China.
For large companies that have scale and scope advantages, with the
increased interconnection between various market actors (e.g., com-
petitors, suppliers, and distributors) and non-market actors (NGOs, in-
dustry associations), they are able to develop larger and more open
business network structure relative to small companies (Chesbrough,
2006). This allows large companies to have greater flexibility in re-
sponding to the pressures from institutional environments (Cantwell
et al., 2010). That is, instead of passively comply with institutional
norms, these companies may resist the pressures without bearing much
loss. Following this logic, large hotel companies, particularly upscale
hotel companies have the ability to respond to the normative pressures
in a more flexible manner. The relatively weak dependence upon a
single group of stakeholders also enables them to buffer against the
cognitive pressures. To the contrary, small hotels and lower-end hotels,
which are financially unstable and are exposed to greater risks with
stronger identification among various groups of stakeholders
(Tzschentke et al., 2008) are expected to be more sensitive to normative
and cognitive pressures. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that the larger
and the higher scale the hotel is, the less likely it will conform to
normative and cognitive pressures by engaging in EM practices.
As for regulative pressures imposed by the governments, due to
their power to establish and enforce regulations and to punish non-
compliance, governments have a special position in the institutional
entity set. The imbalanced power between governments and organiza-
tions also exists universally. Regulative pressures will thus dominate
managers’ considerations and affect the organizational practices (Agle
et al., 1999). Since regulative pressures are deterministic and leaving
little room for negotiation among organizations; the strategic responses
to regulative pressures for environmental responsibility are expected to
be highly homogenous among hotel companies regardless of sizes and
scales.
In sum, even though large hotels and upscale hotels may face
greater institutional forces, they are not necessarily more responsive to
institutional calls manifested in EM practices, especially related to the
normative and cognitive environment given their broader efforts to
buffer against these pressures. Whereas for the regulative environment,
due to its mandatory nature, varying degrees of organizations’ re-
sponses to regulative requirements are not expected.
Following the preceding discussion, hotel size and hotel scale are
proposed as moderators that might hinder the positive impacts of the
normative and cognitive environment on hotel’s EM engagement, but
not for the regulative environment.
Hypothesis 4. The positive effects of regulative environment on hotels’
EM practices are consistent for hotels with different size (a) and scale
(b).
Hypothesis 5. The positive effects of normative environment on hotels’
EM practices are weaker for (a) large hotels and (b) upscale hotels.
Hypothesis 6. The positive effects of cognitive environment on hotels’
EM practices are weaker for (a) large hotels and (b) upscale hotels.
The conceptual framework is presented in Fig. 1.
3. Method
3.1. Measures
A self-administrated survey was developed following the standardized
procedures recommended by Churchill (1979) and DeVellis (1991). Since
the survey was conducted in China, the content was developed following
Brislin’s (1970) back-translation procedure. The items adopted from previous
studies were adjusted according to the context of China’s hotel industry. The
content validity of these items was assessed by a panel of five tourism and
hospitality scholars who evaluated the credibility and readability of the
Z. Ouyang et al.
Fig. 1. Conceptual Model.
contents. Modifications were made based on their comments. A pilot test was
conducted using data collected from 168 hotel managers from Guangdong
Province who attended industry forums and training workshops. Based on
the results of the pilot test, the questionnaire was finalized.
The measurement instrument comprised items relating to perceived
regulative, normative and cognitive pressures; hotels’ EM practices;
hotels’ characteristics and respondents’ demographics. Respondents
were instructed to indicate their levels of agreement on the statement
using a 5-point Likert-scale ranging from “Strongly disagree” ( = 1) to
“Strongly agree” ( = 5).
Each aspect of the institutional environment was measured by a single
item asking the respondents’ perceptions and awareness of the presented
institutional pressures (See Table 3). The statements were modified based on
the propositions of Campbell’s study (2007) to assess the perceptions of the
encountered institutional environment. For example, ‘enforced regulative
pressures’ was measured by “there are government regulations in place re-
garding organizations’ environmentally responsible behaviors”. Hotels’ EM
practices were measured with a 7-item scale (See Table 2) adapted from
Bohdanowicz (2005) and Park et al. (2012). This scale encompasses both
technical practices and system practices of environmental management
(EM).
3.2. Data collection
Data were collected from hotel managers and executives in
Guangdong Province, China. Guangdong Province as one of the most
popular tourist destinations and one of the mega business hubs in China
is receiving millions of business and leisure travelers per year. The hotel
industry in Guangdong Province has experienced dramatic expansion
during the past decades and has become the region that has the most
hotel properties and the most star-rated hotels in China. Star-rated
hotels are hotels participating in the star-rating program administered
by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of China. The total number of
star-rated hotels in Guangdong has amounted to 724 by the end of 2017
(Ministry of Culture and Tourism of the People’s Republic of China,
357
International Journal of Hospitality Management 77 (2019) 353–364
2018).
All respondents of the study held top- and mid-level managerial and
executive positions in their hotels. Given the focus of the study being at
the firm level, the most appropriate informants are high-level hotel
managers and executives. High-level managers and executives not only
make strategic decisions related to hotels’ environmental policies but
also participate in hotels’ daily EM practices. They therefore have the
most knowledge/information and best understanding of hotels’ EM
policies and practices.
To reach out to a representative sample of star-rated hotel properties
within Guangdong Province (population: 724), researchers aimed to collect
at least 250 usable responses at the firm level (i.e., 250 hotels) based on the
margin of error estimations. A total of 500 surveys was distributed during a
period of 6 months. Participants were approached through four ways. Firstly,
with the assistance of the municipal tourism bureaus, the printed ques-
tionnaires were mailed to the general managers of hotels located in the 21
municipalities in Guangdong Province. Secondly, surveys were delivered to
the participants of the Hotel Manager Training Workshop held by the
Guangdong Provincial Tourism Bureau. Thirdly, the questionnaires were also
distributed to the participants of the Hotel Industry Forums held monthly by
Guangdong Hotel and Lodging Association, which were mainly attended by
mid and high-level hotel managers in Guangdong province. As the main
speakers of the workshop and regular guest speakers of the forums, the re-
searchers were able to directly distribute printed surveys to the participants.
Lastly, hospitality students from a major research university in Guangdong
who were conducting internships at various hotels were asked to help dis-
tribute the printed surveys to their GMs. Participants received a souvenir
upon completing the survey as a token of appreciation.
With a response rate of 87%, 435 surveys were collected and 21
were excluded from analysis due to a high percentage of incomplete
responses. Thus, a total of 414 usable surveys, representing 414 hotels
(i.e., 57.2% of star-rated hotel properties within Guangdong Province)
were collected.
Z. Ouyang et al. International Journal of Hospitality Management 77 (2019) 353–364

3.3. Data analysis 4.3. Hypotheses testing

The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used in this
study. The descriptive profiles of the participating hotels were gener-
ated. After the measurements were validated, a series of simple linear
regression analyses were performed to test the proposed hypotheses on
the relationships among different dimensions of institutional environ-
ment and hotels’ EM practices. Afterward, the proposed moderating
role of hotel characteristics on the effects of institutional environment
on a hotel’s EM practices was examined with bootstrapping using
Hayes’s (Model 1).
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive statistics
The sample was about equally split regarding the gender (50.1% male
and 49% female). The vast majority (83%) of the respondents had an un-
dergraduate or above degree. Over half of the respondents (60.0%) had more
than 7 years of working experience in the hospitality industry, and almost all
of them (99.6%) held an executive or managerial position in the hotels they
worked. As for hotel characteristics (Table 1), the participating hotels were
about evenly distributed among 3-, 4- and 5-star hotels. More than half of the
participating hotels (53.9%) had more than 200 rooms. The majority
(60.6%) of the participating hotels were privately-owned and slightly less
than half (45.2%) of these hotels were in operation for more than 10 years.
To test the proposed hypotheses on the relationships between dif-
ferent dimensions of institutional environment and the EM, a hier-
archical multiple regression analysis with environment management
(EM) as the outcome variable was performed. Dummy coded ‘hotel
ownership type’ and ‘length of operation’ were entered as control
variables in the first step, then different types of institutional forces
were entered in the second step.
The effects of ‘hotel ownership type’ and ‘length of operation’ on EM
performance were initially tested and no significant effects were found
(F (6, 407) = 1.768, p = 0.104). Furthermore, the nature and sig-
nificance of the primary predictors’ impact on EM did not change after
controlling for these two hotel characteristics. ‘Hotel ownership type’
and ‘length of operation’ are thus not discussed in the analyses pre-
sented below.
Hypothesis 1a. proposed that the presence of enforced government
regulations increased the likelihood of hotels to implement EM in daily
operations. As Table 4 showed, the enforced government regulations
(β = 0.010, p = 0.770) was not a significant predictor of hotels’ EM
practices after controlling other institutional environment variables.
Thus, H1a was not supported. However, the results revealed a
significant relationship between supportive government policies and
hotels’ EM practices (β = 0.130, p = 0.002), which provided evidence
for H1b. Two types of regulative environment generated different
influences on hotels’ EM practices.

4.2. Measurement properties
Before estimating the proposed hypotheses, the internal consistency of
the multi-item measurement, i.e., hotels’ environmental management (EM)
was verified using Cronbach’s alpha (α = 0.824), which exceeded the sug-
gested threshold of 0.7 (Hair et al., 1998). The unidimensionality and con-
vergent validity of the EM measure were assessed through an exploratory
factor analysis using SPSS by constraining the extracted factor number to
one. Particularly, Maximum Likelihood estimation with Promax rotation was
used. Table 2 revealed adequate reliability alpha and moderate to high item
loadings, which indicated the convergent validity of the EM construct. The
composite EM mean was computed for subsequent regression analysis.
Table 3 reports descriptive statistics and correlation matrix for all
the main constructs. As all the inter-construct correlations are less than
the suggested threshold of 0.6, the discriminant validity of the mea-
surement scale was established.
Common industry standards (β = 0.193, p < 0.001) and competi-
tors’ EM practices (β = 0.221, p < 0.001) were found to have sig-
nificant effects on hotels’ EM practices. Hotels that were aware of the
industry norms and competitors’ environmental practices were more
likely to engage in EM, thus supporting H2a and H2b.
It was also found that increased expectations from the community
(β = 0.094, p = 0.010), investors (β = 0.197, p < 0.001) and em-
ployees (β = 0.177, p < 0.001) about hotels’ environmentally re-
sponsible behaviors had positive influence on hotels’ EM practices.
Therefore, H3c, H3d and H3e were supported. However, the effects of
increased environmental responsibility expectations from consumers
(β = 0.055, p = 0.167) and suppliers (β = -0.003, p = 0.942) on ho-
tels’ EM practices were not found to be statistically significant. Thus,
H3a and H3b were rejected.
4.4. The moderating effects of hotel characteristics

Table 1 Hypothesis 4–6 proposed that the relationships between various

Hotel Characteristics. institutional environment forces and hotel’s EM practices were mod-
erated by the size and scale of hotels. Only the institutional environ-
Variables Frequency (N = 414) Variables Frequency
ment variables that had significant effects on the adoption of hotel EM
Hotel Class (Scale) N % Ownership N % program were included to perform the moderation test. In order to have
approximate even sample sizes, ‘hotel size’ was recoded with hotels
2-star & below 55 13.3 State-owned 85 20.5 having 200 or more rooms as large hotel, and hotels having less than
3-star 114 27.5 Private 251 60.6
4-star 117 28.3 Joint-Venture 72 17.4
200 rooms as small hotels. Meanwhile, ‘hotel scale’ was recoded as
5-star 119 28.7 Total 408 98.6 higher-end (hotels ranked as 4 or higher stars), and lower-end (hotels
Total 405 97.8 ranked as 3 or lower stars). The categorical moderators were then
dummy coded for the subsequent analyses using small hotels and lower-
Variables Frequency (N = 414) Variables Frequency end hotels as the reference group, respectively. To test for moderation,
a series of regression analyses was conducted following Baron and
Hotel Size N % Length of N %
operation Kenny (1986)’s recommendation. Furthermore, the interaction effects
of hotel characteristics and the primary institutional forces on hotels’
Less than 200 rooms 184 44.4 Less than 3 years 57 13.8 EM practices were tested with the other two institutional forces entered
200-300 rooms 90 21.7 3-7 years 75 18.1
as covariates. Hayes’s PROCESS (Model 1) with 5000 bootstrapped
301-500 rooms 97 23.4 7-10 years 87 21.0
501-800 rooms 19 4.6 More than 10 187 45.2 samples were applied separately for each institutional force. The in-
years teraction term was computed using mean centered variables to deal
More than 800 17 4.1 Total 406 98.0 with possible multicollinearity problem (Field, 2016) and provide
rooms meaningful interpretations.
Total 407 98.3
As Table 5 shows, all the prediction models were statistically

358
Z. Ouyang et al. International Journal of Hospitality Management 77 (2019) 353–364

Table 2
EM measurement properties.
Mean SD Standardized loading Cronbach's Alpha

Environment Management 4.033 1.018 0.409 0.824

My hotel incorporates EM into corporate policy. 3.853 0.781 0.707
My hotel involves a manager or a team in EM. 3.867 0.904 0.711
My hotel implements employee EM training programs. 3.659 0.890 0.726
My hotel monitors and records EM performance. 2.988 1.007 0.603
My hotel implements recycling and waste management programs. 3.874 0.796 0.543
My hotel uses energy- / water-efficient equipment and products. 3.976 0.811 0.532
My hotel purchases environmentally responsible products and raw materials. 4.121 0.781 0.587

significant as shown by the significant R2, with the institutional en- Table 4
vironment variables including government support, industry standards, Effects of institutional environments on hotels’ EM.
competitors’ EM practices, EM expectations from the community, in- Variables EM Hypothesis*
vestors, and employees, dummy coded hotel size variable and the in-
teraction terms being entered into the models. As the simple effects of β S.E. p
hotel size indicated, there was a significant difference in the EM prac-
Regulative Government 0.010 0.013 0.770 H1a (NS)
tices for large hotels compared to small hotels. After the effects of in- Environment enforced regulation
stitutional environments have been accounted for, large hotels were Government 0.130 0.028 0.002 H1b (S)
more likely to engage in EM practices than small hotels. supportive policy
Specifically, the increased variance of hotels’ EM practices due to Normative Industry standard 0.193 0.030 0.000 H2a (S)
Environment Competitors’ EM 0.221 0.033 0.000 H2b (S)
the interaction was trivial and nonsignificant for the majority of the
practices
models except for industry forces (ΔR2 = 0.004, p = 0.046). Regressing Cognitive Suppliers’ EM −0.003 0.035 0.942 H3a (NS)
hotels’ EM practices on the interactions between various institutional Environment expectations
environments and hotel sizes separately revealed that the moderating Consumers’ EM 0.055 0.028 0.167 H3b (NS)
expectations
effects of hotel size function differently for different institutional forces.
Community’s EM 0.094 0.029 0.019 H3c (S)
The nonsignificant interaction effect between hotel sizes and govern- expectations
ments’ supportive policies on hotels’ EM practices (b = -0.008, Investors’ EM 0.197 0.033 0.000 H3d (S)
p = 0.851) indicated that the positive effect of governments’ support on expectations
hotels’ EM practices was consistent across different hotel sizes. Thus, Employees’ EM 0.177 0.034 0.000 H3e (S)
expectations
H4a was supported.
Meanwhile, the effects of shared industry standards regarding en- *
S = supported; NS = not supported.
vironmental practices on hotels’ EM were found to be a function of
hotel size (b = -0.092, p = 0.046). More specifically, as suggested by community, employees, and investors on hotels’ EM activities produced
the negative interaction coefficient, the positive impacts of industry equivalent impacts on small and large hotels, which rejected H6a.
standards on hotels’ EM practices were weaker for large hotels than for With regard to hotel scale, all the prediction models were statisti-
small hotels. However, the coefficient of interaction terms between cally significant as Table 6 shows (R2 all significant), with institutional
hotel size and competitor forces was not significant for large hotels (b= environments, dummy coded hotel scale and the interaction terms as
-0.034, p = 0.534), meaning that the positive influence of competitors’ predictors. Regressing hotels’ EM practices on hotel scale revealed that
EM practices was consistent for both large and small hotels. The results there was a significant difference in the EM practices between lower
partially supported the proposed mitigating effects of hotel size on the scale and upscale hotels (b = 0.109, p = 0.007). The hotels positioned
relationship between the normative environment and hotels’ EM prac- in higher tier were more likely to engage in EM practices than lower
tices (H5a). scale hotels.
As for the cognitive environment, none of the interaction effects of The incremental variances due to interactions were nonsignificant
hotel size was significant. The increased expectations from the

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations.
Mean SD SP ER IS CP CM CS S E I

SP 3.732 0.901
ER 3.855 1.648 .197**
IS 3.510 0.852 .548** .163**
CP 3.512 0.722 .383** .172** .429**
CM 3.816 0.812 .364** .246** .454** .458**
CS 3.722 0.859 .323** .243** .333** .319** .398**
S 3.582 0.721 .280** .112* .335** .276** .303** .385**
E 4.036 0.785 .393** .232** .384** .296** .330** .392** .493**
I 4.065 0.816 .394** .144** .353** .322** .412** .438** .444** .612**
EM 3.763 0.595 .513** .204** .552** .515** .423** .424** .456** .565** .551**

Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

ER = government enforced regulations; SP = government supportive policies.
IS = industry standard; CP = competitors’ EM practices.
CM = increased EM expectation from local community; CS = increased EM expectation from consumers; S = increased EM expectation from suppliers; E = increased
EM expectation from employees; IV = increased EM expectation from investors.
EM = hotels’ EM practices.

359
Z. Ouyang et al. International Journal of Hospitality Management 77 (2019) 353–364

Table 5
Moderation analyses of hotel sizes on the effect of institutional environments on hotel EM.
b S.E. Sig. Hypothesis*

Regulative Environment Government supportive policy 0.007 0.020 0.740 H4a (S)
Large hotel 0.199 0.039 0.000
Large hotel × supportive policy −0.008 0.0410 0.851
R2 0.768 0.000
ΔR2 0.000 0.851
Normative Environment Industry standard 0.125 0.029 0.000 H5a (PS)
Large hotel 0.197 0.039 0.000
Large hotel × industry standard −0.092 0.046 0.046
R2 0.771 0.000
ΔR2 0.004 0.046
Competitors’ EM practices 0.180 0.032 0.000
Large hotel 0.199 0.039 0.000
Large hotel × competitors’ EM practices −0.034 0.054 0.534
R2 0.769 0.000
ΔR2 0.000 0.534
Cognitive Environment Community expectations 0.081 0.029 0.005 H6a (NS)
Large hotel 0.198 0.039 0.000
Large hotel × community expectations 0.058 0.048 0.223
R2 0.769 0.000
ΔR2 0.002 0.223
Employees’ expectations 0.431 0.030 0.000
Large hotel 0.273 0.047 0.000
Large hotel × employees’ expectations −0.102 0.061 0.095
R2 0.768 0.000
ΔR2 0.000 0.621
Investors’ expectations 0.153 0.032 0.000
Large hotel 0.199 0.039 0.000
Large hotel × investors’ expectations −0.007 0.048 0.883
R2 0.768 0.000
ΔR2 0.000 0.883

*
S = supported; NS = not supported; PS = partially supported.

and trivial for the majority of the models with the exception of a shared scales of hotels (b = -0.097, p = 0.038). Specifically, the negative in-
industry standard (ΔR2 = 0.005, p = 0.038). The effects of a shared teraction coefficient for upscale hotels suggested that hotel scale func-
industry standard on hotels' EM varied significantly among different tioned as a suppressor mitigating the positive effects of a shared

Table 6
Moderation analyses of hotel scale on the effect of institutional environments on hotel EM.
b S.E. Sig. Hypothesis*

Regulative environment Government supportive policy 0.013 0.020 0.530 H4b (S)
Higher-end hotel 0.109 0.040 0.007
Higher-end hotel × institutional force −0.022 0.043 0.605
R2 0.757 0.000
ΔR2 0.000 0.605
Normative environment Industry standard 0.133 0.030 0.000 H5b (PS)
Higher-end hotel 0.106 0.040 0.007
Higher-end hotel × institutional force −0.097 0.047 0.038
R2 0.759 0.000
ΔR2 0.005 0.038
Competitors’ EM practices 0.186 0.032 0.000
Higher-end hotel 0.109 0.040 0.006
Higher-end hotel × institutional force −0.026 0.055 0.632
R2 0.757 0.000
ΔR2 0.000 0.632
Cognitive environment Community’s expectations 0.073 0.029 0.000 H6b (NS)
Higher-end hotel 0.109 0.040 0.006
Higher-end hotel × institutional force 0.045 0.049 0.358
R2 0.758 0.000
ΔR2 0.001 0.358
Investors’ expectations 0.143 0.033 0.000
Higher-end hotel 0.109 0.040 0.006
Higher-end hotel × institutional force −0.037 0.049 0.442
R2 0.757 0.000
ΔR2 0.001 0.442
Employees’ expectations 0.140 0.034 0.001
Higher-end hotel 0.110 0.040 0.006
Higher-end hotel × institutional force −0.037 0.052 0.480
R2 0.757 0.000
ΔR2 0.001 0.480

*
S = supported; NS = not supported; PS = partially supported.

360
Z. Ouyang et al.
industry standard on hotels' EM practices. However, the impacts of the
other normative environment dimension (competitors’ EM practice) on
hotels’ EM practices didn’t vary among high- and low- end hotels. H5b
was therefore only partially supported. On the other hand, while the
invariant effects of government supportive policies on hotels’ EM
practices provided evidence for H4b, H6b was rejected because the
cognitive environment, operationalized as increased expectations from
various hotel stakeholders, was found to impose consistent effects on
hotels’ EM implications.
5. Discussion
Findings of this study largely support the institutional theory by
showing that organizations' engagement in EM practices is influenced
by diverse institutional pressures, including regulative, normative and
cognitive pressures among hotels in China. Particularly, this study ex-
amines the role of two different forms of regulative pressures (i.e.,
enforced and supportive government policy) as drivers for hotels’ en-
gagement in EM practices. As suggested by the study results, only
supportive government policies impose significant and positive effects
on hotels’ EM practices but not enforced regulations. The results em-
pirically confirm the existence of two distinguished regulative forces
and demonstrate that these two pressures work through different me-
chanisms to change hotels’ behaviors in EM. Supportive government
regulations that promote the implementation of environmentally
friendly practices have displayed significant and positive influences on
hotels’ EM practices. This result was consistent with previous research
(e.g., Delmas and Toffels, 2004; Winter and May, 2001). The benefits
associated with supportive policies motivate hotels to embrace en-
vironmental achievements.
On the other hand, unlike previous studies (e.g., Winter and May,
2001), the positive effects of government enforced policies are not
detected in this study. The enforced government regulations, such as
mandatory laws or regulations have no significant impacts on hotels’
EM practices. Findings suggest that the possible punishments stemmed
from the failure to comply with mandatory regulations do not motivate
hotels to engage in EM practices. One possible explanation for the in-
significant influence of enforced governmental regulations may be the
lack of persistent and efficient environment monitoring system in
China. China’s hierarchical political system dictates that the environ-
mental governance also largely follows a top-down or command-and-
control approach (Carter and Mol, 2013). The inherent defect of the
top-down governance system, i.e., the high centralization of power and
the lack of supervision and/or accountability, sets root for the failure of
EM implementation and monitoring in businesses (Liu et al., 2012).
Without an effective monitoring of hotels’ actual EM practices, hotels
may forgo EM practices bearing no fears to be detected and penalized.
It’s critical for the governments to establish effective environment
monitoring system to assure the implementation of mandatory regula-
tions.
The normative environment imposes values and norms that are inter-
nalized by organizations (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Scott, 1995), which is
measured in this study by the existence of a shared industry standard on EM
and an awareness of competitors’ EM behaviors. Both measures display
significant associations with hotels’ engagement in EM practices. By enga-
ging in normatively accepted and favored practices such as environmental
friendly behaviors, hotels obtain legitimacy to ensure their business survival
(North, 1990). This finding has provided some initial empirical evidence of
the importance of establishing a shared norm for the industry and the es-
sential role that the hospitality industry as a whole can play to advance the
development of EM programs in individual hotels.
An increase in environmental awareness of hotel employees, in-
vestors, and the local community is verified as a significant driver for
hotels’ EM practices. Particularly, the magnitudes of various stake-
holders’ EM expectations are different, with the expectations from in-
vestors impose the greatest impacts on hotels’ EM practices, followed by
361
International Journal of Hospitality Management 77 (2019) 353–364
employees’ and the community’s expectation. The results indicate that
different stakeholders carry different weights in hotels’ decisions about
initiating EM practices, reflecting the different power positions of dif-
ferent groups of stakeholders (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978). The greater
power a stakeholder has over a hotel, the more responsive the hotel will
be to its demands.
Surprisingly, the increased environmental awareness of consumers
and suppliers have no significant influence on hotels’ engagement in
EM practices. One possible explanation is such a nonsignificant re-
lationship between consumers’ increased environmental expectations
and hotel EM may result from the discrepancy between consumers’
environmental claims and their actual booking behaviors. Previous
studies in marketing have identified that consumers’ environmental
consciousness or awareness plays an important role in their purchase
decisions regarding green products (Do Paco and Raposo, 2009; Takács-
Sánta, 2007; Straughan and Roberts, 1999). However, when consumers
make their decisions about purchasing a hotel room, the perceived
environmental performance of hotels may not be considered a de-
terminant feature that affects their final decisions. The room price,
hotel location, and service quality are still the core factors driving hotel
customers’ purchase decisions (Kim et al., 2006). Thus, though con-
sumers’ expectations on hotels’ EM practices have increased in recent
years, the expected impacts on hotels’ actual EM practices are trivial.
While the nonsignificant association between suppliers’ environmental
expectations and hotels’ implementation of EM may be partially ex-
plained by the substitutability of the suppliers (Salancik and Pfeffer,
1978). The impact of environmental expectations from an individual
supplier is rather small.
With respect to the proposition of Oliver’s (1991) typology of stra-
tegic responses to institutional pressures, this study further examines
the role of hotel characteristics (i.e., hotel size and scale) as moderators
that alter the driving impacts of institutional environments on hotels’
engagement in EM. The main effects of hotel size and scale suggest that
hotels’ EM practices differ with regard to their size and scale with large
hotels and upscale hotels more likely to participate in EM practices,
consistent with previous studies’ discussion (Roome and Wijen, 2006).
Large hotels and particularly luxury hotels are subject to greater social
attention, they are thus more likely to engage in EM.
As predicted, this study has revealed an invariant effect of reg-
ulative environment on hotels’ EM practices among large and small
hotels or lower and higher scale hotels. However, this study fails to
identify significant moderating effects of hotel characteristics on the
impacts of normative and cognitive forces on hotels’ EM practices, with
the only exception of industry standard. The impacts of a shared in-
dustry standard reduce with the increase of both hotel size and hotel
scale, i.e., their effects on hotels’ EM practices are weaker for large and
upscale hotels as compared to small and lower-end ones. Comparing to
large and upscale hotels, small and lower end hotels are more depen-
dent on various stakeholders to achieve success (Tzschentke et al.,
2008). Therefore, they respond more proactively to the institutional
pressures. On the other hand, the nonsignificant moderating effects of
hotel sizes and scales on regulative and cognitive pressures may reflect
the growing awareness and perceived importance of environmental
sustainability in China. In recent years, China has experienced several
nation-wide, massive fog and haze outbreaks. The increasingly severe
issues of air pollution in China have forced Chinese governments, or-
ganizations, and residents to pay more attention to environmental
protection. The hospitality companies, regardless of size and scale, have
all felt the mounting pressure of adopting environmentally friendly
programs. Thus, the proposed moderating effects of individual hotel
characteristics on hotels’ EM practices have diminished somehow.
In conclusion, this study has demonstrated the critical role of the in-
stitutional environments in encouraging hotels’ engagement in EM practices
by confirming the positive associations between hotels’ environmental pro-
grams and various institutional forces including supportive government po-
licies, industry standards, competitors’ EM practices and expectations from
Z. Ouyang et al.
employees, local community and investors. Particularly, the strength of the
positive relationships between the industry standard and hotels’ EM practices
is conditional upon hotel size and scale.
6. Implications
6.1. Theoretical implications
The theoretical contributions of this study are twofold. First, this
study investigates the underlying drivers of hotels’ implementation of
EM practices from an institutional perspective. Previous attempts to
explain hotels’ EM practices have focused on the effects of specific hotel
characteristics such as organizational design (Ramus and Steger, 2000),
financial conditions (Singal, 2014), attitudes of top management team
(Park et al., 2012) and managerial ownership (Paek et al., 2013). The
institutional model empirically proves how regulative, normative and
cognitive environments inflict institutional pressures on hotels to en-
courage their commitment to EM practices. Additionally, this model
integrates the impacts of both macro-level factors (i.e., regulative and
normative environment variables) and firm-level factors (i.e., expecta-
tions of various stakeholders). Although there are studies that take in-
stitutional perspective and empirically analyze the impact of regulative
environments such as state regulations or laws on organization beha-
viors (e.g., Delmas and Toffels, 2004; Winter and May, 2001), this study
contributes to the line of inquiry by empirically investigating the role of
normative and cognitive pressures on firms’ environmental manage-
ment strategies.
Second, drawing upon Oliver’s (1991) argument regarding the
varying strategic responses to institutional pressures, this model com-
plements traditional institutional theory as it suggests that both in-
stitutional pressures and firm characteristics influence hotels to adopt
environmental management practices. Hotel size and scale mitigate the
influence of several institutional pressures on EM practices. That is, this
paper provides empirical evidences that shed light on Oliver’s (1991)
appeal for a more realistic approach studying institutional pressures
which taking the contextual environment firms are faced with into
consideration. Hotel managers’ capability to interpret the institutional
pressures with respect to their specific characteristics becomes a source
of gaining competitive advantage (de la luz Fernández-Alles and Valle-
Cabrera, 2006).
6.2. Practical implications
The study results can also provide insights to policymakers to pro-
mote environmental management (EM). Frist, considering the sig-
nificant effects of supportive regulations on hotels’ implementation of
EM practices, local governments should proactively support the devel-
opment and implementation of EM programs by offering political
support or incentives, instead of merely establishing mandatory en-
vironmental regulations and penalizing organizations’ disobedient be-
haviors. On the other hand, as the nonsignificant effects of enforced
policies on a hotel’s EM practices suggest, there may be a lack of ef-
fective monitoring system to ensure hotel compliance with relevant
regulations (Liu et al., 2012). Thus, it is vital for various levels of
governments to establish such a supervisory system. Second, the cog-
nitive and normative environments that facilitate environmentally
friendly practices are developed through shared notions and values
among institutions. A shared industry norm and standard can sig-
nificantly encourage hotels’ engagement in EM practices. Thus, pol-
icymakers should co-operate with hospitality industry associations to
foster such an institutional environment by disseminating the im-
portance of establishing formal EM systems.
Meanwhile, findings also indicate that hotels' EM practices are a
result of their willingness to conform to the environmental expectations
from investors, employees and local communities. Thus, diffusing in-
formation regularly and continually that enhance the environmental
362
International Journal of Hospitality Management 77 (2019) 353–364
awareness of various stakeholders is warranted. Particularly, hotels’
conformity with employees’ increasing expectations on EM practices
can be a self-reinforced circle. Since employees of a hotel that in-
corporates EM are likely to obtain environmental training, and their
environmental awareness may increase accordingly. Thus, in terms of
the content of environmental training, rather than merely teaching
employees how to operate environmental friendly equipment, hotel
managers should focus on topics that raise employees’ ecological
awareness. For example, the environmental issues caused by hotel op-
erations, or more general, the causes and outcomes of greenhouse ef-
fects.
7. Limitations
This study is not free of limitation. First, the data were collected in
hotels located in a specific area in China, the magnitude and pattern of
institutional environments’ effects on EMs might not be generalized to
other geographical regions. Institutional pressures are socially and
culturally constrained and thus are expected to be different among
different regions and countries. Future research is recommended to
empirically test the model in other geographical regions and countries.
Second, this study utilized single-item scale to measure different
aspects of the institutional environment. Although the usage of single-
item measures is appealing due to its greater survey effectiveness and
reduced chance of common method bias, the application of single-item
measures calls for cautions due to the disability to compute internal
consistency reliability statistics for a single-item measure and its vul-
nerability to random measurement errors. Thus, future studies can
develop a multi-item measurement of institutional environments for
higher construct predictive validity (Diamantopoulos et al., 2012).
In addition, this study used hotel managers’ perceptions to assess
hotels’ EM engagement, while no explicit measures on the environ-
mental performance were applied. Future studies may incorporate both
perceived and objective measures for hotels’ EM performance and ex-
amine the effects of institutional environments on EM performance.
Meanwhile, single key informant methodology was applied due to the
focus of the study being at the firm level and to reach a broader sample.
This may result in informant bias (Phillips, 1981). Multiple informants
might be used to increase the reliability and validity of self-reports in
future studies.
Finally, the interactions between the three institutional pressures
were not examined in this study, it is likely that they might interact
with each other and magnify or temper their influence on hotels’ EM
practices. For instance, the heightened expectations of environmental
sustainability from the local community might call for more stringent
EM policies and regulations. Future research can take the interactions
between institutional pressures into account.
References
Agle, B.R., Mitchell, R.K., Sonnenfeld, J.A., 1999. Who matters to Ceos? An investigation
of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and Ceo values. Acad.
Manag. J. 42 (5), 507–525.
Álvarez Gil, M.J., Burgos Jiménez, J., Céspedes Lorente, J.J., 2001. An analysis of en-
vironmental management, organizational context and performance of Spanish hotels.
Omega 29, 457–471.
Angell, L.C., Klassen, R.D., 1999. Integrating environmental issues into the mainstream:
an agenda for research in operations management. J. Oper. Manag. 17 (5), 575–598.
Aragón-Correa, J.A., Hurtado-Torres, N., Sharma, S., García-Morales, V.J., 2008.
Environmental strategy and performance in small firms: a resource-based perspec-
tive. J. Environ. Manage. 86 (1), 88–103.
B. DiPietro, R., Cao, Y., Partlow, C., 2013. Green practices in upscale foodservice op-
erations: customer perceptions and purchase intentions. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp.
Manage. 25 (5), 779–796.
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 51 (6), 1173.
Bohdanowicz, P., 2005. European hoteliers’ environmental attitudes: greening the busi-
ness. Cornell Hosp. Q. 46, 188–204.
Bohdanowicz, P., Zientara, P., Novotna, E., 2011. International hotel chains and
Z. Ouyang et al.
environmental protection: An analysis of Hilton’s we care! Programme (Europe,
2006–2008). J. Sustain. Tour. 19, 797–816.
Brislin, R.W., 1970. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J. Cross. Psychol. 1 (3),
185–216.
Campbell, J.L., 2007. Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An
institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Acad. Manage. Rev. 32 (3),
946–967.
Cantwell, J., Dunning, J.H., Lundan, S.M., 2010. An evolutionary approach to under-
standing international business activity: the co-evolution of MNEs and the institu-
tional environment. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 41 (4), 567–586.
Carmona-Moreno, E., Céspedes-Lorente, J., De Burgos-Jiménez, J., 2004. Environmental
strategies in Spanish hotels: contextual factors and performance. Serv. Ind. J. 24 (3),
101–130.
Carraro, C., Katsoulacos, Y., Xepapadeas, A. (Eds.), 2013. Environmental Policy And
Market Structure Vol. 4 Springer Science and Business Media.
Carter, N., Mol, A.P. (Eds.), 2013. EnVironmental Governance in China. Routledge.
Chan, E.S., Hon, A.H., Chan, W., Okumus, F., 2014. What drives employees’ intentions to
implement green practices in hotels? The role of knowledge, awareness, concern and
ecological behaviour. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 40, 20–28.
Chesbrough, H., 2006. Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation
Landscape. Harvard Business Press.
Christmann, P., 2000. Effects of “best practices” of environmental management on cost
advantage: the role of complementary assets. Acad. Manage. J. 43 (4), 663–680.
Christmann, P., Taylor, G., 2001. Globalization and the environment: determinants of
firm self-regulation in China. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 32 (3), 439–458.
Churchill Jr, G.A., 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing con-
structs. J. Mark. Res. 64–73.
Claver-Cortés, E., Molina-Azorín, J.F., Pereira-Moliner, J., López-Gamero, M.D., 2007.
Environmental strategies and their impact on hotel performance. J. Sustain. Tour. 15
(6), 663–679.
Clemens, B.W., Douglas, T.J., 2005. Understanding strategic responses to institutional
pressures. J. Bus. Res. 58 (9), 1205–1213.
Cooper, I., 1998. Emerging issues in environmental management. In: Alexander, K. (Ed.),
Facility Management: Theory and Practice. Spon Press, London, pp. 111–119.
Cramer, J., 1998. Environmental management: from ‘fit’ to ‘stretch’. Bus. Strategy
Environ. 7 (3), 162–172.
D’Aunno, T., Sutton, R.I., Price, R.H., 1991. Isomorphism and external support in con-
flicting institutional environments: a study of drug abuse treatment units. Acad.
Manag. J. 34 (3), 636–661.
Dacin, M.T., Oliver, C., Roy, J.P., 2007. The legitimacy of strategic alliances: an institu-
tional perspective. Strateg. Manag. J. 28 (2), 169–187.
Davis, K.E., Gergen, K.J. (Eds.), 1985. The Social Construction of the Person. Springer-
Verlag.
de la luz Fernández-Alles, M., Valle-Cabrera, R., 2006. Reconciling institutional theory
with organizational theories: How neoinstitutionalism resolves five paradoxes. J.
Organ. Chang. Manage. 19 (4), 503–517.
Delmas, M., 2002. The diffusion of environmental management standards in Europe and
in the United States: an institutional perspective. Policy Sci. 35, 91–119.
Delmas, M.A., Toffels, M.W., 2004. Institutional pressure and environmental management
practices. In: Sharma, S., Starik, M. (Eds.), Stakeholders, the Environment, and
Society. Edward Elga, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 233–243.
Deng, S.M., Burnett, J., 2002. Water use in hotels in Hong Kong. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 21
(1), 57–66.
DeVellis, R.F., 1991. Scale development: Theory and practice. Newbury Park.
Diamantopoulos, A., Sarstedt, M., Fuchs, C., Wilczynski, P., Kaiser, S., 2012. Guidelines
for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: a
predictive validity perspective. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 40 (3), 434–449.
DiMaggio, P., Powell, W., 1983. The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and in-
stitutional isomorphism in organizational fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 48 (2), 147–160.
DiMaggio, P., Powell, W., 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Do Paco, A., Raposo, M., 2009. “Green” segmentation: an application to the Portuguese
consumer market. Mark. Intell. Plan. 27 (3), 364–379.
Dobers, P., 1997. Strategies for environmental control: a comparison between regulation
and centralized control in Germany and reforms leading to decentralized control in
Sweden. Bus. Strategy Environ. 6 (1), 34–45.
Dolores López-Gamero, M., Claver-Cortés, E., Francisco Molina-Azorín, J., 2011.
Environmental perception, management, and competitive opportunity in Spanish
hotels. Cornell Hosp. Q. 52 (4), 480–500.
El Dief, M., Font, X., 2012. Determinants of environmental management in the Red Sea
hotels: personal and organizational values and contextual variables. J. Hosp. Tour.
Res. 36, 115–137.
Erdogan, N., Baris, E., 2007. Environmental protection programs and conservation
practices of hotels in Ankara, Turkey. Tour. Manage. 28, 604–614.
Etherington, L.D., Richardson, A.J., 1994. Institutional pressures on university accounting
education in Canada. Contemp. Acc. Res. 10 (S1), 141–162.
Field, A., 2016. An Adventure in Statistics: the Reality Enigma. Sage.
Garay, L., Font, X., 2012. Doing good to do well? Corporate social responsibility reasons,
practices and impacts in small and medium accommodation enterprises. Int. J. Hosp.
Manage. 31 (2), 329–337.
Gil, M.A., Jiménez, J.B., Lorente, J.C., 2001. An analysis of environmental management,
organizational context and performance of Spanish hotels. Omega 29 (6), 457–471.
Goeldner, C.R., Ritchie, J.B., 2006. Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies. John
Wiley & Sons.
Goodstein, J.D., 1994. Institutional pressures and strategic responsiveness: Employer
involvement in work-family issues. Acad. Manage. J. 37 (2), 350–382.
363
International Journal of Hospitality Management 77 (2019) 353–364
González‐Benito, J., González‐Benito, Ó., 2006. A review of determinant factors of en-
vironmental proactivity. Bus. Strategy Environ. 15 (2), 87–102.
Greening, D.W., Gray, B., 1994. Testing a model of organizational response to social and
political issues. Acad. Manage. J. 37 (3), 467–498.
Greenwood, R., Hinings, C.R., 1996. Understanding radical organizational change:
bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Acad. Manage. Rev. 21 (4),
1022–1054.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., 1998. Multivariate Data
Analysis Vol. 5. Prentice hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, pp. 207–219 No. 3.
He, G., Lu, Y., Mol, A.P., Beckers, T., 2012. Changes and challenges: china’s environ-
mental management in transition. Environ. Dev. 3, 25–38.
Henriques, I., Sadorsky, P., 1996. The determinants of an environmentally responsive
firm: An empirical approach. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 30 (3), 381–395.
Holcomb, J.L., Upchurch, R.S., Okumus, F., 2007. Corporate social responsibility: what
are top hotel companies reporting? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 19 (6), 461–475.
Ingram, P., Simons, T., 1995. Institutional and resource dependence determinants of re-
sponsiveness to work-family issues. Acad. Manage. J. 38 (5), 1466–1482.
Inoue, Y., Lee, S., 2011. Effects of different dimensions of corporate social responsibility
on corporate financial performance in tourism-related industries. Tourism Manage.
32 (4), 790–804.
ISO, 2015. ISO Survey of Certifications to Management System Standards. Retrieved on
February 20, 2017 from. https://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink?func=ll&objId=
18808772&objAction=browse&viewType=1.
Jennings, P.D., Zandbergen, P.A., 1995. Ecologically sustainable organizations: an in-
stitutional approach. Acad. Manage. Rev. 20 (4), 1015–1052.
Kasim, A., 2007. Towards a wider adoption of environmental responsibility in the hotel
sector. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Adm. 8 (2), 25–49.
Kassinis, G.I., Soteriou, A.C., 2003. Greening the service profit chain: the impact of en-
vironmental management practices. Prod. Oper. Manage. 12 (3), 386–403.
Kim, W.G., Ma, X., Kim, D.J., 2006. Determinants of Chinese hotel customers’ e-sa-
tisfaction and purchase intentions. Tour. Manage. 27 (5), 890–900.
King, A., Lenox, M., 2000. Industry self-regulation without sanctions: the chemical in-
dustry responsible care program. Acad. Manage. J. 43, 698–716.
Klassen, R., McLaughlin, C., 1996. The impact of environmental management on firm
performance. Manage. Sci. 42, 1199–1214.
Lavelle, M., 1993. Environment vise: law, compliance. Natl. Law J. 30, S1–S9.
Lawrence, A.T., Morell, D., 1995. Leading-edge environmental management: motivation,
opportunity, resources and processes. In: Collins, D., Starik, M. (Eds.), Special
Research Volume of Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Sustaining
the Natural Environment: Empirical Studies on the Interface Between Nature and
Organizations. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 99–126.
Liu, L., Zhang, B., Bi, J., 2012. Reforming China’s multi-level environmental governance:
lessons from the 11th Five-Year Plan. Environ. Sci. Policy 21, 106–111.
Majumdar, S.K., Marcus, A.A., 2001. Rules versus discretion: the productivity con-
sequences of flexible regulation. Acad. Manage. J. 44 (1), 170–179.
Marriott International. (2015, November 05). Retrieved from http://www.marriott.com/
corporate-social-responsibility/corporate-environmental-responsibility.mi.
Melnyk, S., Sroufe, R., Calantone, R., 2003. Assessing the impact of environmental
management systems on corporate and environmental performance. J. Oper. Manage.
21, 329–351.
Mensah, I., 2006. Environmental management practices among hotels in the greater
Accra region. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 25, 414–431.
Meyer, J., Rowan, B., 1977. Institutional organizations: formal structure as myth and
ceremony. Am. J. Sociol. 80, 340–363.
Milliken, F.J., Martins, L.L., Morgan, H., 1998. Explaining organizational responsiveness
to work-family issues: the role of human resource executives as issue interpreters.
Acad. Manage. J. 41 (5), 580–592.
Ministry of Culture and Tourism of the People’s Republic of China 2018. Retrieved on
March 27, 2018 from http://www.cnta.gov.cn/zwgk/tzggnew/gztz/201712/
t20171206_849262.shtml.
Molina-Azorı´n, J.F., Claver-Corte´ s, E., Pereira-Moliner, J., Tarı´, J.J., 2009.
Environmental practices and firm performance: an empirical analysis in the Spanish
hotel industry. J. Clean. Prod. 17, 516–524.
North, D.C., 1990. A transaction cost theory of politics. J. Theor. Polit. 2 (4), 355–367.
Oliver, C., 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Acad. Manage. Rev. 16 (1),
145–179.
Paek, S., Xiao, Q., Lee, S., Song, H., 2013. Does managerial ownership affect different
corporate social responsibility dimensions? An empirical examination of US publicly
traded hospitality firms. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 34, 423–433.
Park, J., Kim, H., McCleary, K., 2012. The impact of top management’s environmental
attitudes on hotel companies’ environmental management. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 38,
95–115.
Peiró-Signes, A., Segarra-Oña, M.D.V., Verma, R., Mondéjar-Jiménez, J., Vargas-Vargas,
M., 2014. The impact of environmental certification on hotel guest ratings. Cornell
Hosp. Q. 55 (1), 40–51.
Phillips, L.W., 1981. Assessing measurement error in key informant reports: a methodo-
logical note on organizational analysis in marketing. J. Mark. Res. 395–415.
Pine, R., Phillips, P., 2005. Performance comparisons of hotels in China. Int. J. Hosp.
Manage. 24 (1), 57–73.
Powell, W., 1991. Expanding the scope of institutional analysis. The New Institutionalism
in Organizational Analysis. pp. 183–203 Chicago.
Qiu, J., 2008. China bows to public over chemical plant. Nature 451, 117.
Rajdeep, G., Dharwadkar, R., 2002. The role of the institutional environment in mar-
keting channels. J. Mark. 66 (6), 82–97.
Ramus, C.A., Steger, U., 2000. The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environ-
mental policy in employee ‘ecoinitiatives’ at leading-edge European companies.
Z. Ouyang et al.
Acad. Manage. J. 43, 605–626.
Rivera, J., De Leon, P., 2004. Is greener whiter? Voluntary environmental performance of
western ski areas. Policy Stud. J. 32 (3), 417–437.
Rodríguez, F.J.G., Cruz, Y.D.M.A., 2007. Relation between social-environmental re-
sponsibility and performance in hotel firms. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 26 (4), 824–839.
Roome, N., Wijen, F., 2006. Stakeholder power and organizational learning in corporate
environmental management. Organ. Stud. 27 (2), 235–263.
Russo, M., Fouts, P., 1997. A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental
performance and profitability. Acad. Manage. J. 40, 534–559.
Saha, M., Darnton, G., 2005. Green companies or green con‐panies: Are companies really
green, or are they pretending to be? Bus. Soc. Rev. 110 (2), 117–157.
Salancik, G.R., Pfeffer, J., 1978. A social information processing approach to job attitudes
and task design. Adm. Sci. Q. 224–253.
Scott, W.R., 1995. Institutions and Organizations. Foundations for Organizational
Science. A Sage Publication Series, London.
Scott, W.R., 2007. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests. Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Shrivastava, P., 1995. The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability.
Acad. Manage. Rev. 20 (4), 936–960.
Shrivastava, P., Mitroff, I.I., Miller, D., Miclani, A., 1988. Understanding industrial crises
[1]. J. Manage. Stud. 25 (4), 285–303.
364
International Journal of Hospitality Management 77 (2019) 353–364
Singal, M., 2014. The link between firm financial performance and investment in sus-
tainability initiatives. Cornell Hosp. Q. 55 (1), 19–30.
Stipanuk, D.M., 1996. The US lodging industry and the environment: an historical view.
Cornell Hosp. Q. 37 (5), 39–45.
Straughan, R.D., Roberts, J.A., 1999. Environmental segmentation alternatives: a look at
green consumer behavior in the new millennium. J. Consum. Mark. 16 (6), 558–575.
Takács-Sánta, A., 2007. Barriers to environmental concern. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 26–38.
The 13th Five Year Plan, 2017. The 13th Five Year Plan. (February, 2017) Retrieved from
https://www.uscc.gov/Research/13th-five-year-plan.
The China National Tourism Administration, 2016. The China National Tourism
Administration. Retrieved from http://www.cnta.gov.cn/zwgk/tzggnew/gztz/.
Tzschentke, N.A., Kirk, D., Lynch, P.A., 2008. Going green: decisional factors in small
hospitality operations. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 27 (1), 126–133.
Winter, S.C., May, P.J., 2001. Motivation for compliance with environmental regulations.
J. Policy Anal. Manage. 20 (4), 675–698.
Zietsma, C., Winn, M., Branzei, O., Vertinsky, I., 2002. The war of the woods: facilitators
and impediments of organizational learning processes. Br. J. Manage. 13 (S2),
S61–S74.
Zucker, L.G., 1977. The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. Am. Sociol.
Rev. 726–743.
Zucker, L.G., 1987. Institutional theories of organization. Annu. Rev. Soc. 13, 443–464.