Employees’ CSR attributions and pro-environmental behaviors in the hotel industry: the key role of female supervisors

1 Employees’ CSR attributions and pro-environmental behaviors in the hotel industry: The key role of female supervisors 酒店业员工的企业社会责任归因和亲环境行为：女性主管的关键作用 Abstract: This study suggests that employees’ pro-environmental behaviors are determined by their attributions regarding the reasons why hotels engage in corporate socially responsible initiatives. Furthermore, the role of supervisors’ corporate social responsibility (CSR) perceptions in shaping frontline employees’ CSR attributions is studied. Finally, we examine whether the impact of supervisor’s CSR perceptions on employee attributions differs according to the supervisor’s gender. The above model was tested, using structural equations, on a sample of frontline employees and their supervisors from fourand five-star hotels in Spain. The results showed the influence of substantive CSR attributions on pro-environmental behaviors, as well as the influence of supervisors’ CSR perceptions on employees’ substantive CSR attributions. It is also found that when the supervisor is a woman, the effect of her CSR perceptions on employees’ CSR substantive attributions was stronger. Additionally, women’s CSR perception also significantly influenced employees’ CRS symbolic attributions, although to a lesser extent. These findings have important theoretical and practical implications to promote sustainable economic growth and reduce the environmental impact on the hotel industry. 摘要： 本研究表明，员工的亲环境行为是由他们对酒店参与企业活动的原因 的归因决定的。此外，还研究了主管对企业社会责任（简称CSR）的认知在塑 造一线员工的企业社会责任归因方面的作用。最后，研究了主管对企业社会责 任的看法对员工归因的影响是否因主管的性别而不同。上述模型使用结构方程 对西班牙四星级和五星级酒店的一线员工和他们的主管进行了测试。结果显示 实质性的企业社会责任归因对亲环境行为的影响，以及主管的企业社会责任认 知对员工的实质性企业社会责任归因的影响。研究还发现，当主管为女性时， 其CSR认知对员工CSR实质性归因的影响更强。 2 此外，尽管影响较小，女性的企业社会责任感也显著影响了员工的企业社会责 任象征性归因。这些发现对促进可持续经济增长和减少酒店业的环境影响具有 重要的理论和实践意义。 Keywords: employees’ pro-environmental behaviors, employees’ CSR attributions, supervisor’s CSR perception, supervisor’s gender, hotel industry 关键词 ：员工的亲环境行为；员工的企业社会责任归因。主管对企业社会责任 的看法，主管的性别，酒店业 Introduction Nowadays, there is a growing interest in organizations’ environmental impact (Darvishmotevali & Altinay, 2022; Ishaq et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2020; Robertson & Barling, 2017; Tian & Robertson, 2019). Most organizations’ environmental care initiatives involve engaging their employees in pro-environmental behaviors (Robertson & Barling, 2017). Therefore, the study of the drivers of employees’ behaviors, for employees who consciously seek to reduce the negative environmental impact of the organization’s activities and to ‘contribute to a more effective environmental management by organizations’ (Boiral, 2009, p. 223), has become a matter of special interest. Employees’ pro-environmental behaviors —defined as ‘activity undertaken by individuals at work that aim to protect the natural environment or improve organizational practices in this area’ (Boiral et al., 2015, p. 21) —are a key determinant of companies’ environmental performance (Ahmad et al., 2021). These behaviors are especially relevant in the hospitality industry, which is characterized by a high consumption of resources and energy; and consequently, companies in this sector face high environmental performance 3 demands (Darvishmotevali & Altinay, 2022; Gürlek & Koseoglu, 2021; Raza et al., 2021; Shah et al., 2021). It has been recognized that, how organizational members perceive corporate social responsibility (CSR) shapes their attitudes and behaviors. Although there is no single universally accepted definition of CSR, recent conceptualizations based on the stakeholder perspective (Gond et al., 2017), understand CSR as perceptions about ‘an organization’s context-specific actions and policies that aim to enhance the welfare of stakeholders’ (El Akremi et al., 2018, p. 623). Recent research (e.g., Ahmad et al., 2021; Raza et al., 2021; Shah et al., 2021; Tian & Robertson, 2019) suggests that employees’ CSR perceptions influence their willingness to engage in pro-environmental behaviors, such as recycling, saving energy, or promoting environmentally responsible practices by the organization. In this line, a growing number of recent studies (e.g., Afsar & Umrani, 2020; Raza et al., 2021; Shah et al., 2021; Tian & Robertson, 2019; Wells et al., 2015) have focused on explaining the mechanisms through which employees’ CSR perceptions influence their pro-environmental behavior. These studies have corroborated the indirect influence of employees’ CSR perceptions on their pro-environmental behaviors through mechanisms, such as organizational identification, organizational pride, job engagement, and person–organization fit. However, the influence of employees’ CSR attributions —i.e., ‘employees’ attributions of their organizations’ motives for engaging in CSR’ (Donia & Tetrault Sirsly, 2016, p. 233) —on their behaviors has been neglected in the literature (Afridi et al., 2020), especially in terms of pro-environmental behaviors. This is surprising, as according to Donia and Tetrault Sirsly (2016, p. 233), ‘employees’ attributions of their organizations’ 4 motives comprise the most proximal and valid predictors of employee-level outcomes.’ Moreover, recent studies have highlighted the important role of employees’ subjective interpretations of CSR in shaping their attitudes and behaviors (Afridi et al., 2020; Ahmad et al., 2019; Babu et al., 2020; Boğan & Sarıışık, 2020; Chaudhary & Akhouri, 2018; Donia et al., 2019; Vlachos et al., 2013, 2017). Afridi et al. (2020), in a study from the hotel industry of Pakistan, found that combined intrinsic and extrinsic attributions of CSR positively and significantly influenced employee’s extra-role behavior. Ahmad et al. (2019), in the telecom industry, showed that psychological safety mediated the positive effect of intrinsic CSR attributions on creative performance, as well as the negative effect of extrinsic CSR attributions. Also, they found a direct negative influence of extrinsic CSR attributions on creative performance. Babu et al. (2020), in a sample of 155 employees in France, found a negative effect of symbolic CSR attributions on employee social responsibility. Using a sample of employees from the hospitality industry in Turkey, Boğan and Sarıışık (2020) demonstrated that employees’ affective commitment was influenced positively by intrinsic attributions and negatively by extrinsic attributions. Chaudhary and Akhouri (2018), in a study conducted in several IT organizations in India, found that intrinsic CSR attributions related positively with creativity, and work engagement fully mediated this relationship, while extrinsic CSR attributions were not related to creativity or work engagement. Donia et al. (2019), in a heterogeneous sample of American workers, found a positive indirect effect of substantive CSR attributions and a negative indirect effect of symbolic CSR attributions on individual performance, fully mediated by person–organization fit and work-related attitudes. Vlachos et al.’s (2013) research conducted in three world-leading manufacturing organizations showed that CSR-induced intrinsic attributions related positively to job satisfaction, while 5 job satisfaction was not related to CSR-induced extrinsic attributions. Finally, Vlachos et al. (2017), on a sample of employees working in three manufacturing companies in a European Union country, found that employees’ genuine CSR attributions promoted employee advocacy, while self-serving CSR attributions did not harm these behaviors. However, to the best of our knowledge, prior research has largely ignored the influence of CSR attributions on pro-environmental behaviors. Within the framework of employees’ CSR attributions (Donia et al., 2017; Donia & Tetrault Sirsly, 2016), this study explores the effect of employees’ subjective perceptions about the reasons why their companies are involved in socially responsible activities, i.e., employee’s attributions of CSR, on promoting employees’ pro-environmental behaviors. While attributional processes, in general, have received little attention in the CSR literature (Chaudhary & Akhouri, 2018), it is not clear how employees’ CSR attributions are shaped. Babu et al. (2020) and Boğan and Sarıışık (2020) focused on analyzing how employees’ perceptions of organizational characteristics (specifically, hypocrisy, integrity, and in-out CSR alignment) influenced the building of attributions regarding why their organizations engaged in CSR actions. Vlachos et al. (2013) demonstrated the positive influence of charismatic leadership on CSR-induced intrinsic attributions without finding any relationship between this leadership style and CSR-induced extrinsic attributions. Also, Vlachos et al. (2017) corroborated the influence of supervisors’ CSR attributions on those of employees. Donia and Tetrault Sirsly (2016) underlined that the consideration of attributions as substantive or symbolic by employees may also be conditioned by the opinions of their supervisors. Indeed, the social information processing approach (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) suggests that employees rely on informational cues from the social context when evaluating 6 their work environment. In this sense, immediate supervisors, as a source of social information (McShane & Cunningham, 2012; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), can have a considerable influence on the attribution of motives regarding the hotel’s involvement in socially responsible initiatives. Specifically, this study analyzes the impact of supervisors’ CSR perceptions on employees’ CSR attributions. The gender of the supervisor can also be relevant to understand how supervisors’ CSR perceptions influence employees’ CSR attributions. In this line, prior research has noted that female managers attach greater importance to aspects of social responsibility than their male counterparts (Alonso-Almeida, 2012, 2013; Alonso-Almeida et al., 2017; Larrieta-Rubín de Celis et al., 2015). This greater emphasis may translate into more effective communication about their CSR perceptions to their employees, which could influence how employees’ CSR attributions are shaped. In summary, the purpose of this study is to understand the role of employees’ CSR attributions to promote the pro-environmental behaviors of frontline employees in the hotel industry, also focusing on the impact of supervisors’ CSR perceptions in shaping these attributions. By doing so, this research contributes to the prior literature in several ways. First, we seek to advance the literature linking CSR to employees’ pro-environmental behaviors by studying the relationship between employees’ CSR attributions and pro-environmental behaviors. Although the prior literature has examined several organizational and individual antecedents of employee’s pro-environmental behaviors (e.g., Darvishmotevali & Altinay, 2022; Paillé et al., 2016; Robertson & Barling, 2013), the role of employees’ attributions as among these behaviors' antecedents has been neglected. 7 Second, there is also a need to provide knowledge about the contextual variables that determine the attribution of motives related to CSR actions. This study responds to this need by examining the influence of supervisors’ CSR perceptions in shaping employees’ substantive and symbolic attributions. The inclusion of the two types of attributions increases the interest of this research, as few studies have considered both, particularly when examining the effects of attributions on employee behaviors. Third, we underline the role of gender when analyzing the relationship between supervisors’ CSR perceptions and employees’ CSR attributions. Researchers have pointed out that some women’s psychological characteristics make them more in line with sustainable development and CSR values than men, particularly when considering environmental issues (e.g., Alonso-Almeida, 2012, 2013). However, the prior research has largely ignored the role of gender when analyzing how employee’s CSR attributions are built. Finally, this study focuses on a service industry —the hotel industry— where employees play a key role in business success, and particularly, for implementing environmental programs and reducing the negative impact of the organization’s activities. Hence, the findings provide hotel managers with useful information to promote proenvironmental behaviors at work and, in turn, hotels’ environmental performance. Hypothesis development CSR attributions and pro-environmental behaviors During the last two decades, the literature on micro-CSR has focused on studying the positive effects of CSR initiatives on stakeholders’ attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Boadi et 8 al., 2020; Castro-González et al., 2019; Story & Neves, 2015; Tian & Robertson, 2019). More recently, growing skepticism about the reasons why companies engage in CSR actions has led to studying the different impact of such initiatives depending on companies’ underlying motives (Donia & Tetrault Sirsly, 2016; Losada-Otálora & Alkire, 2021). In this line, Kim and Stepchenkova (2020) demonstrated that the effect of restaurants’ CSR activities on customers’ attitudes and behaviors toward the restaurant brand was not direct but mediated, in part, by the CSR authenticity perceived. Stakeholders in general, and employees in particular, are not only concerned about the number of CSR initiatives that companies undertake, but also about the underlying motivation that leads them to engage in such initiatives (Donia et al., 2019). According to Donia and Tetrault Sirsly (2016), companies can engage in CSR actions for doing good (substantive attributions) and/or for marketing purposes (symbolic attributions). However, employees’ evaluations regarding the motives underlying such initiatives are simpler, such that, ‘employees tend to view the organization as engaging in CSR mainly for substantive or symbolic motives’ (Donia & Tetrault Sirsly, 2016, p. 234). Moreover, attribution theory states that ‘people interpret behavior in terms of its causes and that these interpretations play an important role in determining their reactions to the behavior’ (Kelley & Michela, 1980, p. 458). Both social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977) and social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) can explain how employees’ CSR attributions affect their behaviors (Donia et al., 2017; Donia & Tetrault Sirsly, 2016). From social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977) ‘attributions employees make about their organization’s actions may be interpreted as the path to getting ahead in the organization’ (Donia et al., 2017, p. 133). When employees consider that their organization behaves in a responsible way for a substantive motive, the 9 organization can be seen as a role model for them. Conversely, if employees notice that their organization engages in CSR initiatives for symbolic reasons, they may consider selfserving behaviors as acceptable ways to succeed in their organization. Furthermore, based on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), when organizations express genuine concern for society and the environment, they are signaling to employees that they are not opportunistic and that they will care about them in equal measure (Afridi et al., 2020; Chaudhary & Akhouri, 2018). In response to the care and value received from their organizations, employees will be more willing to engage in behaviors that benefit the organization (Afridi et al., 2020; Story & Neves, 2015), such as employees’ proenvironmental behaviors. Conversely, when employees believe that the motive behind their employer’s CRS actions is strategic, they are likely to engage in other types of behaviors more related to extrinsic rewards (Chaudhary & Akhouri, 2018), such as task performance. Based on the above arguments and in the pattern of results found in previous studies with respect to other attitudinal and behavioral variables (Chaudhary & Akhouri, 2018; Vlachos et al., 2013, 2017), the following hypotheses are proposed: H1: CSR substantive attributions have a positive influence on employee’s proenvironmental behaviors. H2: CSR symbolic attributions have no influence on employee’s pro-environmental behaviors. Supervisor’s CSR perception and employees’ CSR attributions: The moderating role of supervisor gender According to the social information processing perspective (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), individuals adapt their attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs to their social environment. That is, 16 To alleviate concerns related to common method variance bias, Podsakoff et al.’s (2003) recommendations regarding the design of the questionnaire were followed. First, the items were examined to ensure that the phrases were clear. Second, the questionnaire included instructions about how to answer the items. The antecedent variables were in different sections from the consequent variables. Furthermore, the anonymity of the respondents was guaranteed. Additionally, and despite the fact that data were collected from two sources (supervisors and employees), Harman’s one-factor test using a CFA was applied (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The model in which every item of the four variables rated by the employees loaded onto the same factor fitted data poorly (χ2(135) = 1908.893; χ2/df = 14.140; CFI = 0.442; TLI = 0.368; RMSEA = 0.253), suggesting that common method bias was not a significant issue in this study. Results The descriptive statistics, correlations and Cronbach’s alphas are shown in Table 1. [Insert Table 1] Before estimating the measurement model, the fit of the second-order reflective constructs (CSR and pro-environmental behaviors) was analyzed. Both the CSR (χ2(160) = 361.080; χ2/df = 2.257; CFI = 0.943; TLI = 0.933; RMSEA = 0.078) and pro-environmental behaviors (χ2(30) = 58.324; χ2/df = 1.944; CFI = 0.975; TLI = 0.962; RMSEA = 0.068) constructs showed acceptable fits. The strong correlations between the three dimensions of 17 CSR (mean correlation = 0.570) and the three dimensions of pro-environmental behaviors (mean correlation = 0.606) suggest a commonality indicative of a higher-order factor (Kline, 2005; Law et al., 1998). Moreover, the second-order factor loadings of environmental, employees, and local community dimensions of CSR (0.948, 0.781, and 0.570, respectively) and of the eco-helping, eco-civic engagement, and eco-initiatives dimensions of proenvironmental behavior (1.071, 0.745, and 0.561, respectively) were all positive and statistically significant, supporting the structure of both constructs as second-order factors. Then, we tested the fit of the measurement model. Results also revealed an adequate fit with the data (χ2(648) = 955.324; χ2/df = 1.474; CFI = 0.955; TLI = 0.951; RMSEA = 0.048). The statistics applied to confirm the scales’ reliability and validity are displayed in Table 2. As can be seen, the reliability of the scales was supported, as the composite reliability (CR) and the average variance extracted (AVE) of each scale exceeded the required minimum of 0.6 and 0.5, respectively. Convergent validity was also confirmed since all lambda parameters were significant and higher than 0.5. Furthermore, discriminant validity between constructs was also supported because the squared correlation among the latent variables is lower than the AVE of the constructs, and correlation confidence intervals (CI) excluded the unit value (Hair et al., 2010). [Insert Table 2] The goodness-of-fit indices for the proposed model (Figure 1) showed satisfactory values (χ2(650) = 975.744; χ2/df = 1.501; CFI = 0.952; TLI = 0.948; RMSEA = 0.049). This 18 model —called the full mediation model because it assumes that the independent variable (supervisor’ CSR perception) only indirectly influences the final variable (employee’s proenvironmental behaviors)— was compared with a partial mediation model —a model that considers both the direct and indirect relationship between the independent and the final variable— and a direct effects model —in which the influence of all variables (supervisor’ CSR perception, substantive attributions, symbolic attributions) on the dependent variable is exclusively direct. As can be seen in Table 3, the results of the model comparison confirm that the proposed model was the best model (Hair et al., 2010). [Insert Table 3] To analyze the fulfillment of the hypotheses regarding direct relationships, once the best model was determined, we tested the significance of structural paths. Hypotheses 1 and 2 regarding the influence of both substantive and symbolic attributions on employees’ proenvironmental behavior were supported. That is, substantive attributions positively and significantly influenced employees’ pro-environmental behaviors (β = 0.358, p = 0.012), while symbolic attributions did not significantly influence them (β = 0.007, p = 0.950). Furthermore, the effect of supervisor CSR perceptions on employee attributions was corroborated for substantive attributions (β = 0.323, p = 0.007; hypothesis 3), but not for symbolic attributions (β = 0.105, p = 0.119; hypothesis 4). Consequently, hypothesis 3 was supported but not hypothesis 4. 19 Before examining the hypotheses regarding differences according to the supervisor’s gender, we tested the metric invariance. According to Byrne (2010), the first step is to analyze the fit of the measurement model for each group separately. Measurement models, for both the male (χ2(648) = 866.619; χ2/df = 1.334; CFI = 0.927; TLI = 0.921; RMSEA = 0.061) and female (χ2(648) = 1025.905; χ2/df = 1.583; CFI = 0.908; TLI = 0.900; RMSEA = 0.071) supervisor groups, showed acceptable fits. Next, to demonstrate metric invariance, the fit of the configurational model was compared with that of a constrained model, in which the factor loadings of all measures were equal for the two groups. Since the difference in CFI was less than 0.01 (Byrne, 2010; Cheung & Rensvold, 2002), measurement invariance was supported. Finally, we applied a multi-group analysis for testing hypotheses 5 and 6. This analysis allows us to estimate the parameters for each group and to check whether the observed differences are significant. As shown in Table 4, supervisor’s CSR perceptions only significantly influenced employee’s attributions, both substantive and symbolic, when the supervisor was a woman. Furthermore, the values of the critical ratios for differences between parameters corroborated the significance of the differences observed. Consequently, hypotheses 5 and 6, referring to the moderating effect of the supervisor’s gender, were confirmed. [Insert Table 4] Table 5 summarizes the results of the study in terms of the proposed hypotheses. [Insert Table 5] 20 Discussion This research aimed to improve the understanding of how to promote frontline employees’ pro-environmental behaviors in the hotel industry. To this end, we first analyzed the influence of employees’ perceptions of the motives underlying hotel CSR initiatives on their proenvironmental behaviors. This study shows that when employees consider the cause of the hotel’s involvement in CSR initiatives to be genuine, this is reflected in a greater willingness of employees to engage in pro-environmental behaviors. In contrast, when hotel initiatives are attributed by employees to symbolic motives, they do not influence employees’ willingness to engage in these behaviors. These findings agree with the framework of employees’ CSR attributions (Donia et al., 2017; Donia & Tetrault Sirsly, 2016). Furthermore, this positive influence of substantive attributions on employees’ proenvironmental behaviors is consistent with both social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977) and social exchange theory (Blau, 1964). In line with social cognitive theory, when employees consider that their hotel conducted CSR activities for doing good, the hotel becomes a role model, and employees are more likely to be willing to perform behaviors aimed at saving energy and resources and conserving the environment. According to social exchange theory, genuine CSR initiatives by the hotel are understood as cues that imply good treatment of employees, who will reciprocate by engaging in pro-environmental behaviors. The lack of influence of symbolic CSR attributions on employees’ pro-environmental behaviors is also consistent with the propositions of social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977). When the hotel engages in CSR initiatives for its own self-interest, it signals to employees that the ultimate goal of the actions to be performed is to obtain a reward. Therefore, it is 21 likely that employees will choose to invest their time and effort in behaviors that are more directed toward obtaining extrinsic rewards (Chaudhary & Akhouri, 2018). Regarding the role of supervisors’ CSR perceptions on employees’ CSR attributions, the results show that supervisors’ perception of CSR is positively influenced by substantive attributions, but not symbolic attributions. That is, when supervisors perceive that the hotel they work for behaves responsibly, employees attribute the hotel’s CSR initiatives to a genuine and sincere purpose, but not to a strategic purpose. Drawing on the social information processing perspective (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), we proposed that the supervisor’s CSR perception would contribute to a greater awareness of the hotel’s CSR initiatives, and this greater information would help employees classify such behaviors as genuine or self-interested. However, the results indicate that such information, at a general level, only enhances employees’ substantive attributions. An interesting finding deals with the moderating role of supervisor gender in the relationship between supervisor’s CSR perceptions and employee’s CSR attributions. We proposed that due to women’s greater interest in CSR, the above relationship would be stronger for female supervisors than for males. Our findings confirm this hypothesis, providing additional insights about symbolic attributions. When considering symbolic attributions, results also showed that the relationship remained non-significant for male supervisors, being significant and positive for female supervisors. This result seems to support the conclusion that women tend to be more interested in social responsibility issues than men and, consequently, be more willing to transmit such information. Such communication will act as a fundamental clue in establishing the underlying motives for CSR actions by hotels performed by their frontline employees. 22 Theoretical implications From a theoretical perspective, the validation of the model proposed in this study adds new knowledge by showing evidence of the scarcely tested framework of employees’ CSR attributions by Donia and Tetrault-Sirsly (2016). First, the results concerning the relationship between employees’ attributions and their pro-environmental behaviors make an important contribution to understanding the impact of attributions on employees’ behaviors. According to Chaudhary and Akhouri (2018, p. 810) ‘existing employee-centric CSR attribution literature has treated CSR attributions mainly as a moderator to understand the association of CSR perceptions on attitudinal and behavioral outcomes, ignoring its main effects.’ Likewise, the number of studies that have analyzed the differential effects of the two types of attributions on employee attitudes and behaviors is negligible, and their results differ with respect to the effect of symbolic attributions. For example, while Bogan and Sariiski (2020) found a negative relationship between symbolic attributions and affective engagement, Chaudhary and Akhouri (2018) and Vlachos et al. (2013) found that they did not influence engagement and satisfaction, respectively. Furthermore, in their framework of employees’ CSR attributions, Donia and Tetrault-Sirsly (2016) proposed a negative influence or lack of influence of symbolic attributions on employees’ counterproductive behaviors and organizational citizenship behaviors. Other studies have considered one type of attribution independently (e.g., Babu et al., 2020) or have studied the effect of attributions on in-role or out-of-role behaviors by combining the two types of attributions into a single construct (Afridi et al., 2020; Story & Neves, 2015). With this study, we provide new evidence for understanding the relationship between attributions and employee attitudes and behaviors by studying the differential effect 23 of the two types of attributions on employees’ pro-environmental behavior, a behavior of particular interest in the hotel industry. With respect to the determinants of attributions, this paper supports the influence of the social context (represented by supervisors’ CSR perceptions) on the attribution of motives underlying hotel CSR initiatives undertaken by employees, as it ‘focuses an individual’s attention on certain information’ (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978, p. 227). Taken together, the proposed model provides evidence of how supervisors’ CSR perceptions influence employees’ pro-environmental behaviors. In doing so, this work responds to the call for further studies that include supervisor CSR perceptions in explaining employees’ pro-environmental behaviors (Shah et al., 2021). Practical implications From a practical perspective, this study highlights the relevance of employees considering the motives that lead their hotels to engage in CSR initiatives as genuine to promote their willingness to engage in pro-environmental behaviors. Consequently, hotels must not only engage in CSR activities, but must also be concerned about whether their employees perceive their actions as authentic and sincere. Managerial investments in infrastructure related to the implemented CSR actions could be perceived as a sign of authenticity and support to the proposed actions, also noting that employees’ efforts matter. In this line, some studies have underlined that the provision of environmental infrastructure such as recycling facilities could be a sign that organizations are concerned about environmental activities (e.g., Temminck et al., 2015), enhancing employee pro-environmental behaviors. Incorporating green values into human resource 24 practices (recruitment, selection, training, and motivation of employees) can also promote a perception of hotel support for green employee contributions (Aboramadan & Karatepe, 2021; Gürlek & Koseoglu, 2021) and, consequently, a more sincere attribution of the CSR activities implemented by the hotel. In this sense, the introduction of information about green practices in employee orientation and socialization can also be helpful in promoting a sincere image of the hotel’s concern for CSR issues. Moreover, supervisors’ CSR perception plays a fundamental role in the development of employees’ CSR attributions. Managers’ involvement in CSR issues could show hotel employees that CSR initiatives are sincere. Training programs designed by managers to show employees how CSR activities benefit society could help them to understand that CSR activities are implemented for doing good and not for the organization’s own self-interest. For instance, green training programs designed for understanding the benefits from saving energy or reducing the consumption of resources and pollution could help increase employees’ awareness of the importance of hotel actions toward the environment (Cop et al., 2020). Communication practices intended to make visible how organizational CSR achievements influence stakeholders’ well-being could be useful as well (Saifulina et al., 2021). Also, since female supervisors have a greater impact on the CSR attributions of their subordinates, the appointment of women to these positions can facilitate the communication and implementation of the hotel’s CSR initiatives. Taken together, the findings of this study provide valuable clues for hotel management to reduce the environmental impact of their activities and contribute to sustainable economic growth. 25 Limitations and future research Despite its contributions, this study is not without limitations. First, the cross-sectional nature of the data precludes the establishment of causal relationships. Although the directions of the relationships have been posited based on theory, future longitudinal studies would be necessary to verify causal relationships. Second, all variables were rated either by supervisors or by frontline employees. The supervisor’s CSR perceptions and the employee’s CSR attributions were to be rated by the supervisor and employee, respectively. With respect to pro-environmental behavior, while it is a discretionary behavior that may not be recognized by others, future studies could consider assessments of pro-environmental behaviors by coworkers. Finally, although this study makes a substantial contribution to the literature, focusing on employees and supervisors from four and five-star hotels in Spain opens a debate about the generalizability of our findings. Differences regarding the perception of CSR practices in different countries could manifest in different results according to the country culture of employees. Because fourand five-star hotels are usually more interested in managing CSR issues than are lowerstar hotels, the role of the considered variables could be different when evaluating, one-, twoor three-star hotels. Future research could test the proposed model in other countries and/or different hotel categories. Testing the model with samples from other industries would also contribute to increasing the generalizability of our findings. References Aboramadan, M. and Karatepe, O.M. (2021). Green human resource management, perceived green organizational support and their effects on hotel employees’ behavioral outcomes. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality 32 environmental citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Research, 75, 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.02.007 Saifulina, N., Carballo‐Penela, A., & Ruzo‐Sanmartin, E. (2021). The antecedents of employees' voluntary proenvironmental behavior at work in developing countries: The role of employee affective commitment and organizational support. Business Strategy & Development, 4(3), 343-357. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.162 Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224–253. http://www.econis.eu/PPNSET?PPN=561080542 Setó-Pamies, D. (2015). The relationship between women directors and corporate social responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22(6), 334–345. https://doi.org/10.1002/CSR.1349 Shah, S. H. A., Cheema, S., Al‐Ghazali, B. M., Ali, M., & Rafiq, N. (2021). Perceived corporate social responsibility and pro‐environmental behaviors: The role of organizational identification and coworker pro‐environmental advocacy. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(1), 366–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2054 Story, J., & Neves, P. (2015). When corporate social responsibility (CSR) increases performance: exploring the role of intrinsic and extrinsic CSR attribution. Business Ethics: A European Review, 24(2), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12084 Temminck, E., Mearns, K., & Fruhen, L. (2015). Motivating employees towards sustainable behaviour. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(6), 402–412. https://doi.org/10.1002/BSE.1827 Tian, Q., & Robertson, J. L. (2019). How and when does perceived CSR affect employees’ engagement in voluntary pro-environmental behavior? Journal of Business Ethics, 155(2), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-017-3497-3 Veríssimo, J. M. C., & Lacerda, T. M. C. (2015). Does integrity matter for CSR practice in organizations? The mediating role of transformational leadership. Business Ethics: A European Review, 24(1), 34–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/BEER.12065 33 Vlachos, P. A., Epitropaki, O., Panagopoulos, N. G., & Rapp, A. A. (2013). Causal attributions and employee reactions to corporate social responsibility. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6(4), 334–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/IOPS.12061 Vlachos, P. A., Panagopoulos, N. G., Bachrach, D. G., & Morgeson, F. P. (2017). The effects of managerial and employee attributions for corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(7), 1111–1129. https://doi.org/10.1002/JOB.2189 Vlachos, P. A., Panagopoulos, N. G., & Rapp, A. A. (2014). Employee judgments of and behaviors toward corporate social responsibility: A multi‐study investigation of direct, cascading, and moderating effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(7), 990– 1017. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1946 Wells, V. K., Manika, D., Gregory-Smith, D., Taheri, B., & McCowlen, C. (2015). Heritage tourism, CSR and the role of employee environmental behaviour. Tourism Management, 48, 399–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.12.015 34 Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 1. Supervisor’ gender - - 2. Supervisor’ CSR perception 5.056 1.159 -0.086 (0.937) 3. Substantive attributions 4.606 1.823 -0.045 0.319** (0.972) 4. Symbolic attributions 4.109 1.784 0.052 0.091 0.331** (0.943) 5. Employee’s PEB 5.209 1.144 -0.121 0.144 0.361** 0.125 (0.867) Notes: n = 207. **p < 0.01; CSR, corporate social responsibility; PEB, pro-environmental behaviors 35 Table 2. Reliability and validity of the scales Supervisor’ CSR perception Substantive attributions Symbolic attributions Employee’s PEB Supervisor’ CSR perception CR = 0.820 AVE = 0.612 Substantive attributions SC = 0.102 CR = 0.972 [0.180; 0.458] AVE = 0.898 Symbolic attributions SC = 0.008 SC = 0.110 CR = 0.943 [-0.046; 0.228] [0.174; 0.488] AVE = 0.807 Employee’s PEB SC = 0.020 SC = 0.130 SC =0 .015 CR = 0.850 [-0.028; 0.314] [0.217; 0.503] [-0.046; 0.292] AVE = 0.660 Notes: AVE, average variance extracted; CR, composite reliability; SC, squared correlation; CSR, corporate social responsibility; PEB, pro-environmental behaviors 36 Figure 1. Proposed model Notes: CSR, corporate social responsibility; PEB, pro-environmental behaviors Supervisor’ s CSR perception Substantive Attributions Symbolic Attributions Employee’s PEB Supervisor’s gender Eco-helping CSR oriented to natural environment CSR oriented to employees CSR oriented to the local community Eco-civic engagement Ecoinitiatives