Increasing employee commitment to sustainability initiatives : a case study: employees within the hotel industry

(1)

Increasing employee commitment to

sustainability initiatives

A case study: employees within the hotel industry

June 29

th

2015

Maxime Weidema - 10245693

Bachelor Thesis - Business Administration

University of Amsterdam

Faculty of Economics and Business

Supervisor: Dhr. C. Gelhard

(2)

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY

This document is written by Maxime Weidema, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

ABBREVIATIONS

GG Green Globe GGT Green Globe Team GM General manager HR Human resource

ABSTRACT

With increased public concern for the future of our planet and humankind, corporations are expected to increase their sustainability performance. This has led to the rise of sustainability related activities in nearly every industry. The hotel industry is still in its infancy as regards to sustainability performance, but hotels need to take this movement seriously in order to maintain their social capital. Making steps forwards requires commitment of the entire organization, which appears to be difficult to accomplish. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to find out how employee commitment to sustainability can be increased within hotels. From existing literature, antecedents are located that could be of influence on employee commitment. To gain insights in the role of these antecedents in real-life from the perspective of the people within hotels, a qualitative research is carried out. Semi-structured interviews are conducted at two hotels that are certified with a sustainability certificate. It is found that the presence of most antecedents has positive influence on employee commitment. However, the presence of certain antecedents is not always needed in order to have committed employees. Clearly structured sustainability responsibilities can compensate for the lack of a strong horizontal culture, and vice versa. Therefore, it is recommended that hotels implement the antecedents that appeared to have a positive influence and consider this while taking into account their own organizational characteristics by comparing them to the studied cases.

(5)

1. INTRODUCTION

In the last decades, people have become more aware of the consequences of our modern way of living. There is a growing concern for social and environmental matters. In particular, the contribution of business activity has been object to scrutiny after several corporate scandals involving multinationals came to light. The role of businesses within society seems to be evolving, people have greater expectations of companies than in the past (Bielak et al. 2007). Companies can’t merely pursue financial profits anymore; they are expected to take wider society into account while doing business.

With this growing public concern, the concept of sustainable development has gained popularity (Barry & Baxter, 2003). In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) defined the concept in their report: ‘Development that meets the needs

of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’

(WCED, 1987, pp. 43). In the beginning, sustainability merely focussed on environmental issues. Now, it evolved to address social, economic and environmental issues equally, these are called the three pillars of sustainability (Steurer, 2001) or are referred to as ‘triple bottom line’ (Carter & Rogers, 2008). Throughout the years, sustainability got more and more influential; this is for instance seen in the increase in governments’ policies on behalf of pollution and human rights. Sustainable development has emerged as the new common global goal (Najam, Runnals & Halle, 2007).

In many industries, sustainable initiatives seem to pop up like daisies. A relatively new industry that has been touched by the sustainable movement is the hotel industry. The most important role of hotels is that of tourist and business traveller accommodator. This industry is growing fast since people are travelling to distant locations more and more (De Grosbois, 2012). The hotel industry has been under scrutiny because of their impact on the environment and on people. This has made it a target for negative media attention. As a response, the hotel industry put sustainability higher on the corporate agenda. Hotels are now in many ways involved in sustainability related activities (Lee & Yoonjoung Heo, 2009). This is also for their own benefit; when communicating a responsible strategy to the world, companies can gain a competitive advantage from ‘doing good’ by getting positive attention and consequently increase their profit (Ferrell et al., 2010).

The hotel industry particularly focuses on the environmental pillar, which presents the strongest business case (SustainAbility, 2008). Several authors have criticized the one-sided character of the tourist industry’s sustainability (Swarbrooke, 1999; Roberts & Tribe, 2008). Kernel (2005) states that the ‘green’ initiatives comprise the first step towards sustainability. From his view, the hotel industry seems to be still in its infancy concerning sustainable development. It has the potential to continue developing through the next steps, which includes the social dimension, but this requires commitment of the entire organization to all pillars of sustainability (SustanAbility, 2008).

To substantially increase the sustainability performance, not only external but also internal stakeholders must be taken into account. Most companies focus their sustainability strategy primarily on external stakeholders and internal stakeholders rarely get a lot of attention (Redington, 2005). However, due to the lack of employee involvement and failure to create a culture that incorporates sustainability as a core activity, many initiatives fail and tend to become just a form of posturing (Mees & Bonham, 2004). Including sustainability in internal goals and processes and committing employees to these goals, is expected to lead to larger and long-lasting competitive advantage (Garay & Font, 2012).

Therefore, this research aims to help hotels in improving their sustainability performance by looking at how the internal stakeholders can be pulled along in the process.

(6)

The focus will be on increase the understanding of the current state of employee commitment in hotels and in addition find out how their commitment could be improved. Antecedents influencing employee commitment to sustainability that appeared from the literature will be applied to real-life cases to find out what their current state is in those hotels and consequently how employee commitment could be improved in order to make steps forward. This research will first of all be useful for the hotels that are used for data collection. The conclusions obviously apply to them in particular. Moreover, this research could be of use for other organizations that are in pursuit of sustainability. The research particularly has implications for hotels, since these are the organizations that are studied. With the knowledge that is obtained from the researched cases, organizations can better understand how organizations that are relatively successful in sustainability are doing things to get their employees committed to sustainability and at the same time what difficulties they experience. This information can be compared to the situation in their organization and give implications about what needs to be changed. Moreover, sustainability consultants and auditors can benefit from these insights. They will have a better understanding of employees’ role in sustainability activities of hotels and how this could be improved. This increased practical knowledge could be used to give more efficient and effective advice and guidance to hotels within their network.

1.1 Structure

This research will be structured as follows. First of all, in chapter two, previous literature will be used to gain an understanding of the broad context of sustainability. This section firstly focuses on companies’ sustainability communication to external parties. Following on this, the focus will turn to the role of internal stakeholders in implementing sustainability. The aim is to find information in the existing literature about how to implement sustainability policies in order to enhance employee commitment. In the last part of the literature review, a conclusion of the existing literature on implementing sustainability and committing employees is given. Antecedents that were found in the literature that play a role in committing employees are presented in this last section. This part will be used for the empirical part of this research. After the literature review, chapter three will present the strategy for the empirical research. It will also explain why a particular research methodology is used and how the studied cases were selected. Following on this, the worthiness of this research will be discussed in chapter four by considering the validity, generalizability and reliability. Chapter five will present the results of the empirical research. In chapter six and seven, the conclusions of the results will be given with consequently in the discussion the answer on the research question. In addition, this section will give recommendations for practice on how make improvements in employee commitment to sustainability. Moreover, in the last part of chapter seven, limitations of this research will be discussed and finally, ideas for future research will be proposed.

(7)

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Sustainability strategy for external stakeholders

Consumers are much more aware of the challenges our world faces but have little faith in governments’ strength. Corporations are now seen as the most powerful institutions (Andriof & McIntosh, 2001). External stakeholders have higher expectations of corporations; they see companies as an important party in the journey to a more sustainable world. This is further reasoned by the view that corporations have direct or indirect influence on society everyday and they have the skills and resources to offer support, which makes them morally obligated to be involved in the process (Hobson & Essex, 2001; Moir, 2001).

The hotel industry has influence on society as well. This industry has often been criticised for its unsustainable practices and short-term profit maximization (Swarbrooke, 1999). Some even argue that tourism and sustainability are conflicting concepts (Sharpley, 2000; Lonnides, 2001). First of all, when looking at the environmental pillar of sustainability, hotels are not the most ‘green’ organizations. Hotels appear to consume a large amount of natural resources such as energy, water, gas, food, paper et cetera, much more compared to average households (Deng, 2003). In addition, they have quite a high ecological footprint because of the travelling customers (Kirk, 1995). Hotels therefore play a significant part in business’ contribution to climate change as a consequence of air pollution, waste production and natural resource use (De Grosbois, 2012).

Secondly, when taking a look at the social pillar of sustainability, hotels can have a large impact on local communities, for example through exploitation of the local population, extensive use of space and infrastructure (Chung & Parker, 2010). Besides, there has been critique on the labour circumstances within the hotels, which are often unjust. Hotels are generally known for their high employee turnover, seasonal jobs, discrimination, unpaid overtime, long working hours and the authoritarian, hierarchical and non-supportive management (Swarbrook, 1999; Deery & Shaw, 1999). On one hand, hotels bring economic and social benefits to their surroundings; on the other hand, they can have a large negative impact (Rodriquez and Cruz, 2007).

With the growing public concern and critique on corporations such as hotels, the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become an integral part of sustainability (WBCSD, 1999) and it gained a lot of prominence the last years. CSR has been defined by many people and has changed over the years. There is no clear understanding regarding what exactly the notion of CSR entails, it is rather considered as an umbrella term for several theories and practices (Blowfield & Frynas, 2005). The fundamental idea of CSR is that society and businesses are not separated but interwoven (Wood, 1991). Companies’ responsibility then reaches further than just shareholders; it involves all stakeholders (Freeman & Velamuri, 2008). CSR relates to companies’ voluntary initiatives in addressing wider environmental and social problems (Lindgreen et al., 2009). Companies must show their commitment to produce a form of environmental or social benefit, which reaches further than just complying the law (Davis, 1973; Carroll 1979; McWilliams & Siegel, 2001). It is clear that sustainable development needs corporations to behave responsible and a good CSR strategy should incorporate all pillars of sustainability. Therefore, these two concepts can sometimes be used interchangeably in this chapter.

(8)

2.1.1 CSR as a strategy

Although the importance and scope of CSR varies by industry, demand for responsible companies is demonstrated to rise in nearly every sector (Cowe & Hopkins, 2003). This can also be in the interest of the companies themselves (Moir, 2001). The findings about whether there is a clear relationship between CSR and firm performance are inconsistent (Lee & Park, 2009). Strong, causal, quantitative links between CSR and increased profits have not yet been made (Cowe & Hopkins, 2003). But many state that good implementation of CSR can give a competitive advantage, which can lead to a win-win situation for both society and the company (Falck & Heblich, 2007).

Companies adopt CSR strategies with several motives. Some claim to do it because of their feeling of moral obligation or desire to contribute to society (Tzschentke et al., 2004). But most companies move because there are a number of potential ways in which it can be beneficial for the company (Cowe & Hopkins, 2003). The benefits can be tangible, like increase in sales and reduced costs, or intangible, like an improved reputation, employee satisfaction and retention (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990, Porter & Kramer, 2006; Cowe & Hopkins, 2003). Furthermore, the need of responding to criticisms and avoiding potentially damaging media attention has made companies more aware of the advantages of an effective CSR strategy. Another motive is the adoption of CSR as a part of risk management; the ‘defensive’ CSR approach (Kramer & Kania, 2006). Because of the increased concern about companies’ practices, stakeholders want to find out what is behind the products or services they buy. Therefore, they want greater accountability and transparency and are suspicious of company practice (De Grosbois, 2012). By demonstrating their responsible attitude, companies can maintain their social capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). In this approach, companies view CSR as an external risk that needs to be managed (Blowfield & Murray, 2011).

So adopting a CSR strategy might not only be a ‘good’ thing to do but also a smart move. In many cases, it is not by altruism but on sound business ground that companies start social or environmental initiatives (Kotler and Lee, 2005). As in most industries, the main drivers in hotels are cost savings and reputation improvement (Chan & Wong, 2006). This is mainly reached through greater efficiency with reducing the use of water, materials and energy (Bowe, 2005; Chan, 2011).

2.1.2 CSR disclosure & certification

Most companies may have noticed that they should incorporate CSR in their strategic agenda, but how they should approach developing an effective responsible strategy still raises questions. In trying to shape CSR development, different institutions have established frameworks and codes. Since CSR can have benefits in terms of reputation and risk management, most companies themselves try to communicate their intentions in some way; this can be done via several channels (De Grosbois, 2012).

More and more companies are making use of frameworks and benchmarks for communicating their CSR strategy. These are comprised by governments and NGOs in order to get more clarity about and unity in CSR practices and reporting (Gleckman & Krut, 2013). The frameworks help with implementing sustainability by incorporating it into organizational internal policy (Collier & Esteban, 2007). They set an appropriate list of criteria to meet; these can differ per industry.Externally driven and verified frameworks offer more credibility about company’s commitment to CSR (Richter, 2001). Some influential frameworks in this area are the ISO 14000 Series, the UN Global Compact and the Global Reporting Initiative

(9)

(Leipziger, 2003). These can serve as a guideline for many industries, among them the hotel industry.

In making sustainable practices more visible and measurable, most frameworks are extended with certification (Blackman & Rivera, 2010). These acknowledged documents prove the sustainability practices of the firm towards the company’s stakeholders (Blackman & Rivera, 2010).A well-known example of this is the Fair Trade certificate and its associated logo for consumer products. Certificates can be earned when companies meet certain criteria.

Advocates of sustainable certification say that such certificates encourage companies to improve their social and environmental practices (Giovannucci and Ponte, 2005). The earned certificate can be used in communicating their CSR performance to stakeholders. In their buying decisions, consumers can take the certification, which represent a certain sustainable performance, into account. Price premiums on those products can lead to better financial performance, and therefore be an incentive to meet the sustainable criteria (Blackman & Rivera, 2010). Certification can therefore be seen as a mechanism that encourages sustainability without stricter official legislation (Font & Buckley, 2001). The acknowledged certificates increase the accountability because they may only be issued by independent certified institutions (Christmann & Taylor, 2006). Every once in a while, the external party will also conduct an audit, in which they check if the company meets the required criteria (Lindgreen et al., 2009).

At this point in time, it is said that there are no companies truly sustainable yet; all organizations still have a long way to go (Stead & Garner Stead, 1994). Therefore, the certificate does not mean the company is truly sustainable, but a substantial start has been made. Besides, certificates require companies to show progress every year. So sustainability has to be implemented into strategy and culture more and more and implementation cannot be limited to changing the technical systems, but changes have to be implemented in the workforce as well.

There are many different certificates; most industries have their own. In the hotel industry, a popular acknowledged certificate is Green Globe (GG). It was established in 1994 by the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC). Its purpose was guiding the implementation of the Rio Earth Summit (1992) principles and was originally based on the ISO series (Green Globe, 1997a). To become a member of GG, hotels have to make commitments to improving their environmental and socio-economic practices and show actual performance (Griffin et al., 2002). As a member, the hotel can use the GG logo. Being a member still requires annual improvements regarding all criteria, GG offers advice and benchmarking to achieve this. The GG certificate is an independent verification that the company meets certain criteria. These criteria incorporate all pillars of sustainability. Issuing the GG certificate is done by different independent and verified companies, who also offer consultancy in achieving the certification. These organizations also conduct the obligated independent third-party assessment with GG members. Companies in the certified stage must be assessed annually in order to keep the certificate (Griffin et al., 2002). GG certification is internationally acknowledged and known for its credibility and reliability of its members’ commitment to the standards. GG is argued to be the most globalized and cross-sectional approach to facilitate self-regulation of an industry (Griffin et al., 2002). The programme has been praised for its approach by several media sources such as the Geographical Magazine (Font & Buckley, 2001).

(10)

2.2 Sustainability strategy for internal stakeholders

In the previous paragraphs, sustainability and the role of hotels within it have been analysed. More specifically, the focus has been on communicating a responsible strategy to external stakeholders via certification. From this, the following section will move from external stakeholders to internal stakeholders because to substantially increase hotels’ sustainability performance, the entire organization should be involved. Redington (2005) stated that employees are the most important but most neglected stakeholder group in CSR strategy. Not much attention has been devoted to the differences in employees in relation to implementing sustainability issues. It is often assumed that they have homogenous expectations, views and attitudes (Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008). Employees are central in creating a culture that fosters sustainable growth, they have to be involved in the process and their commitment is crucial in order to achieve the goals (Argyris, 1998).

For implementation of sustainability, having policies is a first and important step. These policies can give a clear view on what the company tries to accomplish and what is expected from the workforce (Ramus, 2002). The previously discussed frameworks and codes, such as Green Globe (GG) help to set policies and goals that guide the implementation of sustainable initiatives. Individual company’s code of conduct, industry codes or international standards can guide in formulating rules, guidelines and ideas about the company’s CSR strategy (Collier & Esteban, 2007). These codes are a form of self-regulation. They offer guidance in order to continuously improve the practices of the firm and to meet certain goals (Blowfield & Murray, 2011). The main benefit of using such standards is that they offer general rules, methods and standards that provide the organization easier work. Besides, they offer a manner to measure how sustainable an organization is. Using schemes, such as GG, is likely to increase the effectiveness of the implementation of CSR initiatives. With the schemes, CSR policies are clearly formulated and easier to deliver to stakeholders (Collier & Esteban, 2007).

After policies are set and standards such as of GG guide implementation, the next step for implementing sustainability is concerned with the actual workforce. There appears to be a gap between the sustainability policies and statements of the firm and the actual practices (Dewhurst & Thomas, 2003). Moving from words to action is not realized overnight; barriers have to be overcome when implementing the strategy. In order to achieve the full potential of the initiative, good implementation is essential (Garay & Font, 2012). In recent years, the amount of research focussed on implementing CSR has largely increased. However, there is no clear set of rules on how to do this. Differences in organizational characteristics, such as size, location and culture, ask for different implementation approaches (Laudal, 2011).

With employees’ support, initiatives are more likely to be implemented successfully (Klinkers & Nelissen, 1996). Employees are key stakeholders for the organization, because they have legitimacy, urgency, power and knowledge (Mitchell et al., 1997; Drucker, 2001). A good relationship with employees makes it easier to solve problems and it raises their organizational commitment (Grunig, 1992). It is clear that employee behaviour is crucial in achieving organizational goals. When specifically looking at implementing sustainable initiatives, employees are again crucial; every day, their decisions and actions can contribute to large improvements in sustainability (Klinkers & Nelissen, 1996).

Without employee commitment, implementation of new initiatives is considerably hampered (Argyris, 1998). Harter et al. (2002, p. 269) define commitment as ‘the individuals involvement and satisfaction with, as well as enthusiasm for, work’. Commitment results in a positive relationship between the company and the employees, which can in turn lead to better performance. Findings have shown that commitment is a better predictor for company

(11)

performance than job satisfaction (Koch & Steers, 1976). The three most important characteristics of commitment are first of all, that there is a strong belief and acceptance for the company’s goals and values. Secondly, there is a willingness to put effort in achieving the goals. As third, there is a desire to maintain membership in the organization (Porter et al., 1974). The nature of commitment is self-regulated. In other words, committed employees will fulfil the actions voluntarily, essentially without control or reward policies (Tomer & Sadler, 2006).

When employees are joining CSR activities, this can in turn increase their commitment to the organization, because people’s sense of importance increases with regards to the work they perform. They can better identify with the organization and make more effort to improve their performance (Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008). Employees tend to feel more committed to the organization when they value the benefit they get in return from being a part of the organization (Shore & Wayne, 1993). Therefore, when employees trust their managers and enjoy committed human resource management, they appear to be more committed to the organization (McElroy, 2001).

Getting employees committed is not a simple task; there can be many factors that influence their commitment. The following below reviews the existing literature on employee implementation of sustainability initiatives. The antecedents affecting employees’ commitment to these initiatives will be discussed. So the focus will be on delivering the sustainability policies to employees and consequently their commitment to the initiatives. The antecedents are divides into four categories; organizational culture, management support, communication and empowerment.

2.3.1 Organizational culture

In order to reach the long-term benefits of sustainability, the new policy has to be embedded in the organizational culture (Larson et al., 2000; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004). Organizational culture is an essential component of the organizational context and is important in change processes. Culture is said to be the glue that holds a company together(Bass, 1991). When the culture is ignored, change processes are doomed to fail (Harris & Ogbonna, 1998). Culture is composed of assumptions and values that guide people’s work behaviour and is expressed in codes, stories, rituals, rewards and leadership (Cai et al., 1999; Collier & Esteban, 2007). In order to implement real changes, the cultural beliefs and values must fit with the new values of, in this case, sustainability (Baum, 2006). Then, a widely shared culture can enhance information sharing, learning and integration of initiatives (Swarbrooke, 1999). As Kotter (2008) describes, organizational culture has two levels. The more visible level represents the behaviour patterns of employees. The deeper less visible level represents shared values of the group, in which personal values are of great influence. This level can be difficult to change. The levels influence each other. To become more sustainable, the organization must adopt a sustainable culture, in which the whole organization changes its attitudes and behaviour to be committed to the new initiatives and goals (Daily & Huang, 2001).

Personal values of employees influence or contribute to the organisational culture. Their attitude towards the company and society seem to influence employees’ CSR behaviour. Their worldview and social conditions play an important role in their attitudes towards CSR (Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008). Hemmingway (2005) states that positive attitudes towards CSR can lead to more positive CSR behaviour. Employees’ attitudes to CSR define their behaviour towards the initiatives. Their vision eventually plays an important part in the actual willingness to join CSR related activities.

(12)

Furthermore, employee’s attitudes and behaviour appear to be in part shaped by his or her view of the organization. If an employee feels like he or she is treated fairly and perceives the working conditions as attractive, he or she will feel more identified with the company (Cropanzano et al., 2001). Identification reflects the extent to which an employee feels a sense of overlap with his or her personal values and that of the organization (Bhattacharya, Sen, Korschun, 2008). When there is a strong identification, company success will feel as own success and the employee’s attitudes are strongly influenced by the organizational culture. This in turn, is more likely to lead to committed and cooperative behaviour (Collier & Esteban, 2007). Justice can reinforce employees’ positive view of the organization. If an organization lives up to its expectations and CSR policy, and consequently disciplines everyone who violates it, employees are more supportive (Trevino & Weaver, 2001).

Organizational values and personal values influence each other. A culture that supports CSR is likely to have a positive influence on the CSR attitudes of employees. These attitudes, which can be seen as value judgements, influence their behaviour (Siehl & Martin, 1990). When people have common values and they are consistently and clearly shared throughout the organization, a uniform culture exists. Besides, conflicting values and beliefs can lead to several isolated cultures within an organization. There is less communication between these sub-cultures and organizational change and a shared culture is hard to achieve (Martin, 2002).

Change in organizational context can have influence on organizational culture. Examples of these contextual changes are changes in legislation, changes in economic situation, change in workforce (Zwetsloot, 2003). This last example is likely to play a role in the hotel industry because it is generally known for its high turnover, so employees continuously flow in and out. New employees bring new values and insights and can therefore change organizational culture (Deery & Shaw, 1999).

When CSR is integrated in the organizational culture, it means that there has been a change to value-driven and not only finance-driven decision-making. Employees learn to make right judgements and get used to incorporating ethics and environmental friendly actions into their daily work (Weaver, 2004). On the other hand, an authoritarian culture that emphasizes self-interest and where employees have the perception that the CSR initiatives are purely for financial reasons or top management’s benefits, is likely to fail in achieving any positive outcomes of CSR (Trevino et al. 1999).

2.3.2 Management support

A culture is in large part developed from its leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1993). In order to be strong, the culture needs supportive leaders and a common vision (Tushman, O’Reilly III, 2006). There is a significant amount of research that shows that managers are the ones that bring about most changes (Burke, 2002; Yukl, 2002; Kotter, 1995). Implementation of sustainability needs top management’s commitment to all pillars and needs a clear sign of their support (Larson et al., 2000; Dunphy et al., 2014; Ramus, 2002) A difficulty with gaining management support for sustainability initiatives is that those goals are often not their priority. Management is often less supportive to environmental issues than to regular management tasks (Ramus & Steger, 2000). An organization’s CSR strategy will not succeed and gain internal and external trust without top management support (Collier & Esteban, 2007). They are the ones that can create a vision for the future and communicate this in an inspiring way to employees (Lindgreen et al., 2009). Ethical leadership, fair treatment of employees and open discussion appears to be crucial in successfully integrating CSR in the organizational culture (Trevino et al., 1999).

(13)

Apart from supporting open communication, in which there is room for ideas, important is also what managers do with employees’ ideas. After a new initiative is proposed, there should be a follow-up. Senior management can give the ideas and initiative strength and importance, so it will be valued throughout the whole organization and leads to changes (Lindgreen et al., 2009). In addition, management decides whether there will be budget freed up for initiatives. This is often easier for management of large and chain-affiliated hotels because more resources, especially capital, are available that are required for implementation (Chin, Chiu & Pun, 1998).

The personal values of managers are important in the adoption of CSR policies, these are often the drive and inspiration for a company to start with CSR programs (Hemingway & Maclagan, 2004). This is the strongest in independent hotels because the acting management team has considerable freedom to implement its own ideas. In those hotels, environmental activities are strongly dependent on the GM’s attitude (Bohdanowicz, 2006). Management of chain-affiliated hotels on the other hand, often has to abide policies of the overarching chain and use certain chain-wide standards.

In order to lead ethically, the leader has to be a moral person and be a moral manager. Actions must represent personal values and beliefs in order to be trusted (Trevino & Brown, 2004). Collier and Esteban (2007) formulate personal attributes that are required in order to be an ethical leader, these include: honesty, ability to listen, allowing others autonomy, openness, willingness to consult, willingness to learn, courage when facing difficulties, and most importantly, respect for other people’s views. Management can then act as a role model (Hennigfeld et al., 2006). As Wilms et al. (1994, p. 108) stated: ‘People will follow management’s direction. Whatever management does, and in what direction they push, and how hard they push, dictates where this company eventually goes’. If top management is committed to CSR, they are likely to carry the employees with them and embed the new policies into their daily practices and the performance evaluation of their subordinates (Weaver et al., 1999). Management’s task of evaluating and measuring subordinates’ performance, can in turn lead to more CSR involvement of employees. After measuring performance, the praising, appreciating and rewarding can lead to more motivation and engagement. To keep employees committed, this reviewing must be conducting periodically (Simons, 2011).

Thus, management’s role is to foster a culture that is open and supportive to CSR. Consequently, they should embed the changes and initiatives in the processes and procedures and these should be measured. They should show their own commitment to CSR activities in order to demonstrate the relevance of the issues to the employees. If their commitment is missing, the consequence is that employees will be more likely to feel that they can easily ignore issues of ethical and environmental responsibility (Collier & Esteban, 2007).

2.3.3 Communication

Management that creates a culture that is supportive of sustainability is not enough to implement initiatives in the entire organization. A good continuous information flow is needed. The goals should be communicated down to the employees and new initiatives should flow back up.

In change processes, a lot of resistance arises because people simply don’t know what is happening, what the reasons are for change, and what it means for them. This lack of knowledge can cause confusion (Lozano, 2006). In many companies, CSR is in a state where employees have a vague notion of the company’s intentions, but they hardly know anything about the specific goals and activities. Sometimes people are aware of one specific

(14)

environmental project and have knowledge to engage in it, but are unaware of other CSR initiatives (Bhattacharya, Sen, Korschun, 2008). In getting employees committed and motivated to join CSR initiatives, they first need to be aware of them and understand the concepts. Participation is impossible without understanding (Bernstein, 1992). In order to get CSR integrated in the organizational culture, employees must be continuously involved in the process and have enough knowledge about the sustainable goals and their own contribution (Collier & Esteban, 2007). It starts with communicating the policy and goals of the new initiatives (Collier & Esteban, 2007). A guideline such as GG can for example be a clear point of reference for managers and employees. In addition, it makes the goals more visible; it sets clear criteria that create awareness towards the need to achieve certain goals. The yearly audit can increase the awareness since the whole company will be informed about and involved in the check-up.

To continue, the question is who does most of the communication of the initiatives, which is related to the company’s structure as regards to sustainability. In the literature, much debate still exists around this. An array of different possible structures has evolved (Blowfield & Murray, 2011). There is a wide range of options of where to situate the CSR function. Management of CSR can be in the hands of the board of directors, smaller working committees, an existing department such as HR, external consultancy or designated CSR personnel. In most companies and in the literature, the latter structure is proposed (Melcrum, 2005). For example, DiPiazza (2001) recommends the optimal structure as one with an Ethics Office, headed by the Corporate Ethics Officer. This office is independent of business operations and other top management and therefore able to give impartial advice to the Board of Directors. On the other hand, Lockwood (2004) considers the function of Human Resource (HR) crucial in CSR implementation, because it has to do with employee relationship, their values and beliefs, but also training and good communication. These are considered concerns for the HR department (CIPD, 2003).

DiPiazza’s (2001) and Lockwood’s (2004) views are in contrast with the ideal structure of knowledge management and quality management, in which is proposed that the specialists (in this case the CSR managers) should be working in different departments, spread through the whole company. These people form a cross-functional team, which can be useful to increase the awareness through the whole organization because it will be easier to communicate to all departments. A challenge of this structure could be that the members of the cross-functional team also have responsibilities in their regular job (Denison & Hart, 1996). But this structure seems to incorporate sustainability better into the whole organization than the other structures (Blowfield & Murray, 2011).

The existence of an ideal structure is questionable; there is a sensible case for several structures. The same counts for the size of the CSR function, companies show different ideal ways of resourcing it. The right structure seems to depend on the company’s characteristics (Sutcliffe, 2005). One overall agreement is that, in order to properly implement CSR, the approach should integrate CSR as a core driver of business performance and not only for financial reasons (Blowfield & Murray, 2011).

Currently, most companies see CSR development, implementation and communication starting at the top, decisions regards to what to support are made there. To implement CSR, information and initiatives should flow down and back up, through the whole organization. So it is a company-wide process, every part and person should be involved (Landrum & Edwards, 2009). A more horizontal and decentralized structure would increase employees’ involvement and freedom in decision-making and responsible behaviour more than a strict hierarchical vertical structure (Wever & Vorhaur, 1993). This can in turn lead to a more open communication flow and therefore fosters employee commitment

(15)

(Fitzgerald, 2003). Hotels experience a challenge in reaching the whole organization and gaining everyone’s support and involvement, because many people work at differing hours and in different departments, this is especially experienced by relatively large hotels (Laudal, 2011).

As mentioned before, changes must be anchored in the culture in order to be long lasting (Were, 2011). A learning orientation is necessary to ensure this freezing of CSR-oriented values (Lindgreen et al., 2009). A learning process does not mean one single CSR briefing or awareness training. It needs continuous knowledge sharing and improvements. So communication should happen frequently; employees have to be involved in conversations about the issues and they should be updated on a regular basis. In this way, they are kept energized about the initiatives (Simons, 2011). The easiest and fastest way to communicate frequently is via email or newsletter. Other possible channels for communicating CSR-related information are company websites, email, meetings, informal mouth-to-mouth or notes. Some of which are more effective than others. Some learning processes are more difficult and take more time to learn, such as the change in values and behaviours. General facts and figures can be communicated through official documents but the bigger changes need more extensive learning programs (Zwetsloot, 2003). If CSR policies are communicated to employees via general memos or official documents that are sent through the whole organization, they appear to have limited effect on personal activity in order to reach the goals. In this case, employees are unlikely to work on those goals, they don’t feel personally responsible or are not convinced of the importance of the issues (Collier & Esteban, 2007). In CSR communication, managers indicate that they prefer oral one-to-one dialogue to communication via the computer, although mails can be easier and faster. The additional non-verbal communication helps them to better understand the colleague (Nielsen & Thomsen, 2009).

Training is an important tool in communicating initiatives and increase knowledge among employees. In addition, training can also change peoples’ attitudes, increase their awareness and increase their motivation to participate in sustainable initiatives (Beard & Rees, 2000; Lozano, 2006). When looking at training practices in hotels in detail, Swarbrooke (1999) indicates that these are known for several negative characteristics: first of all, in economic bad times, hotels first cut in training. Secondly, training is often related to the current job and there are fewer opportunities for personal development, compared to other industries. But training is considered as a key component in successful implementation (Sammalisto & Brorson, 2008). Most guidelines and frameworks have training as a requirement. The training must ensure that all employees understand the goals of the framework, how their actions have impact and how they can contribute (Saponara & Roig, 1998). Within the hotel industry, training of employees is often not a priority.

Crucial in effective training is that employees must continuously receive information, skills and reinforcement (Lozano, 2006). Training can be used to increase both theoretical and practical knowledge and can be in the form of physical training classes or via e-learning courses on the computer (Simons, 2011). Welsh et al. (2003) describe the potential advantages of E-learning. First of all, it does not need a constructor, a classroom or availability of a large group of employees. This makes this educational tool advantageous because it is relatively fast and all employees can independently participate repeatedly, even in their own time if they have trouble remembering information. Through repeating, employees are more likely to remember the transferred information and stay aware. Besides, new information can be added quite easily to make sure it is communicated and learned straight ahead. In this way, information overload can also be avoided. Which can be the case when there is only one training per year and learners are unable to retain all the information.

(16)

Finally, another potential advantage of E-learning is that this tool makes it possible for managers to track their employees’ performance on the assessed topics. On the other hand, a drawback of E-learning is the lack of interaction. An employee does both the training and the assessment on the computer and no manager or colleague is involved. Successful training also requires practice, feedback and guidance (Dobbs, 2002). A physical training gets closer to meeting these last requirements.

Only communicating and training employees will not bring them close enough to CSR issues, the participation must also be encouraged and motivated. Motivation is ‘the willingness to exert high levels of effort towards organizational goals, conditioned by the effort’s ability to satisfy some individual need’ as defined by Robbins (1998, p. 186). Together with frequent communication, motivation will lead to employees’ commitment to CSR (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Morsing & Schultz, 2006). Motivation has its roots in personal needs and values. So the motivation to do a certain task is largely influenced by the extent to which it satisfies key employee needs. Bhattacharya et al. (2008) describe how CSR activities can fulfil higher-order psychological needs. First of all, these include the need for self-enhancement, in which CSR activities are motivating because they give a feeling of personal growth and fulfilment of a responsibility to the wider society. In addition, when employees are involved in CSR activities outside their regular tasks, they can learn extra skills and work on their career. Secondly, the need for improving work-life integration, in which the more responsible attitude of the organization reconciles with the employee’s own values. Thirdly, the need to build a bridge to the company, in which joining CSR initiatives creates a better connection to colleagues and a sense of belonging to the whole organization. These needs are part of someones’ intrinsic motivation, in which doing something is because of his or her own interest, need or joy. When an employee has extrinsic motivation, something is done because it leads to a certain outcome, this could for example be in the form of rewards, salary increase, promotion (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Managers can play an important role in motivating their employees by designing programs for them in which they can satisfy their needs (Maslow, 1943). Goal setting is crucial in getting people motivated, because it makes measuring achievement possible, which can in turn lead to satisfaction (Latham, 2004). In this process, the presence or absence of feedback, ability, commitment and task complexity influence the eventual outcomes of the motivated employee (Locke, 1997). Managers can offer support in achieving the goals and overcoming challenges (Kreitner & Kinicki, 1998). Motivation is increased when appropriate behaviour get appraised, appreciated as well as rewarded (Simons, 2011).

An instrument that can increase employee motivation, and therefore commitment, is a reward program. Several studies show that rewarding can also specifically work in encouraging sustainability practices (Laabs, 1992; Patton & Daley, 1998). Rewarding is a way for management to send the right messages and build achievement into performance evaluation of CSR initiatives and therefore promotes success (Collier & Esteban, 2007). Rewards can be in the form of a bonus, salary increase or non-monetary benefits such as an award. The motivation is the strongest when the rewards fit with the needs of the employee (Atwater & Bass, 1994). By rewarding their employees, managers can foster the desired behaviour that reflects the values of the organization (Hennigfeld et al., 2006).

2.3.4 Empowerment

In order to get employees committed, they should be brought closer to the CSR activities. As mentioned before, a more horizontal organizational structure is preferred (Bhattacharya, Sen, Korschun, 2008). In this, as most of the literature agrees, empowering employees is crucial in

(17)

getting them committed to organizational goals (Argyris, 1998; Ennander & Pannullo, 1990). Research of Argyris (1998) shows that empowered employees are also more committed to environmental activities in particular. Empowered employees are encouraged and rewarded to exercise initiative and imagination (Zemke & Schaaf, 1989). They are free from strict control and policies, and have freedom to take responsibility for their ideas, decisions and actions (Carlzon, 1987). When employees’ feel like they have a voice, they are more eager to propose initiatives and work on achieving the common goals, this refers to empowerment (Argyris, 1998). In a company with empowered employees, it is assumed that they can make good decisions and produce good ideas if they are properly informed, trained and socialized. This makes them more internally motivated to perform well without necessary control of higher management (Mayle, 2006), although review mechanisms can increase the focus and success of the empowered employees since good practice will be visibly appreciated (Mehta, 2003). Empowerment can make employees feel more satisfied about their job and create a sense of pride (Bhattacharya, Sen, Korschun, 2008). Empowering employees will give them more authority and responsibility, which increases their creativity to come with their own solutions to problems (Bounds, 1995). When empowering employees, it is important that in order to enhance their participating in CSR initiatives, their activities should be designed so that they won’t take away people’s ability to do their regular day-to-day jobs. CSR should become integrated in their normal tasks in order to make it long-lasting (Bhattacharya, Sen, Korschun, 2008).

Empowered employees have a stronger need for communication, cooperation and teamwork. Teamwork can in turn be a way to empower employees (Cai et al., 1999). The overall responsibility for improvements is then placed on the group. Teamwork can therefore increase employee commitment. Commitment appears to be strongly connected with the attitude of colleagues and the managers, they encourage each other to work on shared goals (Nijhof, De Jong & Beukhof, 1998). The diversity of teams can lead to more collective knowledge to develop creative solutions. Besides, because there is more communication and cooperation, people work more efficiently because there is less duplication of efforts (Cai et al. 1999). Together, ideas are generated, brainstorm sessions take place and people help each other in understanding the reasons for and consequences and outcomes of sustainable initiatives (Beard & Rees, 2000). Teamwork can enhance good communication, cooperation and coordination between different departments and different hierarchical levels and therefore play a role in increasing employee commitment.

(18)

2.3 Conclusion literature review

Committed employees…

-‐ Accept the company’s sustainability values;

-‐ Are willing and motivated to put effort in achieving the goals; -‐ Have a desire to maintain membership in the organization.

But there is a lack of a clear framework for how to implement sustainability successfully in order to increase employee commitment. From the literature review, important antecedents that increase employee commitment to these initiatives have been identified. These antecedents are displayed below and are summarized into four broad categories.

Employee commitment is increased by…

1. Organizational culture & values

-‐ Personal concern for sustainability issues

-‐ A positive view on the organization & identification with the organization -‐ A strong, open & value-driven organizational culture

2. Management’s role

-‐ Management’s support for and involvement in sustainability issues

-‐ Sustainability related goals and targets that are measured and in some way

appreciated or rewarded

-‐ Freedom for and promoting of initiatives and consequently a follow-up

3. Communication

-‐ Knowledge about sustainability and awareness of the consequent activities of the

company

-‐ A good internal structure to support communication

-‐ Continuous internal communication flows and knowledge-sharing -‐ Training

4. Empowerment

-‐ Freedom to be creative on the job and find own solutions -‐ Feeling responsible for sustainability performance -‐ Teamwork

-‐ Integrating sustainability into job -‐ Satisfying employees’ needs

Essentially, all antecedents fall in one category. There could be some overlap between categories. In other words, in some cases, antecedents can relate to more than one category. These antecedents will be used as the guiding categories that are the basis for the empirical part of this research. The state of these antecedents in real-life case will be analysed.

(19)

3. RESEARCH DESIGN

3.1 Methodology

This research aims to understand how sustainable organizations commit their employees to sustainable initiatives and how this could possibly be improved. This is analyzed by looking at successful organizations to find out how they do it. Because the focus lies on the humanistic phenomenon of employee commitment, a qualitative research method will be used. Qualitative research is generally used to look at a phenomenon in its context. The aim of this approach is to provide an understanding of complex humanistic issues and to answer the questions why? or how? (Marshall, 1996). The research will be in the form of a case study, which is a preferred method for finding the meaning of contemporary phenomena while in a real-life context (Yin, 2009).

Qualitative research is often believed to be exploratory and inductive in nature and is aiming for developing new hypotheses. Deductive theory testing is associated with quantitative research methods, in which existing theory is tested (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Although these things are true for most cases, they are not golden rules. A purely exploratory inductive research does not seem suitable since employee commitment - in relation to sustainable initiatives - is not necessarily a new phenomenon. In other words, there is already a substantial amount of literature that addresses these topics in relation to each other. Hence, another approach is used.

Qualitative research can also be used to confirm specific deductive hypotheses (Trochim, 2006). In certain cases, quantitative methods appear to be insufficient or not meaningful when testing theories. Qualitative research can then be a form of experimental theory testing that offers a better understanding of social theories. In this way, the aspects of a social process that can’t be quantified are researched (Langley, 1999).

This research will use this deductive qualitative approach, which is also called the directed content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). The aim is not develop new theories or to statistically test existing theories, but rather to use the existing literature to form a framework that is applied on a real-life case. It is a way of validating existing theories. In this case, not one single theory will be tested but several existing theories will be compared and summarized, in order to give an overview of what antecedents could play a role. The expected antecedents derived from the literature will be the basis for the qualitative research, so these will be used as predictions. They will guide the interviews and examine if and how they play a role in a particular case. For example, according to the literature, management support appears to be crucial in employees’ participation in sustainable initiatives. The role of management will therefore be one of the topics for the semi-structured interviews. Although the research is mainly deductive, it is possible that information will be found that have not been initially located in the literature. This makes this research in part inductive as well.

3.2 Case selection

Duurzame Hotels is a consultancy company that helps hotels in becoming more sustainable.

This organization is also an acknowledged auditor for several sustainability certificates, including Green Globe (GG). Via Duurzame Hotels, two hotels were approached that have the GG certificate. Both were going to be audited within the timespan of this research, which made it possible for me to visit them. These hotels were selected because they seem relatively

(20)

successful in implementing sustainability, because they already own a certificate. However, the consultants of Duurzame Hotels were unsure if the implementation of GG flowed through the entire organization. In other words, whether GG was just a management issue or an organization-wide commitment. Researching those two hotels would give insights in the current state of employee commitment to sustainable initiatives and how things could be improved. This research has a limited timeframe and on that account, only two hotels are investigated. The focus is on two hotels instead of only one to be able to make a comparison of the results and increase generalizability.

The researched cases wish to stay anonymous so their names are not mentioned. Therefore, it is not possible to provide a lot of details about the cases. However, some general information can be reported. The hotels will receive a summary of the research conducted at their company, so they will also have an advantage of cooperating with this research. This increased their willingness to provide access to their organization and people.

The research will be conducted at two Dutch hotels located around Amsterdam. Both of them are GG members and earned the certificate four years ago, with the help of Duurzame

Hotels. They still get support from the consultant to make sure they make progress every year. In the following sections, the hotels will be named Hotel 1 (H1) and Hotel 2 (H2).

• H1 is a four star hotel and part of a bigger hotel chain. There are 342 rooms and the

hotel has approximately 100 employees. The hotel’s business mix is comprised of both segments; leisure and business guests.

• H2 is a four star hotel and is an independent hotel. There are 189 rooms and the hotel has approximately 90 employees. The hotel’s business mix is comprised of both segments; leisure and business guests.

3.3 Data collection

First of all, a meeting was scheduled with the director of Duurzame Hotels. She has been working as a sustainability consultant for several years already and has guided many hotels through this process. She is considered an expert in this field. This interview was used to familiarize myself with the topics of interest in order to formulate proper interview questions for the interviews. This interview will not be used as data for the results section.

3.3.1 Field observation

Besides the interviews, a small part of the data is gathered with a sort of field observation, namely that of attending meetings on site. These will in particularly provide general information on policies and activities in the hotels. The meetings took place just before the audit of the hotels and were held within a meeting room on site. The people that were present were from the hotel itself and from the auditor company. The researcher fulfilled the role of observer and note-maker. The meetings were not recorded, because they contain a lot of confidential information about the hotels, such as numbers and names. But making notes was allowed. This data had two purposes; first of all to increase the understanding on the researched cases and topics. Secondly, to use it as data to help answer the research question.

3.3.2 Interviews

Then the majority of the data will be collected by holding interviews. With interviews, the researcher is able to get an understanding of previous events and behaviors (Patton, 2002).

(21)

This is important in this research because it can give an understanding of how employee commitment has been influenced. The aim of the interviews is to get an understanding of the people’s views and experiences. From existing literature, broad themes have been derived and these serve as guidelines for the interviews. Therefore, in order lead the interview to these themes semi-structured interview design is used. In semi-structured interviews, an interview guide is used with a list of questions and topics that has to be covered. During the interview, the conversation may stray a bit from the guide when other information appears to be interesting for the research as well (Cohen & Crabtee, 2006).

Interview questions and themes may be adapted after some of the data have been collected. Besides, because of the semi-structured approach, the interview also follows the answers from the respondent (Bryman, 2004). Qualitative research is therefore not a process that follows a sequence of steps, but it rather flows back and forth between proposing the interviews, collecting and analyzing the data (Maxwell, 2005). Therefore, the interviews will not all be conducted on the same day, but rather be dispersed in order to give the interviewer time to analyze and adapt the interviews in preparation for the next session.

The semi-structured interviews were held with both managers and employees of the

two hotels. Questions were asked regarding GG, employee commitment and the

predetermined themes. The hotels were visited one by one, both during a GG audit of

Duurzame Hotels. The respondents were chosen in deliberation between the auditor, the

interviewer and a manager or supervisor from the hotel. For H1, seven people were interviewed. For H2, five people were interviewed. The location where the interviews took place was most of the time in a quiet and private area in the lounge of the hotel or within the department of the employee. Before the interview, it was ensured that no other colleagues or guests were able to hear what was said. The interviews were held in Dutch or English; whatever was preferred by the interviewee. The interviewer was presented as an independent researcher, who was using the data primarily for the purpose of a thesis. It was clearly and repeatedly stated that the content of the interviews would be confidential and all interviewees stay anonymous, no other colleagues or the GG auditor would know who said what. The interviews lasted between 10 and 25 minutes. Since they were interviewed during a regular working day, it was not possible to prolong the interview due to work responsibilities. The interviews have been recorded via audio recording and all interviewees gave this permission.

Moreover, this was followed by a separate interview with the consultant from

Duurzame Hotels, who accompanied the studied hotels in acquiring the certificate. She was

actively involved in the process, paid on-site visits and was the contact person in case the hotel experienced any trouble with working on the required criteria. This interview is not transcribed but is rather used to explain or confirm thoughts about the data acquired in the interviews with the employees.

3.4 Data analysis

After the raw data have been collected, all the interviews will be transcribed. Because the deductive method is used, a list of antecedents is proposed before the data analysis starts. The transcripts are studied to locate information that belongs to the predetermined antecedents. Important to note is that the antecedents don’t have to be apparent literally, the data will be read interpretatively to locate the antecedents. This is a characteristic of qualitative research that implies that it is not limited to counting words to organize the data into categories. The categories can also be formed by inferred communication, in which the interviewee subjectively interprets the content of the interviews (Weber, 1990; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). The remaining data will be analysed to find out whether a possible new antecedent should be

Increasing employee commitment to sustainability initiatives : a case study: employees within the hotel industry