This article was downloaded by: [Uniwersytet Gdanski], [Piotr Zientara]On: 28 March 2015, At: 01:39Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

Journal of Sustainable TourismPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20

Corporate social responsibility andemployee attitudes: evidence from astudy of Polish hotel employeesPiotr Zientaraa, Lech Kujawskib & Paulina Bohdanowicz-Godfreyc

a Department of Economics, University of Gdańsk, 119/121 ArmiiKrajowej Street, Gdańsk 81–824, Polandb Department of Management, University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk,Polandc Hilton Worldwide, Europe, Maple Court, Reeds Crescent,Watford WD244QQ, United KingdomPublished online: 25 Mar 2015.

To cite this article: Piotr Zientara, Lech Kujawski & Paulina Bohdanowicz-Godfrey (2015):Corporate social responsibility and employee attitudes: evidence from a study of Polish hotelemployees, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2015.1019511

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1019511

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

wer

syte

t Gda

nski

], [

Piot

r Z

ient

ara]

at 0

1:39

28

Mar

ch 2

015

Corporate social responsibility and employee attitudes: evidence from

a study of Polish hotel employees

Piotr Zientaraa*, Lech Kujawskib and Paulina Bohdanowicz-Godfreyc

aDepartment of Economics, University of Gda�nsk, 119/121 Armii Krajowej Street, Gda�nsk 81�824,Poland; bDepartment of Management, University of Gda�nsk, Gda�nsk, Poland; cHilton Worldwide,Europe, Maple Court, Reeds Crescent, Watford WD244QQ, United Kingdom

(Received 7 January 2014; accepted 9 February 2015)

This study, based on data collected from low-ranking employees working in Polishhotels, tests a research model that investigates whether there are links betweencorporate social responsibility (CSR), operationalized as “self-related” CSRexperiences and “others-related” CSR experiences, and job satisfaction andorganizational commitment, and between both attitudes and work engagement.Structural equation modelling was used to assess these relationships, using a 20 pointquestionnaire answered by 412 respondents. The results indicate that “others-related”CSR experiences are positively associated with satisfaction and commitment, while“self-related” CSR experiences with the latter variable. Likewise, organizationalcommitment, unlike job satisfaction, was linked to work engagement. However,contrary to our a priori assumptions and prior research, it turned out that jobsatisfaction was not a predictor of commitment. The paper discusses theoretical andpractical implications of the findings. The study’s most important practicalimplication is that Polish hotel employees attach weight to responsible behaviour: thehotel industry should perceive CSR in terms of strategic significance. Companies thatwant a committed and engaged workforce � and, by extension, to enhance theircompetitiveness � should embrace CSR. The paper concludes by highlighting itslimitations and suggesting future research avenues.

Key words: CSR; hotel industry; employee attitudes; Poland

Introduction

The concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is now the focus of much academic

interest. Researchers have examined many aspects of CSR, including the motives for

CSR adoption (Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, & Ganapathi, 2007; Rodriguez, Siegel,

Hillman, & Eden, 2006; Vaaland, Heide, & Gronhaug, 2008). And much consideration

has been given to investigating whether there are positive links between CSR and

employee attitudes (Collier & Esteban, 2007; Lin, 2010; Lee, Song, Lee, Lee, &

Bernhard, 2013; Raub & Blunschi, 2014; Tsai, Tsang, & Cheng, 2012; Turker, 2009),

customer behaviour (Becker-Olsen, Cudmore, & Hill, 2006; Carvalho, Sen, de Oliveira

Mota, & de Lima, 2010; Lee & Park, 2009) and corporate financial performance (Hansen,

Ibarra, & Peyer, 2013; Kang, Lee, & Huh, 2010; Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006; Margolis &

Walsh, 2001; Orlitzky, Schmidt, & Rynes, 2003).

Some researchers, drawing on different theoretical frameworks (such as the theory of

reasoned action, the theory of planned behaviour or social identity theory), have also set

*Corresponding author. Email: zientara@fest.pl

� 2015 Taylor & Francis

Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2015

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1019511

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

wer

syte

t Gda

nski

], [

Piot

r Z

ient

ara]

at 0

1:39

28

Mar

ch 2

015

out to explore the mechanisms by which CSR impacts employee attitudes and produces

firm-level outcomes (Hillenbrand, Money, & Ghobadian, 2013). This is because there is a

growing recognition that firms have responsibilities towards society that go far beyond

the maximization of shareholder value (Font, Walmsley, Cogotti, McCombes, & Hausler,

2012), reflecting a marked shift in societal perceptions of the place of a firm in today’s

socio-economic reality (Hansen et al., 2013; Porter & Kramer, 2011). Indeed, members

of society � both as customers and employees � increasingly value responsible corporate

conduct (Kim & Han, 2010; Responsible Business Forum, 2014; Tsai et al., 2012), even

though some critics continue to dismiss CSR as “hot air” or “corporate waffle” (Mayer,

2013). It is hard nowadays to find a large international company without a CSR policy.

This, too, is true of the hotel industry, especially top hotel chains. Arguably, this segment,

as a number of case studies attest (Bohdanowicz & Zientara, 2008, 2009, 2012), has made

great strides towards responsible corporate conduct.

That is important since, from ecological and human resource management (HRM)

perspectives, the hotel industry stands out among other sectors. It is, at least in theory,

neither eco-friendly nor employee-friendly. Hotels still consume large quantities of natu-

ral resources, generate a lot of waste (Sloan, Legrand, & Chenet, 2009), and are demand-

ing workplaces (Zientara, 2012). As is widely acknowledged, typical hotel jobs are

poorly paid (Ineson, Benke, & L�aszlo, 2013), insecure (Zhao & Mattila, 2013), stressful

(Lawson, Davis, Crouter, & O’Neill, 2013), offer few promotion opportunities (Furunes

& Mykletun, 2005) and unsupportive of work-life balance (Deery & Jago, 2009).

In the light of these considerations, it should come as no surprise that the sector expe-

riences high employee turnover and acute labour shortages (Ineson et al., 2013). The

implication is that many hotel employees might well be dissatisfied with their jobs and

uncommitted to their organizations, since high staff turnover is an indicator of employ-

ees’ low satisfaction and insufficient commitment (Carraher, 2011). That has far-reaching

implications since satisfied and committed employees tend to perform their tasks profi-

ciently (Guchait, Kim, & Namasivayam, 2012; Way, Sturman, & Raabet, 2010;

Worsfold, 1999). They are likely to exhibit high levels of work engagement (Schaufeli,

Salanova, Gonz�ales-Rom�a, & Bakker, 2002), which is regarded as one of the major fac-

tors behind the service quality an employee extends to hotel guests (Salanova, Agut, &

Piero, 2005). And service quality is an important antecedent of customer satisfaction

(Deng, Yeh, & Sung, 2013; Grandey, Goldberg, & Pugh, 2011; Guchait et al., 2012),

which, in turn, underpins customer loyalty (Mart�ınez & Rodr�ıguez del Bosque, 2013) and� in keeping with the logic of the service profit chain (Heskett, Jones, Loveman, Sasser,

& Schlesinger, 1994) � organizational profitability (Yee & Yeung, 2011).

Given the value of a committed and engaged workforce as well as the potentially neg-

ative impact of difficult working conditions, it is fair to say that CSR, with its emphasis

on employee welfare, has a special role to play in the hotel industry. Thus this study,

which uses a questionnaire survey done in hotels in the Polish region of Pomerania, tests

a model that investigates whether there are positive links between CSR, operationalized

as “self-related” CSR experiences and “others-related” CSR experiences (Hillenbrand

et al., 2013), and job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and whether these two

attitudes are associated with work engagement. It follows that, conceptually, the paper

falls within the purview of corporate ethics and human resource management.

There are several studies investigating the links between CSR and employee attitudes

generally (Collier & Esteban, 2007; Lee et al., 2013; Lin, 2010; Peterson, 2004; Raub &

Blunschi, 2014; Tsai et al., 2012; Turker, 2009; Valentine & Fleischman, 2008), but little

of this research work has been applied to hospitality settings (Lee et al., 2013) and/or has

2 P. Zientara et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

wer

syte

t Gda

nski

], [

Piot

r Z

ient

ara]

at 0

1:39

28

Mar

ch 2

015

drawn on data collected in eastern Europe (CSR studies in Poland usually focus on other

sectors; Responsible Business Forum, 2014). There is also relatively limited research into

the relationship between affective attitudes and work engagement (Demerouti, Bakker, de

Jonge, Janssen, & Schaufeli, 2001; Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006). Crucially, few studies, to

our knowledge, explore these interrelationships within the broader context of CSR in the

hotel sector. Thus � by seeking to find out whether there exist links between CSR experi-

ences and the attitudes and behaviours of employees in Polish hotels (as distinct from other

industries and geographical locations) � this paper fills the above-mentioned gaps in the

existing literature.

The structure of the paper is as follows. The next section offers a theoretical frame-

work. In it, we present the stakeholder conceptualization of CSR, explore the CSR-related

psychological and socio-cultural mechanisms, analyse the nature of the interrelationship

between CSR and HRM, and examine work engagement through the prism of hotel

employment. Subsequently, we briefly examine the link between Polish culture and the

CSR agenda in the context of tourism development, followed by our hypotheses and

research model. The next part discusses the findings and emphasizes their theoretical and

practical implications, followed by highlighting limitations and suggesting future

research directions.

Theoretical framework

Stakeholder-oriented conceptualization of CSR

Although definitions of CSR vary (Blowfield & Murray, 2011), it is accepted that socially

responsible businesses assume responsibilities towards society that go beyond the maxi-

mization of shareholder value (Font et al., 2012). Many researchers conceptualize CSR as

an embodiment of “stakeholder democracy”, which takes as its premise that the organiza-

tion consists of different stakeholders who should be able to influence its activities (Free-

man, 1984; Peterson, 2004). Consequently, CSR is, in essence, about how firms behave

towards such stakeholders as workers, consumers, local inhabitants and nature. Thus

stress is laid, on the one hand, on dealing fairly with customers, employees, suppliers and

local communities and, on the other, on protecting the environment. It is here that the

CSR-inspired imperative to reduce a company’s environmental impact is conceptually

linked to the notion of sustainable development, and sustainable tourism (Bramwell &

Lane, 1993; Melissen, 2013), seeking to ensure that humanity “meets the needs of the

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

(United Nations, 1987, p. 43). It follows that:

socially responsible companies not only try to be economically sustainable and profitable, butalso endeavour to work with their employees, families, local communities and nation states toimprove the quality of life in ways that are both ethical and sustainable in relation to societyand the environment. (Cacioppe, Forster, & Fox, 2008, p. 684)

These considerations imply that it is the stakeholder value rather than the shareholder

value that should be central to the operation of any responsible firm.

Seen in this way, stakeholders (with employees to the fore) � being de facto the

“recipients” of a company’s undertakings � experience the effects of corporate behaviour

(Wood & Jones, 1995). Crucially, they experience them either in relation to themselves or

to others. Therefore, Hillenbrand et al. (2013) make a distinction into “self-related” CSR

experiences and “others-related” CSR experiences. Following this distinction, in this

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

wer

syte

t Gda

nski

], [

Piot

r Z

ient

ara]

at 0

1:39

28

Mar

ch 2

015

study “self-related” experiences bear upon an individual’s perception of how he or she is

treated by the organization whereas “others-related” CSR experiences have to do with an

individual’s perception of how the organization behaves vis-�a-vis stakeholders other thanhimself or herself (that is, with his or her colleagues, clients, suppliers, members of a local

community and the environment).

CSR-related psychological and socio-cultural mechanisms

The existence of employment experiences has wide-ranging ramifications. This is

because, as the theory of reasoned action holds, a direct experience with a given thing

forms beliefs about that thing (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). It follows that, as assorted

stakeholders experience a company’s conduct towards themselves and others, they form

beliefs. Since CSR is commonly regarded as something inherently good � although

some commentators continue to see it as unnecessary or even harmful � positive beliefs

about a firm’s CSR involvement usually create trust. This fundamental notion can be

defined as

the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expec-tation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective ofthe ability to monitor or control that other party. (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995, p. 712)

Trust, in turn, underpins favourable intent towards a company (Vlachos, 2010), which

usually reinforces employees’ commitment and encourages customers to purchase its

products or services.

This has to do with the actual motives for CSR adoption. In this context, it is argued

that firms behave responsibly for instrumental, relational and moral motives (Aguilera

et al., 2007). The implication is that there is some ambiguity to CSR. In fact, companies

are faced with a dilemma: given that, from a public-relations perspective, it pays to have

a reputation for fairness and environmentalism � and hence to project a trust-inspiring

image � is it more important for a business to be seen doing “right” things or to behave

responsibly out of deep conviction and for its own sake? (Holcomb, Upchurch, &

Okumus, 2007). But the question of whether a company is sincere or not could be less of

an issue since CSR-inspired commitment to eco-friendliness may simply make business

sense and thus produce “win�win” outcomes (Tercek & Adams, 2013). For instance,

installation of resource-efficient appliances in lodging establishments, albeit costly in the

short term, is bound to reduce operating costs in the long run, which benefits the environ-

ment (Bohdanowicz, Zientara, & Novotna, 2011).

The above discussion says much about the significance of values and the place of

CSR in modern society. Values � which are described as “beliefs and personal stand-

ards that guide individuals to function in a society” (Rokeach, 1973, p. 5) � define

“what people believe to be fundamentally right or wrong” (Gursoy, Chi, & Karadag,

2013, p. 41). This, in turn, emphasizes the importance of the cultural context: after all,

people live in a concrete culture which, underpinning the collective mindset, influences

their values and, by extension, their behaviour. Thus, for example, since in Scandinavia

social and environmental responsibility is embedded in the culture, many Norwegians

and Swedes are not only knowledgeable about � and emotionally attached to � these

issues, but also, crucially, try (as citizens) to act responsibly and exhibit (as customers)

a strong preference for companies that are committed to CSR (see also Lynes &

Andrachuk, 2008).

4 P. Zientara et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

wer

syte

t Gda

nski

], [

Piot

r Z

ient

ara]

at 0

1:39

28

Mar

ch 2

015

That said, collective attachment to eco-friendliness and social fairness is no longer

limited to Scandinavia (given the study’s focus on Poland, this raises the question of how

prevalent the concept of CSR is in Polish society: are there attitudinal and behavioural

CSR-related differences between Poles and Scandinavians? [see below]). There is evi-

dence that also other nations (in particular, in North America and Asia) increasingly value

environmental and social responsibility (Branzei, Vertinsky, Takahashi, & Zhang, 2001;

Duncan, 2013; Hauvner, Hill, & Milburn, 2008; Kim & Han, 2010), which implies that

more and more people � both employees and customers � are likely to favour companies

that behave responsibly. As indicated in the introduction, studies based on data from dif-

ferent cultures confirm a positive relationship between CSR adoption and customer

behaviour (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; Carvalho et al., 2010; Garc�ıa de los Salmones,

Herrero, & Rodr�ıguez del Bosque, 2005; Han, Kimb, & Kima, 2011; Lee & Park, 2009;

Mart�ınez & Rodr�ıguez del Bosque, 2013) and employee attitudes (Collier & Esteban,

2007; Lee et al., 2013; Lin, 2010; Peterson, 2004; Raub & Blunschi, 2014; Tsai et al.,

2012; Turker, 2009). This, while underscoring the significance of mutual trust, has pro-

found implications for HRM.

Interrelationship between CSR and HRM

To reiterate, companies acting on CSR principles pay special attention to the well-being

of their employees. Thus one can argue for a conceptual and practical overlap between

CSR and HRM. This is also borne out by the findings from the aforesaid studies focusing

on the links between CSR on employee attitudes. There is ample evidence that CSR is

positively associated with organizational commitment (Peterson, 2004; Turker, 2009).

Kim, Lee, Lee, and Kim (2010) demonstrated that a firm’s CSR initiatives can increase

workers’ organizational identification, which, in turn, strengthens their loyalty. Likewise,

Lee et al. (2013) found that there was a positive link between the legal dimension of CSR

and South Korean casino employees’ organizational trust and hence their job satisfaction.

In a similar vein, studies by Lin (2010) and Rego, Leal, Cunha, Faria, and Pinho (2010)

show that employee engagement relates positively with voluntary activities that benefit

society or, to refer to the conceptualizations used in the present work, with “others-

related” CSR experiences.

Among employee variables, of special interest are job satisfaction and organizational

commitment (Becker, 2002; Meyer & Allen, 1991). Both attitudes matter to any com-

pany: they determine employee behaviour, including absenteeism, shirking and turnover

(satisfied and committed individuals are both less likely to shirk, to be absent and to quit).

Job satisfaction is described as “a global feeling about the job or as a related constellation

of attitudes about various aspects or facets of the job” (Spector, 1997, p. 2), while affec-

tive organizational commitment (as distinct from continuance and normative commit-

ment) � as “a strong belief in and acceptance of the organization’s goals and values; a

willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization; and a strong desire

to maintain membership in the organization” (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982, p. 27).

Many factors, with pay to the fore, influence satisfaction and commitment (Jawahar &

Stone, 2011; Till & Karen, 2011; Worsfold, 1999). Crucially, there is strong evidence

that job satisfaction is a major predictor of organizational commitment (Chen & Wallace,

2011; Kazlauskaite, Buciuniene, & Turauskas, 2012; Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001).

Yet there is more to this than that. It is possible to pinpoint a number of areas in which

CSR interacts with HRM. Employee involvement in CSR-inspired initiatives aimed at,

say, environmental protection is an example (Bohdanowicz et al., 2011). When

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

wer

syte

t Gda

nski

], [

Piot

r Z

ient

ara]

at 0

1:39

28

Mar

ch 2

015

employees are offered (ecological) training � regarded as one of the top six HRM practi-

ces (Boselie, Dietz, & Boon, 2005) � they comprehend the importance of eco-friendly

behaviour. The same effect can be attained by hands-on activities, such as planting trees

or cleaning up degraded urban areas. In this way, workers learn new things and enhance

their human capital. Employee development is foregrounded in modern HRM thinking.

In this context, Cacioppe et al. (2008, p. 689) argue that CSR may lead to “the develop-

ment of leadership skills and a high level of motivation among employees who are

inspired to become involved in CSR programmes”.

The fundamental role played by low- and mid-ranking employees in CSR activities

comes across as uncontroversial because it is they who, in most cases, put into practice

socially responsible ideas (Collier & Esteban, 2007). To push the argument further, suc-

cessful implementation of CSR initiatives relies, to a large degree, on their engagement.

According to Rothenberg (2003), staff conduct is instrumental in sustaining the environ-

mental dimension of CSR. One needs to recognize, however, that, from an employee

point of view, CSR activities involve extra-role behaviours. So they fall outside a work-

er’s formal duties. As such, extra-role behaviours compete for his or her time with in-role

tasks, which, being subject to formal performance evaluation, are usually given top

priority. Nonetheless, if an individual is authentically concerned with environmental

and social issues, and he or she sees that his or her company is truly committed to CSR,

then � to follow the reasoning laid out above � he or she is likely to be satisfied and com-

mitted, and exhibit higher levels of work engagement. Given the inconveniences charac-

terizing employment in lodging facilities, all this is particularly pertinent to hotel

companies.

Work engagement in view of hotel employment and industry-specific CSR

Hotels constitute challenging workplaces. To reiterate, low remuneration (Ineson et al.,

2013), job insecurity (Zhao & Matilla, 2013), emotional labour (Lawson et al., 2013;

Hochschild, 1983), few promotion opportunities (Furunes & Mykletun, 2005), work-life

balance (WLB)-related problems (Deery & Jago, 2009) all make most hotel jobs � with

front-of-house positions to the fore � relatively unrewarding and unattractive. These

drawbacks are regarded as the root cause of the high employee turnover that beleaguers

the industry (Ineson et al., 2013). Arguably, this may well be indicative of hotel employ-

ees’ low job satisfaction and insufficient commitment. As noted in the introduction, this

matters a lot since satisfied and committed (frontline) employees tend to perform their

service tasks ably (Guchait et al., 2012; Way et al., 2010; Worsfold, 1999) and adopt gen-

uinely supportive attitudes towards customers (Tsai & Huang, 2002). What is at issue,

therefore, is employees’ work engagement, which � being associated with “high levels

of involvement in work” (Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011, p. 22) � denotes “a positive,

fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication and

absorption” (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74),

Accordingly, engaged employees are self-efficacious, tend to work hard and, criti-

cally, go above and beyond the call of duty (Karatepe, 2013). Thus work engagement is

seen as one of the major factors behind the quality of service an employee extends to cus-

tomers (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Salanova et al., 2005). And service quality is an

antecedent of customer satisfaction (Deng et al., 2013; Grandey et al., 2011), which refers

to the customer’s cognitive and affective evaluation of a product or service (Zeithaml,

Bitner, & Gremler, 2006). Customer satisfaction, in turn, influences customer loyalty

(Oliver, 1997). Indeed, Salanova et al. (2005) found that employees’ engagement had a

6 P. Zientara et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

wer

syte

t Gda

nski

], [

Piot

r Z

ient

ara]

at 0

1:39

28

Mar

ch 2

015

positive impact on the service climate of hotels and restaurants, with greater display of

extra-role behaviour and betterment of customer satisfaction. This, to reiterate, deter-

mines � in line with the logic of the service profit chain (Heskett et al., 1994) � financial

performance (Yee & Yeung, 2011).

However, it should be noted that “hotel organisations are traditionally conservative,

utilising standardised systems that are often centralised to ensure that decision-making is

controlled from the top, as a means to maintain brand controls and profitability” (Burgess,

2013, p. 199). And a hierarchical, top-down approach to management, coupled with rigid

standardization of procedures, is not obviously conducive to the creation of a supportive

organizational climate (Schneider, White, & Paul, 1998) that might positively influence

employee affective attitudes (and, by extension, service quality). This has serious impli-

cations since “when employees perceive that their organization provides a supportive,

involving, and challenging climate [. . .], they are more likely to respond by investing

time and energy and by being psychologically involved in the work of their organization”

(Bakker et al., 2011, p. 13).

Things are further complicated because even though most researchers agree on what

factors facilitate work engagement � climate, job and psychological resources (Bakker

and Demerouti, 2007; Bakker et al., 2011) � there is some ambiguity about the direction-

ality of the relationship between work engagement and employee affective attitudes.

Freeney and Tiernan (2006, p. 134) claim that “employee engagement [. . .] generateshigher frequency of positive affect such as satisfaction and commitment [. . .]. As of yet,the directionality of such a model has not been confirmed empirically”. Elsewhere they

point out that “satisfied employees do not necessarily perform to the best of their abilities”

(Freeney & Tiernan, 2006, p. 130). Given the focus of the present study, the directionality

of the relationship is of critical importance since we postulate � in contrast to the above

assertion � that it is job satisfaction and organizational commitment that are predictors of

work engagement rather than vice versa (see also Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006).

This is because, while it may well be true that sometimes satisfied workers do not

exhibit high levels of engagement, it is even less probable that those dissatisfied with their

jobs will be fully engaged, in contrast to their satisfied colleagues. The same goes for

commitment, whose definition stresses, to reiterate, an employee’s “willingness to exert

considerable effort on behalf of the organization” (Mowday et al., 1982, p. 27). It follows

that committed employees are likely to be highly engaged � or “to exert considerable

effort” � since (they know that) their extra contribution can improve their organization’s

performance (Worsfold, 1999). It seems problematic, therefore, to expect uncommitted

employees to work hard.

It follows that CSR, with its strong emphasis on employee welfare, has a special role

to play in the hotel industry. International hotel chains have increased their commitment

to CSR (Bohdanowicz & Zientara, 2008, 2009, 2012; De Grosbois, 2012; Tsai et al.,

2012; Zientara & Bohdanowicz, 2010). Given their centralized and standardized opera-

tional modes (and their presence in eastern Europe), it is reasonable to presume that Pol-

ish hotels belonging to international chains implement CSR initiatives (e.g. Radisson

SAS in Wroc»aw; Zientara, 2012).We return to the impact of the wider cultural context, and the extent to which environ-

mentalism and social fairness are on the “agenda” in a given society, and the weight that

individuals � as citizens, employees and customers � attach to responsible behaviour.

The issue here is how prevalent is the notion of social and environmental responsibility in

Polish society.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

wer

syte

t Gda

nski

], [

Piot

r Z

ient

ara]

at 0

1:39

28

Mar

ch 2

015

Polish society and CSR agenda in tourism development

Poland, unlike Scandinavian countries, does not have an exceptional environmental

record. Ranked 30th in the Environmental Performance Index (2014), it compares unfav-

ourably with all Scandinavian and most western European countries. Its relatively poor

environmental performance is mainly due to coal-based electricity generation (Econo-

mist, 2014) and weak enforcement of environmental legislation. Relatedly, Poles, in con-

trast to Norwegians or Swedes, do not have a reputation for eco-friendliness.

Nonetheless, it is increasingly argued that there has been a shift in attitudes towards the

environment. A CBOS (Public Opinion Research Center) opinion poll from November

2013 showed that 89% of Poles would like more energy to be produced from renewables

and the government to be more committed to fighting global warming (srodowisko.pl,

2013). By and large, the responses to other questions were strongly pro-environmental,

too (but, admittedly, the results might have been different if the problem of higher elec-

tricity prices had been broached).

Likewise, according to a survey carried out in 2013 by Starwood Hotels & Resorts

among 500 guests staying at its Polish facilities (Sheraton, Westin and Le Meridien Bris-

tol), environmental issues mattered to 94% of respondents. Moreover, 52% of them

claimed to pay attention to a hotel’s environmental credentials when choosing accommo-

dation (IGHP, 2014). Another recent study investigating the environmental engagement

of small lodging businesses located in southern Poland demonstrates that their owner-

managers display high levels of eco-literacy, and attempt to reduce their environmental

footprint (Zientara & Bohdanowicz-Godfrey, 2014). This is in line with the results of

other studies that show that more and more Polish SMEs are engaged in CSR (Nikodem-

ska-Wo»owik, 2011; Responsible Business Forum, 2014). There is also evidence that Pol-

ish employees have started to pay attention to whether the companies for which they

work or would like to work behave responsibly (Responsible Business Forum, 2014, p.

10). Therefore, it is fair to say that � although environmental and social responsibility

are still less prevalent in Polish society than in Scandinavia � more and more Poles rec-

ognize the importance (and necessity) of environmental protection and social fairness.

This matters per se, but also in view of the on-going development of tourism in Poland.

Poland is increasingly perceived as an interesting tourist destination. It continues to

draw ever larger numbers of foreign tourists (Central Statistical Office, 2012). In 2012,

for example, Poland was visited by approximately 15 million foreign tourists � an

increase of 11% on the previous year (Institute of Tourism, 2013). This is partly due to

the publicity the country attracted in 2012, when it hosted, together with Ukraine, the

European Football Championship. Hence, even though Poland, as a tourist destination, is

marked by certain weaknesses � it is ranked 42nd out of 140 countries in the Travel and

Tourism Competitiveness Report compiled by the World Economic Forum (2013) � it

has made progress over the last two decades (Zientara, 2009).

That presupposition is borne out not only by objective developments (an increase in

the number of lodging facilities coupled with the EU-funded construction of new roads

and airports), but also by foreign tourists’ subjective perceptions. Satisfaction surveys of

foreign tourists in Poland indicate constant improvement. For instance, it transpires from

a large-scale study conducted for the Polish Tourism Organization (2012, p. 15) that the

vast majority of the respondents � almost 90% � were very or rather satisfied with their

visit to Poland. They rated the quality of accommodation at 4.2, with 5 being the highest

value (Polish Tourism Organisation, 2012, p. 18). This implies that Polish lodging estab-

lishments offer relatively high quality service and that hotel employees must be compe-

tent and engaged in their work.

8 P. Zientara et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

wer

syte

t Gda

nski

], [

Piot

r Z

ient

ara]

at 0

1:39

28

Mar

ch 2

015

In this study data were collected from low-ranking (non-managerial) hotel employees

in Pomerania, which is one of the country’s most popular tourist destinations. Gda�nsk,the region’s capital, is famous for its Old Town and the shipyard which is the cradle of

the Solidarity trade union. Sopot, a sea-side resort with several wellness and spa centres,

is among Poland’s most fashionable tourist destinations. Other Pomeranian tourist attrac-

tions include lakes, forests and recently renovated palaces, many of which are now exclu-

sive hotels. The hospitality industry constitutes an important pillar of the local economic

base. All this strengthens the case for investigating links between CSR and employee atti-

tudes in Poland’s hotels.

Research method

Hypotheses and study design

In the absence of clear evidence regarding the relationships between CSR and Polish hotel

employees’ attitudes, but staying with the theoretically derived arguments presented

above, we formulated the following hypotheses:

H1a: There will be a positive link between “self-related” CSR experiences and jobsatisfaction;

H1b: There will be a positive link between “others-related” CSR experiences and jobsatisfaction;

H2a: There will be a positive link between “self-related” CSR experiences and organizationalcommitment;

H2b: There will be a positive link between “others-related” CSR experiences and organiza-tional commitment;

H3a: There will be a positive link between job satisfaction and work engagement;

H3b: There will be a positive link between commitment and work engagement.

H4: There will be a positive link between job satisfaction and commitment.

Figure 1 presents the inner path model. It shows that we assume that CSR, rather than

directly influencing work engagement, is linked to (impacts on) job satisfaction and orga-

nizational commitment. In turn, both affective attitudes affect � in line with what has just

been postulated about the directionality of the relationship � work engagement.

This part of the paper builds on the quantitative research framework. In particular, it

draws on the survey questionnaire containing 20 items which were used to measure our

constructs. We contacted, by email, the management of hotels with three or four stars

Figure 1. Inner path model.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

wer

syte

t Gda

nski

], [

Piot

r Z

ient

ara]

at 0

1:39

28

Mar

ch 2

015

located in the region (Pomeranian Regional Tourism Organization, 2013). The decision to

contact hotels with at least three stars was based on the presupposition that they were

likely to have a CSR policy in place. In a cover letter attached to emails, we explained

the aim of our investigation and asked for permission to carry out the survey among all

low-ranking employees � a category that included not only frontline employees, but also

those who do not have direct contact with hotel guests (because their work, albeit free of

emotional labour, also determines service quality).

The managements of the hotels that agreed to participate in the study recommended

that a condition of acceptance is that they themselves would distribute the questionnaires

to their workforces. Given that the alternative was total denial of permission, we accepted

their requirement. By the cut-off date, 455 questionnaires (out of 800) were returned, a

response rate of 57%. Among these, 43 questionnaires were unusable due to a large pro-

portion of incomplete responses, yielding a final sample of 412 (effective response rate

therefore was 52%).

A five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 D strongly disagree to 5 D strongly agree,

was used to measure each item. Following Hillenbrand et al. (2013), CSR was operation-

alized as “self-related” CSR experiences and “others-related” CSR experiences. The for-

mer were measured by six items, the latter by five items. Sample items, derived from the

CSR literature (Bohdanowicz & Zientara, 2008; Sloan et al., 2009) are as follows: “My

company truly cares about me” and “I regularly receive ecological training” (“self-

related” CSR); “My company supports local communities” and “My company greens its

operations to reduce its environmental impact” (“others-related”). (A copy of the ques-

tionnaire can be found as supplemental data in the web based version of this paper). Fur-

thermore, affective organizational commitment was measured by three items taken from

Mowday et al. (1982) “I feel ‘emotionally attached’ to this organization” and “I am proud

to tell people who I work for”. Job satisfaction was measured by three items borrowed

from Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969). Work engagement was measured by three items

borrowed from Schaufeli et al. (2002). The order in which items appeared in the question-

naire was counterbalanced to guard against the potential order effect.

Results of statistical analysis

The gender composition of the sample was 48% male and 52% female. As regards job

tenure, 18% had worked for their current employer for less than 1 year, 26% for a period

of 1 to 3 years and 56% for more than 3 years. Furthermore, 53% of the respondents were

between the ages of 18�30, 24% were between the ages of 31�40 and 23% were older

than 40. Regarding education, 18% had primary-school education, 63% graduated from a

secondary school and 19% had a university degree. Furthermore, 14% worked at an

independent hotel and 86% at hotels belonging to an international chain. Finally, 72% of

the respondents lived in a household with a net monthly income of less than 5000 zlotys

(approximately 1700 US$), 13% in a household with a net income of 5000�6000 zlotys

(1700�2000 US$), and 15% in a household with a net income of more than 6000 zlotys

(the minimum wage in Poland is c. 530 US$, or take-home pay of 400 US$). From demo-

graphic and socio-economic perspectives, the sample represented a diverse population.

Having checked for missing data and outliers (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, &

Tatham, 2010), we analysed collected data using STATISTICA 8 and R, statistics and

analytics software packages. Anderson and Gerbing (1988) suggest a two-stage approach

for the use of structural equation modelling (SEM) for theory testing. Stage one entailed

the use of exploratory factor analysis to explore the structure of the data. In stage two, we

10 P. Zientara et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

wer

syte

t Gda

nski

], [

Piot

r Z

ient

ara]

at 0

1:39

28

Mar

ch 2

015

applied confirmatory factor analysis (which contained all the multi-item constructs in our

theoretical framework) to assess the goodness of the measurement instrument’s psycho-

metric properties (reliability and validity) (see Table 1). Subsequently, we analysed the

structural relations among the theoretically proposed latent variables through a structural

equation model (Bagozzi & Yi, 1998; Chin, 1998; Hoyle & Panter, 1995).

A Cronbach alpha reliability test was conducted to measure the reliability of each con-

struct. The cut-off point is 0.70 (Hair et al., 2010). As shown in Table 1, because all val-

ues � bar one � were between 0.624 and 0.877, multiple measures in this study are

reliable for measuring each construct. The outlier was “self-related CSR” construct

(0.624). Nevertheless, we decided to consider it since reliability scores that are between

0.60 and 0.70 represent the lower limit of acceptability (Hair et al., 2010). Table 1 also

shows the range of the factor loadings for measurement items as well as confirms the

validity of the model since all the items are significant (p< 0.05) related to their hypothe-

sized factors (see Bartlett’s test of sphericity). The above results are also confirmed by the

Kaiser�Meyer�Olkin measure of sampling adequacy.

The goodness of fit of the analysis was verified with the model x2 and the following

fit indices: normed fit index (NFI), non-normed fit index (NNFI) (or Tucker�Lewis

NNFI), comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)

and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) (Bentler & Bonnett, 1990; Hoyle &

Panter, 1995). In particular, the model x2 D 71.751 (p < 0.05), NFI D 0.90457, NNFI D0.80974, CFI D 0.92072, RMSEA D 0.09594 and SRMR D 0.08310 (see also Figure 1).

Thus all values indicate that the model provides a good fit.

Discussion of the findings

Table 2 shows the path coefficient estimates for each of the seven hypothesized path link-

ages, including t-values with probs and significance levels. All the hypothesized relation-

ships, with the exception of three links, are significant at p D 0.10. Table 3 presents the

latent variable correlation matrix, with R2 in parentheses.

Table 2 shows that H1a, H3a and H4 were not supported. This means that there were

no statistically significant positive links between “self-related” CSR experiences and job

satisfaction (H1a), between job satisfaction and work engagement (H3a), and between

job satisfaction and commitment (H4). By contrast, our other a priori assumptions were

supported. Hence there were statistically significant positive links between “others-

related” CSR experiences and job satisfaction (H1b), between “self-related” CSR experi-

ences and commitment (H2a), between “others-related” CSR experiences and commit-

ment (H2b), and between organizational commitment and work engagement (H3). Of

course, some of the findings are hard to interpret. Especially, the absence of a statistically

significant association between job satisfaction and organizational commitment is puz-

zling and inconsistent with prior research (which, as mentioned earlier, demonstrated that

the former is a strong predictor of the latter; Chen & Wallace, 2011; Kazlauskaite et al.,

2012; Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001).

Of the hypotheses that were supported, the positive relationships between “others-

related” CSR experiences and both affective attitudes are of special importance. It follows

that employees working in Polish upmarket hotels place value on how their companies

treat other stakeholders. From a certain point of view, this suggests (a considerable degree

of) empathy and altruism. That, coupled with the positive relationship between “self-

related” CSR experiences and organizational commitment, implies that, on the whole,

Polish hotel employees pay attention to whether their companies care about the

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

wer

syte

t Gda

nski

], [

Piot

r Z

ient

ara]

at 0

1:39

28

Mar

ch 2

015

Table1.

Resultsandtestsoffactoranalysis.

Eigenvalues

Factornam

e1

23

Totalvariance

explained

(cumulative%)

Kaiser�

Meyer�

Olkin

measure

of

samplingadequacy

Factorloadings

(range)

Cronbach’salpha

coefficients

Bartletttest

statistic[p-value]

Self-relatedCSR

1.475

0.905

0.866

36.888

59.505

81.172

0.761

0.552�0

.673

0.624

156.43[0.000]

Others-relatedCSR

2.198

1.134

0.839

36.633

55.534

69.526

0.778

0.534�0

.622

0.726

330.08[0.000]

Jobsatisfaction

2.419

0.417

�80.658

94.549

�0.764

0.659�0

.707

0.877

738.74[0.000]

Org.commitment

1.976

0.778

�75.853

91.819

�0.781

0.509�0

.729

0.715

399.04[0.000]

Work

engagem

ent

2.299

0.476

�76.639

92.526

�0.768

0.662�0

.704

0.847

575.29[0.000]

12 P. Zientara et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

wer

syte

t Gda

nski

], [

Piot

r Z

ient

ara]

at 0

1:39

28

Mar

ch 2

015

Table2.

MLestimates

formodel.

Pathlinkages

Pathcoefficient

(orig.sample

estimate)

Pathcoefficient

(meanof

sub-sam

ples)

t-value

Prob.

Levelof

significance

Supportfor

hypotheses

H1a:Therewillbeapositivelinkbetween“self-related”CSR

experiencesandjobsatisfaction

0.0287

0.0291

0.0598

0.9523

Notsupported

H1b:Therewillbeapositivelinkbetween“others-related”CSR

experiencesandjobsatisfaction

0.2434

0.2444

2.1163

0.0343

��Supported

H2a:Therewillbeapositivelinkbetween“self-related”CSR

experiencesandcommitment

1.1516

1.1509

4.7177

0.0000

���

Supported

H2b:Therewillbeapositivelinkbetween“others-related”CSR

experiencesandcommitment

0.2835

0.2831

3.1465

0.0017

���

Supported

H3a:Therewillbeapositivelinkbetweenjobsatisfactionand

work

engagem

ent

0.0065

0.0071

0.6633

0.5072

Notsupported

H3b:Therewillbeapositivelinkbetweenorganisational

commitmentandwork

engagem

ent

1.0020

1.0119

1.7441

0.0811

�Supported

H4:Therewillbeapositivelinkbetweenjobsatisfactionand

organisationalcommitment

0.0029

0.0025

0.6132

0.5397

Notsupported

� Significance

atthe0.1level;��significance

atthe0.05level;��� significance

atthe0.01level.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

wer

syte

t Gda

nski

], [

Piot

r Z

ient

ara]

at 0

1:39

28

Mar

ch 2

015

environment, local communities, their colleagues and, indeed, themselves. In this context,

it is worth noting, too, that people’s perceptions of how they themselves are treated is

affected by how others are treated. After all, when an employee is punished or fired, his

or her colleagues tend to think about their own positions.

Also interesting is the existence of a positive link between organizational commitment

and work engagement since, referring to Freeney and Tiernan’s (2006) reasoning about

the directionality of the relationship, we have a priori postulated that it is affective atti-

tudes that are antecedents of work engagement rather than vice versa. Thus the above

finding provides evidence in favour of the view that committed employees tend to be

engaged rather than the other way round. The fact that there was no statistically signifi-

cant positive link between job satisfaction and work engagement can detract from the

validity of our evidence. Nonetheless, there needs to be a recognition that the signs of all

the parameters are consistent with our theoretical model, adding substance to our claim.

The study’s most important practical implication is that Polish hotel employees attach

weight to responsible behaviour. Considering what has been said about the impact of staff

on the performance of any service-sector organization as well as about the interrelation-

ship between CSR and HRM, it is fair to say that the hotel industry should perceive CSR

in terms of strategic significance. Those companies that want a committed and engaged

workforce � and, by extension, to enhance their competitiveness � should embrace CSR.

This recommendation is directed mainly at Polish hotels that do not belong to interna-

tional chains and have fewer than three stars. There is anecdotal evidence that such facili-

ties have made less progress (if any) in CSR than their more luxurious counterparts

(which deserves a study in its own right).

Finally, we may note in passing that analysis of variance indicated the existence of a

few statistically significant relationships between latent constructs and control variables

(see Table 4). More specifically, those with a job tenure of 1 to 3 years differed from those

who had worked for more than three years in their “self-related” CSR experiences. In the

study, the former, in contrast to the latter, felt that their company cared about them. As

regards organizational commitment, those holding jobs for less than one year were com-

mitted to their organization, while those with the longest tenure were not. Regarding the

relationship between age and “self-related” CSR experiences, employees aged 18�30,

unlike those over 40, felt that their company cared for them. The same can be said about

age and job satisfaction: younger workers were satisfied, their colleagues aged over 40

were not. There is noticeable contrast between young employees (and/or those with a

short job tenure) and their older (and/or more experienced) colleagues: while the former

seem to be positive vis-�a-vis their workplace reality, the latter are negative.Those results have important implications and, at the same time, may pose interpreta-

tive problems. They can be interpreted as expressing weariness and disillusionment,

Table 3. Latent variable correlation matrix.

Self-relatedCSR

Others-relatedCSR Satisfaction Commitment

Workengagement

Self-related CSR 1.0000

Others-related CSR 0.8212 (0.6743) 1.0000

Satisfaction 0.0667 (0.0044) 0.6432 (0.4137) 1.0000

Commitment 0.7825 (0.6123) 0.6609 (0.4368) 0.2135 (0.0456) 1.0000

Work engagement 0.6210 (0.3856) 0.5918 (0.3502) 0.2581 (0.0666) 0.6138 (0.3768) 1.0000

14 P. Zientara et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

wer

syte

t Gda

nski

], [

Piot

r Z

ient

ara]

at 0

1:39

28

Mar

ch 2

015

Table4.

Analysisofvariance

(selected).

Conditionalmean

Variable

Control

variable

F-statistic/

HKruskal�W

allis

Levenehomogeneity

ofvariance

12

3Scheffe/Scheffe

non-param

etricequivalent

Teststat.

Prob.

Teststat.

Prob.

<1year

1�3

years

>3years

1$2

1$3

2$3

Self-relatedCSR

Tenure

6.1873

0.0023

2.3252

0.0991

0.1608

0.2783

�0.1817

0.8120

0.1062

0.0049

Commitment

Tenure

4.2884

0.0144

1.2450

0.2890

0.3047

0.1603

�0.1720

0.7883

0.0378

0.1204

18�3

031�4

0>

40

1$2

1$3

2$3

Self-relatedCSR

Age

3.3757

0.0352

3.9716

0.0196

0.1429

�0.1117

�0.2111

0.2204

0.0613

0.8490

Satisfaction

Age

2.3741

0.0944

0.6799

0.5072

0.1343

�0.0243

�0.2842

0.7026

0.0959

0.5112

Primary

Secondary

Tertiary

1$2

1$3

2$3

Satisfaction

Education

4.4970

0.0117

7.2150

0.0008

�0.4715

0.1390

�0.0084

0.0117

0.1858

0.7655

Commitment

Education

2.4532

0.0873

0.1332

0.8754

0.0049

�0.0925

0.3063

0.8666

0.4086

0.0873

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

wer

syte

t Gda

nski

], [

Piot

r Z

ient

ara]

at 0

1:39

28

Mar

ch 2

015

thereby indirectly showing how taxing � especially, in the long run � working at a hotel

is. At the same time, given the persistence of high unemployment in Poland (approxi-

mately 13% nationwide in 2012�2013), it is no surprise that younger and/or less experi-

enced employees are satisfied and committed since, fully aware of how hard it is to find

any job, they are simply content with (and grateful for) even relatively unattractive work-

ing conditions1.

That older and/or more experienced workers turned out to be neither satisfied nor

committed does not necessarily conflict with the belief that job satisfaction is associated

with greater commitment, which then leads to lower rates of employee turnover. These

particular correlations may well have less to do with the respondents’ desire for move-

ment, which reflects motivation to leave and is a function of job satisfaction, but more to

do with ease of movement, which reflects one’s assessments of “how easy it is to find

employment in another organization, which is a function of market conditions and com-

petencies” (Haines, Jalette, & Larose, 2010, p. 230). It follows that older respondents

and/or those with a longer tenure � again conscious of the difficult labour market and

their own potential unattractiveness to new employers (due to ageism) � continue to

work even if unsatisfied. This suggests a rational and calculated commitment, which has

little in common with affective commitment.

Conclusions

This paper investigates whether there are positive links between CSR, operationalized

through “self-related” and “others-related” CSR experiences, and employee attitudes in

Polish hotels. The study, by placing the investigation within the hotel industry, adds to �and develops � the literature on the links between CSR and employee attitudes. It deep-

ens our understanding of the mechanisms that underlie the CSR-driven interactions

between organizations and individuals as well as advances our knowledge of the dynam-

ics that underpin the interrelationship between CSR and HRM in lodging facilities.

Equally important, it expands the body of research that explores links between affective

employee attitudes and work engagement (Demerouti et al., 2001; Hallberg & Schaufeli,

2006), providing (some) evidence that the former influences the latter rather than vice

versa. It contributes, therefore, to establishing the directionality of this important relation-

ship. This work is one of the few studies that investigates the above interrelationships

within the context of CSR in the hotel industry. Finally, by drawing on the data collected

in eastern Europe, it both looks at the problematics of CSR and HRM in the lodging

industry from a different perspective, but also from a different cultural setting.

There are a number of practical implications for hoteliers. It reinforces the view that

embracing CSR pays off: it can translate into a more committed and engaged workforce,

in turn helping produce positive firm-level outcomes. As the number of statistically sig-

nificant positive associations attests, of special value are “others-related CSR experi-

ences”, which de facto implies that emphasis should be laid on how a company behaves

towards all employees (treatment of one’s colleagues also affects one’s own perceptions)

as well as less immediate stakeholders.

The study, however, has certain limitations. First, even though based on a relatively

large sample of 412 workers, it relies solely on self-reports. Caution is required: respond-

ents sometimes do not report their (subjective) views sincerely. This implies a need for

other research techniques in the future. Second, we conducted our survey among low-

ranking hotel workers rather than only among frontline employees. The decision to

include all low-ranking personnel, regardless of their contact levels with hotel guests,

16 P. Zientara et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

wer

syte

t Gda

nski

], [

Piot

r Z

ient

ara]

at 0

1:39

28

Mar

ch 2

015

was consistent with our conviction that the work of all employees determines service

quality. Of course, frontline employees have more guest interactions: this could be a fur-

ther future research requirement.

Third, our questionnaire to employees was distributed and collected in by hotel man-

agements, which might have affected both their willingness to respond and even their

answers. Fourth, the study is cross-sectional and correlational in nature. Hence, since our

analysis identifies correlations rather than causation, a longitudinal design is needed to

establish cause-and-effect associations. Fifth, although our sample represents, from a

socio-economic perspective, a diverse population, it is not geographically diverse. Future

researchers might wish to collect data from hotel employees elsewhere in Poland or other

parts of eastern Europe.

Sixth, we operationalized work engagement as a one-dimensional construct (without

distinction between its three basic components � vigour, dedication and absorption). We

used only three items to measure work engagement, whereas Schaufeli et al. (2002) use

17 items. We simplified this aspect because it was not central to our investigation and we

wanted the questionnaire to be as uncomplicated and concise as possible. Accordingly, it

may be advisable to include more items and operationalize work engagement as a three-

dimensional construct in future questionnaires.

It might also be informative to investigate the relationship between affective

employee attitudes and customer satisfaction (and loyalty), using dyadic data, which are

particularly well-suited for examining the employee�customer relationship. Another

under-researched area is whether Polish (and foreign) travellers, while choosing a hotel,

exhibit a preference for socially responsible companies by checking their CSR

credentials.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their useful comments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Note

1. It is also worthwhile to note that those with secondary education, as against those with primaryeducation, were satisfied with their jobs.

Notes on contributors

Piotr Zientara is an associate professor of economics at the Faculty of Economics at the Universityof Gdansk, Poland. His research interests focus on human resource management, corporate socialresponsibility and environmental sustainability in the hospitality and tourism industry.

Lech Kujawski is a lecturer at the Faculty of Management at the University of Gdansk.

Paulina Bohdanowicz-Godfrey is senior sustainability manager at Hilton Worldwide EMEA sup-porting environmental, sustainability and engineering affairs and is closely involvedwith innovative tourism and hospitality research at Leeds Beckett University, UK.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

wer

syte

t Gda

nski

], [

Piot

r Z

ient

ara]

at 0

1:39

28

Mar

ch 2

015

References

Aguilera, R.V., Rupp, D.E., Williams, C.A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporatesocial responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Man-agement Review, 32(3), 836�863.

Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). structural equation modeling in practice: A review andrecommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411�423.

Bagozzi, R.P., & Yi, Y. (1998). On evaluation of structural equations models. Journal of the Acad-emy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74�94.

Bakker, A.B., Albrecht, S.L., & Leiter, M.P. (2011). Key questions regarding work engagement.European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 4�28.

Bakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journalof Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309�328.

Becker, T.E. (2002). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? Academyof Management Journal, 35(1), 232�244.

Becker-Olsen, K.L., Cudmore, A.B., & Hill, R.P. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate socialresponsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), 46�53.

Bentler, P.M., & Bonnett, D.G. (1990). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis ofcovariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588�606.

Blowfield, M., & Murray, A. (2011). Corporate responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Bohdanowicz, P., & Zientara, P. (2008). Corporate social responsibility in hospitality: Issues and

implications. A Case study of scandic. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 8(4),271�293.

Bohdanowicz, P., & Zientara, P. (2009). Hotel companies’ contribution to improving the quality oflife of local communities and the well-being of their employees. Tourism and HospitalityResearch, 9(2), 147�158.

Bohdanowicz, P., & Zientara, P. (2012). CSR-inspired environmental initiatives in top hotel chains.In D. Leslie (Ed.), Tourism enterprises and the sustainability agenda across Europe (pp.93�120). Farnham: Ashgate.

Bohdanowicz, P., Zientara, P., & Novotna, E. (2011). International hotel chains and environmentalprotection: Analysis of Hilton’s we care! programme (Europe, 2006�2008). Journal of Sustain-able Tourism, 19(7), 797�816.

Boselie, P., Dietz, G., & Boon, C. (2005). Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and perfor-mance research. Human Resource Management International, 15(3), 67�94.

Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (1993). Sustainable tourism: An evolving global approach. Journal ofSustainable Tourism, 1(1), 1�5.

Branzei, O., Vertinsky, I., Takahashi, T., & Zhang, W. (2001). Corporate environmentalism acrosscultures: A comparative field study of Chinese and Japanese executives. International Journalof Cross-Cultural Management, 1(3), 287�312.

Burgess, C. (2013). Factors influencing middle managers’ ability to contribute to corporate entre-preneurship. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 193�201.

Cacioppe, R., Forster, N., & Fox, M. (2008). A survey of managers’ perceptions of corporate ethicsand social responsibility and actions that may affect companies’ success. Journal of BusinessEthics, 82(3), 681�700.

Carraher, S. (2011). Turnover prediction using attitudes towards benefits, pay and pay satisfactionamong employees and entrepreneurs in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Baltic Journal of Man-agement, 6(1), 25�52.

Carvalho, S.W., Sen, S., de Oliveira Mota, M., & de Lima, R.C. (2010). Consumer reactions toCSR: A Brazilian perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(2), 291�310.

Central Statistical Office. (2012). Tourism in 2011. Warsaw: Author.Chen, L.C., & Wallace, M. (2011). Multiskilling of frontline managers in the five star hotel industry

in Taiwan. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 19(1), 25�42.Chin, W.W. (1998). Issues and opinions on structural equation modelling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1),

7�16.Collier, J., & Esteban, R. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and employee commitment. Busi-

ness Ethics: A European Review, 16(1), 19�33.Deery, M., & Jago, L. (2009). A framework for work-life balance practices: Addressing the needs of

the tourism industry. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 9(2), 97�108.

18 P. Zientara et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

wer

syte

t Gda

nski

], [

Piot

r Z

ient

ara]

at 0

1:39

28

Mar

ch 2

015

De Grosbois, D. (2012). Corporate social responsibility reporting by the global hotel industry: Com-mitment, initiatives and performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31,896�905.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., de Jonge, J., Janssen, P.P. M., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2001). Burnout andengagement at work as a function of demands and control. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Envi-ronment and Health, 27, 279�286.

Deng, W.J., Yeh, M.L., & Sung, M.L. (2013). A customer satisfaction index model for internationaltourist hotels: Integrating consumption emotions into the American customer satisfaction index.International Journal of Hospitality Management, 35, 133�140.

Duncan, E. (2013). All creatures great and small. The Economist, 408(8853), 14 September 2013,3�16.

Environmental Performance Index. (2014). Country rankings. Poland. Accessed 11 February 2014from http://epi.yale.edu/epi/country-profile/poland/

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Reasoned action: Predicting and changing behaviour. New York,NY: Psychology Press.

Font, X., Walmsley, A., Cogotti, S., McCombes, L., & Hausler, N. (2012). Corporate social respon-sibility: The disclosure-performance gap. Tourism Management, 33, 1544�1553.

Freeman, E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.Freeney, Y., & Tiernan, J. (2006). Employee engagement: An overview of the literature on the pro-

posed antithesis to burnout. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 27(3�4), 130�141.Furunes, T., & Mykletun, R.J. (2005). Age management in Norwegian hospitality business. Scandi-

navian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 5(2), 1�19.Garc�ıa de los Salmones, M.M., Herrero, A., & Rodr�ıguez del Bosque, I. (2005). Influence of corpo-

rate social responsibility on loyalty and valuation of services. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(4),369�385.

Grandey, A.A., Goldberg, L.S., & Pugh, S.D. (2011). Why and when do stores with satisfiedemployees have satisfied customers. Journal of Service Research, 14(4), 397�409.

Guchait, P., Kim, M.G., & Namasivayam, K. (2012). Error management at different organizationallevels � frontline, manager and company. International Journal of Hospitality Management,31, 12�22.

Gursoy, D., Chi, C.G., & Karadag, E. (2013). Generational differences in work values and attitudesamong frontline and service contact employees. International Journal of Hospitality Manage-ment, 32, 40�48.

Haines, V.Y. III, Jalette, P., & Larose, K. (2010). The influence of human resource managementpractices on employee voluntary turnover rates in the Canadian non-governmental sectors.Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 63(2), 228�246.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (2010). Multivariate dataanalysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Hallberg, U., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2006). “Same same” but different: Can work engagement be dis-criminated from job involvement and organizational commitment? European Psychologist, 11,119�127.

Han, H., Kimb, Y., & Kima, E. (2011). Cognitive, affective, conative, and action loyalty: testing theimpact of inertia. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30, 1108�1119.

Hansen, M.T., Ibarra, H., & Peyer, U. (2013). The best-performing CEOs in the world. HarvardBusiness Review, January-February, 81�95.

Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L., & Hayes, T.L. (2002). Business-unit level relationship betweenemployee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journalof Applied Psychology, 87, 268�279.

Hauvner, E., Hill, C., & Milburn, R. (2008). Here to stay: Sustainability in the travel and leisuresector. Hospitality Directions Europe 17, London: PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Heskett, J.L., Jones, T.O., Loveman, G.W., Sasser, W.E., & Schlesinger, L.A. (1994). Putting theservice-profit chain to work. Harvard Business Review, 72(2), 164�174.

Hillenbrand, C., Money, K., & Ghobadian, A. (2013). Unpacking the mechanism by which corpo-rate responsibility impacts stakeholder relationships. British Journal of Management, 24(1),127�146.

Hochschild, A.R. (1983). The managed heart. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

wer

syte

t Gda

nski

], [

Piot

r Z

ient

ara]

at 0

1:39

28

Mar

ch 2

015

Holcomb, J.L., Upchurch, R.S., & Okumus, F. (2007). Corporate social responsibility: What are tophotel companies reporting? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,19(6), 461�475.

Hoyle, R.H., & Panter, A.T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In R.H. Hoyle (Ed.),Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 158�176). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage,.

IGHP (Polish Chamber of Hotel Industry). (2014). Ecology decides about the choice of a hotel.Accessed 15 March 2014 from http://www.ighp.pl/aktualnoscihotelarskie/ekologia-w-hotelarstwie/art,12,ekologia-decyduje-o-wyborze-hotelu.html/

Ineson, E.M., Benke, E., & L�aszlo, J. (2013). Employee loyalty in Hungarian hotels. InternationalJournal of Hospitality Management, 32, 31�39.

Institute of Tourism. (2013). Statistics. Accessed 1 July 2013 from http://www.intur.com.pl/statystyka.htm/

Jawahar, I.M., & Stone, T.H. (2011). Fairness perceptions and satisfaction with components of paysatisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(4), 297�312.

Kang, K., Lee, S., & Huh, C. (2010). Impacts of positive and negative corporate social responsibil-ity activities on company performance in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hos-pitality Management, 29(1), 72�82.

Karatepe, O.M. (2013). High-performance work practices and hotel employee performance: Themediation of work engagement. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 12�22.

Kazlauskaite, R., Buciuniene, I., & Turauskas, L. (2012). Organisational and psychological empow-erment in the HRM-performance linkage. Employee Relations, 34(2), 138�158.

Kim, Y., & Han, H. (2010). Intention to pay conventional-hotel prices at a green hotel� a modifica-tion of the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(8), 997�1014.

Kim, H.-R., Lee, M., Lee H.-T., & Kim, N.-M. (2010). Corporate social responsibility andemployee-company identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4), 557�569.

Kirkman, B., & Shapiro, D. (2001). The impact of cultural values on job satisfaction and organiza-tional commitment in self-managing work teams: The mediating role of employee resistance,Academy of Management Journal, 44(3), 557�569.

Lawson, K.M., Davis, K. D, Crouter, A.C., & O’Neill, J.W. (2013). Understanding work-familyspillover in hotel managers. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33, 273�281.

Lee, C.-K., Song, H.-Y., Lee, H.-M., Lee, S., & Bernhard, B.J. (2013). The impact of CSR on casinoemployees’ organizational trust, job satisfaction, and customer orientation: An empirical exami-nation of responsible gambling strategies. International Journal of Hospitality Management,33, 406�425.

Lee, S., & Park, S. (2009). Do socially responsible activities help hotels and casinos achieve theirfinancial goals? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28, 105�112.

Lin, C.-P. (2010). Modeling corporate citizenship, organizational trust, and work engagement basedon attachment theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(4), 517�531.

Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C.B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, andmarket value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1�18.

Lynes, J.K., & Andrachuk, M. (2008). Motivations for corporate social and environmental responsi-bility: A case study of Scandinavian airlines. Journal of International Management, 14(4),377�390.

Margolis, J.D., & Walsh, J.P. (2001). People and profits? The search for a link between acompany’s social and financial performance. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mart�ınez, P., & Rodr�ıguez del Bosque, I. (2013). CSR and customer loyalty: The roles of trust, cus-tomer identification with the company and satisfaction. International Journal of HospitalityManagement, 35, 89�99.

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust.Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709�734.

Mayer, R.C. (2013). Firm commitment: Why the corporation is failing us and how to restore trust init. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Melissen, F. (2013). Sustainable hospitality: A meaningful notion? Journal of Sustainable Tourism,21(6), 810�824.

Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commit-ment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61�89.

20 P. Zientara et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

wer

syte

t Gda

nski

], [

Piot

r Z

ient

ara]

at 0

1:39

28

Mar

ch 2

015

Mowday, R. T, Porter, L.W., & Steers, R.W. (1982). Employee-organisation linkages: The psychol-ogy of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Nikodemska-Wo»owik, A.M. (2011). Polish and Swedish SMEs towards CSR challenges. Warsaw:Forum Odpowiedzialnego Biznesu.

Oliver, R.L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York, NY:McGraw-Hill.

Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F.L., & Rynes, S.L. (2003). Corporate social responsibility and financial per-formance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403�441.

Peterson, D.K. (2004). The relationship between perceptions of corporate citizenship and organiza-tional commitment. Business and Society, 43(3), 296�319.

Polish Tourism Organisation. (2012). Foreign Tourists’ Satisfaction. Sopot, Warsaw: Polish Tour-ism Organisation.

Pomeranian Regional Tourism Organisation. (2013). Accommodation in Pomerania. Accessed 20June 2013 from http://www.prot.gda.pl/upload/wydawnictwa/baza/index.html/

Porter, M., & Kramer, M.R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, January-Feb-ruary, 62�77.

Raub, S., & Blunschi, S. (2014). The power of meaningful work: How awareness of csr fosters tasksignificance and positive work outcomes in service employees. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly,55(1), 10�18.

Rego, A., Leal, S., Cunha, M., Faria, J., & Pinho, C. (2010). How the perceptions of five dimensionsof corporate citizenship and their inter-inconsistencies predict affective commitment. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 94(1), 107�127.

Responsible Business Forum. (2014). Responsible business in Poland. Best Practice [Report 2013].Accessed 2 April 2014 fromhttp://odpowiedzialnybiznes.pl/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Raport_Odpowiedzialny_biznes_w_Polsce_2013._Dobre_Praktyki.pdf/

Rodriguez, P., Siegel, D., Hillman, A., & Eden, L. (2006). Three lenses on the multinational enter-prise: Politics, corruption, and corporate social responsibility. Journal of International BusinessStudies, 37(6), 733�746.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.Rothenberg, S. (2003). Knowledge content and worker participation in environmental management

at NUMMI. Journal of Management Studies, 40(7), 1783�1802.Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Piero, J.M. (2005). Linking organisational facilitators and work engage-

ment to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journalof Applied Psychology, 90, 1217�1227.

Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonz�ales-Rom�a, V., & Bakker, A.B. (2002). The measurement ofengagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Hap-piness Studies, 3(1) 71�92.

Schneider, B., White, S.S., & Paul, M.C. (1998). Linking service climate and customer perceptionsof service quality: Test of a causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 150�163.

Sloan, P., Legrand, W., & Chen, J.S. (2009). Sustainability in the hospitality industry, principles ofsustainable operations. Oxford: Elsevier.

Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M., & Hulin, C.L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work andretirement. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Spector, P.E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, cause, and consequences. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

srodowisko.pl. (2013). CBOS asked poles about energy from renewables. Accessed 13 November2013 from http://www.srodowisko.pl/wiadomosci-i-komunikaty/cbos-zapytal-polakow-o-energie-z-oze-73728-10/

Tercek, M., & Adams, J. (2013). Nature’s fortune: How business and society thrive by investing innature. New York, NY: Basic Books.

The Economist. (2014). A different energiewende, 410(8873), 8 February 2014, 24.Till, R.E., & Karen, R. (2011). Organizational justice perceptions and pay level satisfaction. Journal

of Managerial Psychology, 26(1), 42�57.Tsai, H., Tsang, N.K. F., & Cheng, S.K. Y. (2012). Hotel employees’ perception on corporate social

responsibility: The case of Hong Kong, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(4), 1143�1154.

Tsai, W.C., & Huang, Y.M. (2002). Mechanisms linking employee affective delivery and customerbehavioural intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 1001�1008.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

wer

syte

t Gda

nski

], [

Piot

r Z

ient

ara]

at 0

1:39

28

Mar

ch 2

015

Turker, D. (2009). How corporate social responsibility influences organizational commitment. Jour-nal of Business Ethics, 89(2), 189�204.

United Nations. (1987). Our common future [Report of the World Commission on Environment andDevelopment]. Accessed 19 March 2014 from http://conspect.nl/pdf/Our_Common_Future-Brundtland_Report_1987.pdf/.

Vaaland, T.I., Heide, M., & Gronhaug, K. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: Investigating the-ory and research in the marketing context. European Journal of Marketing, 42(9/10), 927�953.

Valentine, S., & Fleischman, G. (2008). Ethics programs, perceived corporate social responsibilityand job satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(2), 159�172.

Vlachos, P.A. (2010). Predictors and outcomes of corporate social responsibility: A research frame-work. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 5(4), 343�359.

Way, S.A., Sturman, M.C., & Raab, C. (2010). What matters more? Contrasting the effects of jobsatisfaction and service climate on hotel food and beverage managers’ job performance. CornellHospitality Quarterly, 51(3), 379�397.

Wood, D.J., & Jones, R.E. (1995). Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empiricalresearch on corporate research performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis,3(3), 229�267.

World Economic Forum. (2013). Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report 2013. Accessed 4July 2013 from http://reports.weforum.org/travel-and-tourism-competitiveness-report-2013/

Worsfold, P. (1999). HRM, performance, commitment, and service quality in the hotel industry.International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11(7), 340�348.

Yee, R., & Yeung, W.Y. (2011). The service-profit chain: An empirical analysis in high-contact ser-vice industries. International Journal of Production Economics, 130(2), 236�245.

Zhao, X., & Matilla, A.S. (2013). Examining the spillover effect of frontline employees’ work-fam-ily conflict on their affective work attitudes and customer satisfaction. International Journal ofHospitality Management, 33, 310�315.

Zeithaml, V.A., Bitner, M.J., & Gremler, D.D. (2006). Service marketing: Integrating customerfocus across the firm. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Zientara, P. (2009). Development of Tourism in Poland: Policy implications. International Journalof Tourism Policy, 2(3), 159�166.

Zientara, P. (2012). Hospitality enterprise: A key influence. In D. Leslie (Ed.), Responsible tourism:Concepts, theory and practice (pp. 154�164). Wallingford: CABI.

Zientara, P., & Bohdanowicz, P. (2010). The hospitality sector: Corporate social responsibility andclimate change. In Ch. Schott (Ed.), Tourism and the implications of climate change: Issuesand actions (Bridging Tourism Theory and Practice, vol. 3) (pp. 91�111). Bingley: Emerald.

Zientara, P., & Bohdanowicz-Godfrey, P. (2014). Attitudes of Polish owner-managers of agritour-ism farms and small accommodation businesses towards environmental engagement. Progressin Responsible Tourism, 3(1), 123�144.

22 P. Zientara et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

wer

syte

t Gda

nski

], [

Piot

r Z

ient

ara]

at 0

1:39

28

Mar

ch 2

015