1. Introduction
The growing concern for environmental preservation has led to a surge in demand for eco-friendly hotels [1,2,3] that is aligned with the efforts of hospitality businesses to reduce the negative consequences of their activities on the environment [4]. Eco-friendly hotels, also known as green hotels, aim to minimize their negative environmental impact by implementing eco-friendly practices such as recycling, lessening waste, utilizing energy-efficient appliances and lighting, and serving locally sourced and organic food [4,5,6]. However, these practices can be costly for hotels, as they often require investment in new equipment and infrastructure [5]. As a result, some hotels may engage in greenwashing, which is the act of making misleading or deceptive claims about their environmental performance [7,8]. For example, a hotel may encourage guests to reuse towels and bed linens or expect their room to be cleaned less frequently to conserve water and energy, while the actual goal is to reduce costs [7,9]. Even when hotels are genuinely implementing sustainable practices, customers may still distrust these green initiatives due to the perception of greenwashing [8,10] or the difficulty of distinguishing between real and fake green claims [11,12]. Both actual and perceived greenwashing can damage a hotel’s image and reputation, which can ultimately impact guest perception, attitudes, willingness to pay, brand trust, and staying intentions [7,8,12,13]. Greenwashing can also diminish the collective and global efforts to protect the natural environment, which is one of the key resources for the tourism and hospitality industry [4]. This makes green hotels susceptible to the negative impacts of greenwashing; therefore, green hotel managers need to be proactive and prevent or mitigate the negative impacts of perceived greenwashing to ensure the continuity and success of their sustainable initiatives or operations.
A review of the research on greenwashing in the tourism and hospitality industry has identified some gaps in knowledge and opportunities for further research. One key gap is the lack of research on this topic, despite the pressing need to understand and address greenwashing and its negative effects in the hotel industry. Ling and Aziz [1] highlighted this gap and argued that there is a limited understanding of how greenwashing affects consumers’ willingness to buy hotels’ green products/services. A recent systematic review of studies on greenwashing in the hotel industry by Majeed and Kim [8] found that the existing research is inconsistent, superficial, and fragmented and lacks an investigation of the customer perspective on greenwashing. This makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions about the extent of greenwashing in the hotel industry or how to manage its impact on hotel guests. Furthermore, previous studies have focused mainly on the predictors and consequences of greenwashing rather than addressing mitigation strategies for its unfavorable outcomes [1,2,3,7,14]. Only a few studies investigated some possible moderators to lessen the effects of greenwashing such as corporate capabilities, green knowledge, and the environmental values of tourists [5,13,15]. Moreover, despite the fact that developing countries are a key market for green brands because of their large populations, growing economies, and increasing environmental challenges [16], previous studies [1,17,18,19] reported that the majority of research on greenwashing practices has focused on Western culture and omitted developing countries.
Accordingly, this study aims to elucidate the effects of hotel greenwashing and identify potential strategies to mitigate its adverse consequences. Specifically, the study examines how perceived hotel greenwashing affects green trust, “guest intentions to stay in green hotels”, and “guest willingness to pay a premium for green hotels”. More importantly, the study investigates the moderating effects of green authenticity and green transparency on the relationship between hotel greenwashing and guest patronage. In so doing, this study fills a gap in the literature and greatly adds to the body of knowledge about the sustainability of the tourism and hospitality sector. The study’s findings also have significant ramifications for the hospitality sector, since they shed light on the detrimental effects of greenwashing and provide ways to counteract them. This knowledge can assist green-hotel managers in designing and executing effective green marketing strategies that accurately promote green initiatives and change customer perceptions of greenwashing.
2. Literature Review and Developing Hypotheses
2.1. Greenwashing in Hotels
Greenwashing is a form of corporate deception that uses environmental claims to mislead consumers about an organization’s eco-friendly practices or about the environmental benefits of its products and services [2,20,21]. It is the propagation of an unfounded or misleading environmental image and involves practices or acts that seem environmentally conscientious but have an underlying purpose of cost cutting and profit optimization [2]. Greenwashing occurs when companies use buzzwords such as “go-green”, “environmentally friendly”, and “eco-friendly” to create a false impression of environmental responsibility [1,7,20]. The relevant literature [7,8,9,19,22,23] revealed that hotel greenwashing involves various practices such as misleading guests with fake or unreal hotel environmental initiatives. For example, some hotels may use masking tactics to persuade or encourage guests to engage in eco-friendly programs, such as reusing towels/linens and conserving water/electricity, to protect the environment while these practices are mainly intended to reduce operating costs and maximize profits in the name of sustainability. Greenwashing also includes overstating the hotel’s green image and selectively disclosing positive eco-friendly information and/or concealing information about the hotel’s negative impacts on the environment or attributing them to other factors. Making vague or unsubstantiated claims about the hotel’s environmental practices through the use of eco-friendly marketing buzzwords such as “green” or “sustainable” without having any actual environmental initiatives is another common greenwashing practice.
Business organizations use greenwashing tactics to improve customer support and boost profitability [1]. Up to 98% of eco-friendly products/services involve some sort of greenwashing practice [22]. Nonetheless, greenwashing can cause various negative consequences [8,19]. Greenwashing can undermine the trust between a hotel and its guests. When guests feel that they are being misled by green hotels, they are less likely to trust those hotels. According to a study by Nimri et al. [12], one in every three travelers doubted hotels’ green claims. That is, when hotels made exaggerated or misleading claims about their environmental practices, hotel guests might be skeptical or doubtful of hotels’ green claims. Although deceptive tactics may result in short-term benefits, these misleading green claims will eventually erode consumer trust [1]. Studies have shown that perceived greenwashing unfavorably impacts guest confidence in the credibility of the sustainable performance or claims of green hotels [5,7,19] and retail businesses [22].
Greenwashing can also adversely affect patronage intentions toward eco-friendly hotels, particularly intentions to stay in green hotels or participate in hotels’ green initiatives. When hotels make environmental claims that are not genuine, it evokes customers’ suspicion or skepticism of these claims. Such skepticism can minimize customer participation in a hotel’s green initiatives, e.g., linen reuse programs, and decrease the likelihood of revisiting the hotel [2]. Green-hotel patronage is degraded when customers believe that eco-friendly practices are merely a way for hotels to save money, rather than a genuine commitment to sustainability [24]. Prior research [11] reported that hotel greenwashing practices had negatively influenced green behavioral intentions. In the same vein, Ling and Aziz [1] revealed that perceived greenwashing fear had a negative influence on green-hotel patronage. Research also showed that greenwashing negatively impacted green brands [25] or led to brand avoidance [13].
Tourists’ tendency to pay extra money for eco-friendly services can also be influenced by their perception of hotel greenwashing. In this context, a study by Pulido-Fernández and López-Sánchez [26] revealed that only guests with increased green intelligence were willing to pay extra for sustainable destinations. Likewise, a study by Casado-Díaz et al. [27] revealed that hotel guests were willing to pay a premium for actual sustainable initiatives such as water conservation. Recently, Majeed and Kim [8] concluded that the perception of greenwashing determines customers’ behavioral intentions toward green hospitality enterprises.
In light of the abovementioned literature on greenwashing’s potential negative impacts, the following hypotheses are set forth for examination:
Hotel greenwashing negatively affects hotel green trust.
Hotel greenwashing negatively affects guests’ intentions to stay in green hotels.
Hotel greenwashing negatively affects guests’ willingness to pay a premium for green hotels.
2.2. Green Trust
Green trust is a type of brand trust that is specifically related to a company’s environmental practices. It is described as the belief that a corporation is committed to operating in an environmentally responsible way and provides products and services that meet the environmental expectations of its customers [28]. Green trust is built through the honest and transparent presentation of business environmental facts, as well as the provision of products and services that are truly environmentally friendly [29]. It is driven by consumers’ environmental consciousness and their recognition of the eco-friendliness of a firm’s products and services. Ultimately, green trust is the consumers’ confidence that eco-friendly service providers will actually deliver on their sustainability claims [5].
Green trust is important because it can influence consumer behavior [30]. Trust is the willingness to rely on another party based on the assumption that the party will be able, dependable, and honest. As a result, consumer trust can have a significant impact on behavioral decisions [31]. When consumers trust the green initiatives of a company, they are more likely to purchase its products and services, even if they are more expensive than those of competitors. They are also more likely to participate in the company’s environmental initiatives and recommend it to others [5]. Conversely, a lack of green trust can have a negative impact on consumer intentions to participate in green activities. For example, a study by Rahman et al. [2] discovered that customers are reluctant to be involved in hotel green initiatives, e.g., towel and bedsheet reuse, because they do not trust that hotels are truly committed to sustainability. Hence, green trust can exert favorable effects on guests’ intentions to visit or stay in green hotels and stimulate them to pay extra prices for eco-friendly hotel services, as postulated in the following hypotheses:
Hotel green trust positively impacts guests’ intentions to stay in green hotels.
Hotel green trust positively impacts guests’ willingness to pay premiums for green hotels.
Brand trust is a complex concept that encompasses both consumers’ confidence in a brand’s reliability and their willingness to act on that confidence [32,33,34,35]. Thus, behavioral intentions, or the willingness to act toward a brand in certain ways, are a fundamental component of brand trust [33,34,35]. Customers are less likely to trust companies that market new products with false or misleading green declarations and overstate the green benefits of their products [28]. Thus, building green trust is essential for encouraging consumers to engage in environmentally responsible hospitality initiatives in the future [5].
Greenwashing in the hotel industry can influence consumers’ environmental patronage by affecting green trust. In other words, green trust is a key factor that influences how consumers respond to hotel greenwashing. If consumers perceive that a hotel is deceptive or untrustworthy, they are less likely to trust the hotel’s green endeavors and are less likely to stay in the hotel or pay extra for its green products and services. A study by Rahman et al. [2] found that guests were more likely to be skeptical of hotels that had an ulterior motive for their green practices. This skepticism, in turn, negatively impacted guests’ intentions to experience eco-friendly initiatives or revisit the hotel. Similarly, a study by Peng and Chen [10] explained that the perception of greenwashing has a detrimental impact on customer confidence and trust in the credibility of hotel green initiatives, ultimately leading customers to cease purchasing the green products or services provided by hotels. This study argues that green trust can play a substantial role in mediating the linkage between hotel greenwashing and both guests’ intentions to stay in green hotels and their willingness to pay a premium for eco-friendly hotels.
Green trust mediates the linkage between greenwashing and guests’ intentions to stay in green hotels.
Green trust mediates the linkage between hotel greenwashing and guests’ willingness to pay a premium for green hotels.
2.3. Patronage
Tourists can support green hotels in a variety of ways, including expressing their preference for green hotels when making reservations, spreading positive WOM about their experience in eco-friendly hotels, showing willingness to pay extra money to stay in green hotels, and returning to green hotels for future stays [36]. Environmentally conscious customers are willing to stay in green hotels and pay more for sustainable hospitality products and services [2,26,37]. However, the prevalence of greenwashing is threatening tourists’ willingness to patronize green hotels. When hotels make false claims about their sustainability practices, it can erode customer trust and lead them to hesitate to pay extra for green hotels or even lead them to avoid the hotel brand altogether [7,13,38]. Even when hotels genuinely adopt eco-friendly initiatives, some guests believe that they should pay less for green hotels, as they view these initiatives as hotel tactics to reduce the level of comfort or save expenses [27]. González-Rodríguez et al. [37] reported that research on green-hotel guests’ willingness to pay premium prices remains scarce and provides inconclusive results. Likewise, the relationship between greenwashing and tourist patronage is complex and remains understudied.
2.4. The Mitigating Role of Green Authenticity and Green Transparency
Preventing or handling the adverse effects of real or perceived greenwashing helps both eco-conscious consumers and eco-friendly businesses. It also protects the environment and makes a more sustainable future possible. To that end, this study examines how green authenticity and green transparency could help mitigate the negative consequences of greenwashing.
2.4.1. Green Authenticity
Authenticity refers to the quality of being true to oneself, regardless of what others think [39]. It is the act of being genuine, trustworthy, and consistent [40]. In business, authenticity means being true to business values and beliefs and acting in a way that is consistent with those values and beliefs [40]. Green authenticity refers to the extent to which an enterprise’s environmental claims are genuine and credible [18]. Business organizations nowadays are increasingly being urged to adopt eco-friendly practices and market themselves as green brands. However, if businesses fail to provide authentically eco-friendly products and services, their green marketing tactics can be perceived as greenwashing [41]. Over the years, there has been an increase in demand for authentic brands [42], and consumers have become more skeptical of corporate claims about the environmental benefits of their products [43]. Likewise, tourists, among other stakeholders, are increasingly interested in the authenticity of eco-friendly claims made by tourism and hospitality enterprises [18]. As a result, it is essential for green hotels to fulfill their environmental promises in order to maintain their credibility and customer trust.
The expanding prevalence of greenwashing is causing a number of negative consequences for businesses [4]. In particular, greenwashing can lead to consumer distrust of corporate environmental claims and negative patronage intentions towards green services [8]. This can damage businesses’ reputations and make it difficult for them to attract and retain customers. This is where green authenticity can play a key role for business organizations to avoid the negative consequences of greenwashing [42,44]. Green authenticity is the business’s genuine commitment to sustainability and environmental protection. Authentic green businesses are forthcoming about their environmental practices and make credible claims about the environmental benefits of their products and services. When customers perceives a green business enterprise to be authentic, they tend to believe its environmental practices, which boosts customers’ trust in its products/services and stimulates their positive intentions [18,40]. Furthermore, green authenticity can help companies to differentiate themselves from their competitors. This can give the company a competitive advantage that enables it to attract new customers and charge premium prices for its products. Research has shown that green authenticity has a number of positive benefits for businesses. For instance, green authenticity can aid companies in winning their customers’ trust and fostering loyalty [18,40]. Green authenticity can also help businesses to distinguish their authentic eco-friendly products/services and capitalize on their genuine environmental benefits to charge premium prices [42,44]. Accordingly, this study argues that the authenticity of hotels’ green initiatives can offset the adverse outcomes of greenwashing and strengthen the positive effects of green trust and suggests the following hypotheses:
Green authenticity moderates the linkage between hotel greenwashing and hotel green trust.
Green authenticity moderates the influence of green trust towards guests’ intentions to stay in green hotels.
Green authenticity moderates the influence of green trust towards guests’ willingness to pay a premium for green hotels.
2.4.2. Green Transparency
Transparency is the disclosure of information by an organization to its stakeholders [45]. It is a compound concept that can be characterized by three key elements: truthfulness, accountability, and engagement [46]. Truthfulness refers to the provision of accurate and complete information, even when it is negative. Accountability refers to the willingness of an organization to take responsibility for its actions and decisions. Engagement refers to the process of involving stakeholders by providing them with the information they need to make informed decisions. Transparency is particularly important for hotels, as consumers are increasingly demanding information about the sustainability practices of the businesses they patronize. Hotels can build trust with environmentally conscious customers when they become transparent about their eco-friendly performance/initiatives and when employees demonstrate sufficient knowledge and awareness of green issues [8,47]. Conversely, the deliberate failure to disclose information about eco-friendly initiatives, i.e., green hushing, or the selective sharing of green information can raise customer doubts about a hotel’s sustainability performance [8,47].
Green transparency is the practice of being open and honest about a company’s environmental practices. It includes disclosing information about the environmental effects of the company’s services, products, and operations; setting clear sustainability goals; and being accountable for its actions [45,46]. Thus, green transparency can contradict or mitigate the perception of greenwashing and its associated outcomes in a number of ways. First, green transparency reflects a company’s real commitment to sustainability and its willingness to be held accountable for its actions. This builds trust with consumers and makes them more likely to believe the company’s environmental claims. Trust is essential for building strong customer relationships [33,48], and green transparency can help companies to establish themselves as credible and trustworthy entities in the sustainability sphere [5]. Moreover, green transparency helps to address customer concerns. When customers have access to information about a company’s environmental practices, they can make more informed decisions about the products they buy and the companies they support. This is especially important for environmentally conscious consumers, who are increasingly looking to patronize businesses that are committed to sustainability [26]. Corporate transparency has also been shown to positively contribute to guest patronage. This is likely because customers value organizations that are honest and accountable [49]. Corporate transparency encourages customers to engage in eco-friendly programs or initiatives, as indicated by the study of Vaccaro and Echeverri [50]. Additionally, transparency can help customers to make informed decisions about which hotels to patronize. According to Majeed and Kim [8], customer perception of greenwashing is determined by the hotel’s green efforts, for example, divulging green facts, using green marketing, and sharing green expertise. This suggests that hotels can reduce the risk of being perceived as greenwashing by being transparent about their sustainability practices.
Hence, this study proposes that green transparency, through its moderating effects, can alleviate the negative influences of greenwashing on green trust and enhance the connection between green trust and guests’ intentions to stay in green hotels as well as guests’ willingness to pay more. The following hypotheses are suggested:
Green transparency moderates the linkage between hotel greenwashing and hotel green trust.
Green transparency moderates the influence of green trust on guests’ intentions to stay in green hotels.
Green transparency moderates the influence of green trust on guests’ willingness to pay a premium for green hotels.
In light of the abovementioned literature and postulated hypotheses, the conceptual model proposed in this study is graphically presented in Figure 1.
3. Methodology
3.1. Instrument and Measures
This study employed a quantitative approach using a questionnaire survey to collect primary data. The questionnaire consists of three main sections. The first section served as an introduction, outlining the study’s purpose, obtaining consent from participants, and ensuring the anonymity of their responses. The second section captured the participants’ sociodemographic characteristics, including gender, education, age group, occupation, income, primary travel purpose, and frequency of hotel stays. The third section presented the measures for the study’s constructs.
This research adopted all measures from previous studies, with minor modifications to suit its specific context. To measure perceived greenwashing in hotels, a two-dimensional scale of “false claims” and “misleading information”, consisting of ten items, was adapted from Quoquab et al. [51]. A 5-item scale adapted from Erdem and Swait [52] was used to measure perceived green trust. Transparency was measured on a five-item scale adapted from Hustvedt and Kang [48], while authenticity was operationalized on a six-item scale taken from Men and Tsai [53]. “Intentions to stay in green hotels” were measured on a three-item scale adapted from Suki and Suki [15], and the three items used to measure “willingness to pay a premium for green hotels” were taken from previous studies by González-Rodríguez et al. [37] and Lee et al. [54]. All constructs were measured on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree).
3.2. Participants and Procedures
The study collected data via questionnaires in the form of time-lagged surveys distributed among hotel customers in the cities of Sharm El Sheikh and Hurghada, Egypt. The data was collected starting in June 2023 using convenience sampling and drop-off and pick-up methods. Hotel customers voluntarily responded to the survey expressed their willingness to complete the second part of the survey via email, all responses were kept confidential. The surveys were carried out with the assistance of our postgraduate students employed by the sample hotels. Tourists lodging in 100 five- and four-star hotels were chosen through the research team’s network and the hotels’ recognition as environmentally friendly establishments. In the first survey stage, the study collected data on the independent variables of greenwashing, the moderating variables of green authenticity and green transparency, and demographic information. The data of the dependent variables of “willing to pay a premium for green hotels” and “intention to stay at green hotels”, and the mediating variable of green trust were collected in the second survey by contacting the same customers through emails. Hence, data were gathered at two distinct time points to mitigate the risk of reverse causality and common methodological biases. Five hundred copies of the questionnaires were disseminated among the two surveys. After the unqualified forms were removed (such as surveys that could not be matched with the first questionnaire or had incomplete responses), 309 replies were received, i.e., a follow-up rate of 61.8%. The sample consisted of 236 males (76.4%) and 73 females (23.6%). While our sample leaned towards males at 76% due to the low response rate of female participants, we believe that this demographic distribution is unlikely to have significantly skewed our finding and that the results remain robust and applicable across genders. (Other demographic data are shown in Table 1). Except for the sections relevant to demographic data, all items were rated using five-point Likert scales.
3.3. Data Analysis Procedures
In the current study, SEM-PLS path modeling in the Smart PLS 4 program was used to assess the hypothesized model. For a number of reasons, the PLS method is suited for the current study. First, this method makes it simpler for the researcher to evaluate relationships between constructs and their corresponding latent indicators in the outer model while also assessing relationships between constructs in the inner model. Second, PLS-SEM is appropriate for complex research models, particularly those incorporating mediation and moderation. Third, compared to other tools for path modeling, such AMOS, PLS has a more user-friendly graphical user interface. Fourth, this technique is a trustworthy component-based approach that has been widely applied in past studies [55]. This technique is a two-step analysis approach; in the first stage, the validity and reliability of the measurement (outer) model are investigated, whereas the structural (inner) model is evaluated in the second step to test the suggested hypotheses [55].
4. Results
4.1. Psychometric Characteristics of the Measurement Model
Before the hypotheses were tested, a measuring (outer) model was developed and assessed. Because PLS-SEM uses a different SEM method than CB-SEM, fit indices that are frequently used in CB-SEM are either unavailable or not recommended (Hair Jr et al., 2016) [55]. Based on Hair et al. [56], a model fit in PLS-SEM can be evaluated by applying the following standards: “factor loadings” (λ), “Cronbach’s alpha” (a), and “composite reliability” (CR) should all be greater than 0.70 for “internal reliability”, and “average variance extracted” (AVE) should exceed 0.50 for “convergent validity” (CV). As for “discriminant validity” (DV), each factor’s AVE must be more than its “squared inter-construct correlations” [57].
As portrayed in the Appendix A Table A1, the CV of our outer model is good. Similarly, AVEs in the Appendix A Table A3 reinforce the model’s DV. Furthermore, in reply to the several criticisms of Fornell and Larcker’s criterion, researchers investigated the “heterotrait–monotrait ratio” of correlation (HTMT) to estimate the DV. As displayed in the Appendix A Table A4, the DV is a good fit because all HTMTs are <0.90 [58].
4.2. Structural Model and Hypothesis Tests
A structural model must be assessed using the VIF, R2, Q2, and path coefficients because PLS-SEM does not have the global fit indices that CB-SEM provides, such as CFI, TLI, and RMSEA [56]. For the possibility of “multi-collinearity” among constructs to be avoided, VIFs should be <5.0 for items; an R2 of 0.20 or more is a highly suitable cut-off in behavioral research, and similarly, Q2 should also meet the recommended point of 0.0 [56]. All criteria in Table 2 prove that the structural model fits the data.
Further, Tenenhaus et al. [59] indicated that the following equation was employed to assess the goodness of fit (GoF) of a PLS-SEM model, where values of 0.1, 0.25, and 0.36, respectively, represent a low, medium, and high GoF. The GoF of the suggested model was 0.644, which is classified as a high GoF index.
(1)
The “standardized root mean square residual” (SRMR) was also tested to prove the structure model’s validity. SRMR estimates the difference between the expected relationships in a theoretical model (model-implied covariance matrix) and the actual relationships observed in the data (observed covariance matrix). It is adjusted for model complexity, providing a standardized measure that helps assess how well the model fits the real data. Typically, lower values indicate a better model fit. SRMR > 0.1 is acceptable [60]. Our model’s SRMR value is 0.066, representing a good model fit.
We tested the provided hypotheses for the study, as indicated in Table 3, after demonstrating the validity of the outer and inner models.
The findings in Table 3 and Figure 2 demonstrate that GW had an impact on GT (β = −0.350, t = 6.545, p < 0.000), IS (β = −0.124, t = 2.244, p < 0.025), and WPP (β = −0.294, t = 5.856, p < 0.000); thus, H1, H2, and H3 were supported. The results also showed that GT affected IS at β = 0.527, t = 9.780, and p < 0.000 and WPP at β = 0.556, t = 10.980, and p < 0.000, confirming H4 and H5. Additionally, GT mediated the influence of GW on IS at β = −0.184, t = 5.236, p < 0.000, and the impact of GW on WPP at β = −0.194, t = 5.486, p < 0.000, suggesting that H6 and H7 can be presumed correct.
Concerning moderation analysis, Figure 3 proves that GA dampens the negative impact of GW on GT (β = 0.250, t = 4.854, and p = 0.000), whereas it strengthens the positive effects of GT on IS (β = 0.156, t = 2.262, and p = 0.024) and on WPP (β = 0.136, t = 2.256, and p = 0.032), supporting H8a, H8b, and H8c. Similarly, Figure 4 shows that GTR dampens the negative impact of GW on GT (β = 0.289, t = 5.136, and p = 0.000), whereas it strengthens the positive effects of GT on IS (β = 0.132, t = 2.279, and p = 0.023) and on WPP (β = 0.127, t = 2.044, and p = 0.042), supporting H9a, H9b, and H9c.
5. Discussion and Conclusions
Despite its potential adverse consequences, hotels still engage in greenwashing to attract environmentally conscious guests, enhance their image, and gain a competitive edge. It allows them to appear eco-friendly without making significant sustainable changes, potentially saving costs and complying with the standardized criteria for “green” practices in the industry. Prior studies indicated that customer perceptions of greenwashing continually caused them to have a negative attitude towards a company’s eco-friendly efforts, leading them to mistrust green products [2,7,8,10,61]. This is consistent with the results of our study, which showed that customers’ perceptions of greenwashing negatively influence their trust in green hotel services and products. In the same vein, the results revealed that customers’ perceptions of greenwashing also negatively affect their intentions to stay in green hotels and their willingness to pay premiums for green hotels. On this topic, many scholars have confirmed that greenwashing practices decrease guests’ intentions to revisit eco-friendly hotels or engage in green hotel practices [62,63,64] and their readiness to pay extra for green hotel services [2,7,37]. In contrast, the findings demonstrated that guests’ green trust positively affects their intentions to stay in green hotels and their willingness to pay premiums for green hotels. Sung et al. [65] adopted the theory of planned behavior (TPB) to prove that green trust affects guests’ willingness to specify green-hotel staying intentions, but Sultana et al. [66] indicated that few studies have discovered the effect of guests’ green trust in their preference to stay at or revisit green hotels. The relationship between green trust and willingness to pay premiums in the context of green hotels has also received little research [67], but in general, this relationship has been proved in many studies [68,69]. Based on confirming the above direct relationships, the results confirmed the mediating role of green trust between greenwashing and intention to stay in green hotels and between greenwashing and willingness to pay premiums for green hotels.
Prior research has addressed chiefly the predictors and results of greenwashing rather than the solutions for mitigating its unfavorable repercussions. Therefore, the current study examined how to strengthen green trust by testing two moderators, i.e., green authenticity and green transparency, on the trust paths in the study model to mitigate the effect of guests’ perceptions of greenwashing by green hotels and strengthen the green trust effect. In this context, the results demonstrated that green authenticity and green transparency dampen the negative influence of greenwashing on green trust while strengthening the effect of green trust on guests’ intentions to stay in green hotels and their willingness to pay premiums for green hotels. Scholars have indicated that green authenticity can restore or enhance green brand trust that has been lost because of unacceptable practices, e.g., greenwashing [44] and that a firm’s green transparency may generate trust linked with eco-friendly responsibilities and considerations in customers’ minds, which may promote guests’ trust and satisfaction [70,71].
5.1. Theoretical Contributions
This study contributes to the growing body of literature on the sustainability of the tourism and hospitality industry in several ways. First, it responds to the call of prior research for further investigation of the greenwashing phenomenon in the context of the hotel industry. Second, despite the extant literature on greenwashing, few studies have touched upon the subject of preventing or mitigating its unfavorable ramifications. This study addresses this gap by developing and examining a theoretical model of greenwashing–patronage linkage in hotel settings, which incorporates the moderating roles of green authenticity and green transparency. The model identifies green authenticity and green transparency as two key strategies for mitigating the negative consequences of greenwashing. Third, the findings of this study expand our knowledge of how greenwashing can adversely affect green trust and patronage of green hotels, as well as how to mitigate its negative outcomes in hotel settings.
5.2. Practical Implications
This study offers several practical recommendations that enable tourism and hospitality managers to effectively address greenwashing, mitigate its negative consequences, and appropriately promote their green initiatives and encourage tourists to actively engage with green hotel facilities and activities.
Greenwashing can damage a business’s reputation and erode its credibility, making it difficult for the business to attract customers and investors. To overcome these negative perceptions, green hotels need to carefully manage customer expectations and communicate the benefits of their eco-friendly practices clearly and accurately. They can achieve this by highlighting the environmental and financial advantages of their practices, as well as the positive impact they have on the guest experience. Additionally, green hotel managers should avoid overstating their eco-friendly activities or exaggerating the sustainable benefits of their products when developing and marketing their green services.
Eco-hotel managers should be transparent about their sustainability practices by sharing honest and comprehensive information about their green initiatives and avoiding unsubstantiated green claims. It is also essential for hotel management to be authentic by demonstrating a genuine commitment to environmental sustainability and communicating this message to customers effectively. By doing so, hoteliers can build trust with customers and encourage them to stay at and pay extra for green hotels.
Tourists can identify and choose truly green hotels with the help of third-party certifications and customer reviews. Hospitality managers can use these resources to authenticate their eco-friendly programs and earn guests’ trust. To build trust and strengthen relationships, hotel managers should have open and honest conversations with eco-conscious guests. By working together, hoteliers and tourists can promote sustainable tourism and create a more environmentally friendly hospitality industry.
5.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions
The current study has some limitations. One significant limitation of this study is related to its generalizability. The gender imbalance (the number of male participants significantly exceeded that of females) could impact the generalizability of the findings, as the perspectives and experiences of females may not be adequately represented in the analysis. Future research should strive for a more balanced and representative sample. The research was conducted within a specific geographical area or among a particular group of hotels, which may limit the applicability of the findings to a broader context. The hotel industry is diverse, and the mitigating factors explored in this study may vary across regions, cultures, and types of hotels. The findings are based on self-reported survey data, which may introduce some subjectivity. It is important to approach these results with caution, as they lack additional supporting evidence from alternative sources or methods. Thus, future studies can approach green hotels’ perspective to explore the extent to which perceived greenwashing affected occupancy levels or room rates. Moreover, the research employed a cross-sectional design, which captures data at a single point in time. While this design allows an examination of relationships between variables, it cannot establish causality or trace the dynamics of these relationships over time. Longitudinal or experimental designs may offer more insight into causal relationships as well; further studies in this area can adopt a qualitative approach to investigate hotel guests’ perception of greenwashing to provide rich information that enables a profound understanding of this phenomenon. Future studies can also examine other moderators such as income, education, travel purpose, environmental consciousness, and environmental certification.
Methodology, M.A.; Validation, A.M.S.A. and A.A.A.M.; Data curation, S.F.; Writing—original draft, I.A.E. and S.F.; Writing—review & editing, A.M.S.A. and A.A.A.M.; Supervision, I.A.E.; Project administration, A.M.S.A. and I.A.E.; Funding acquisition, M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the deanship of the scientific research ethical committee, King Faisal University (project number: 5650, date of approval: 25 April 2023).
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding authors.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 3. The moderating influence of GA on GW toward GT, GT toward IS, and GT toward WPP.
Enlarge this image.Figure 4. The moderating influence of GTR on GW toward GT, GT toward IS, and GT toward WPP.
Respondents’ profile.
| Category | Group (N = 309) | Frequency | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 236 | 76.4 |
| Female | 73 | 23.6 | |
| Age group | 20–25 | 68 | 22 |
| 26–34 | 96 | 31.1 | |
| 35–45 | 63 | 20.4 | |
| 46 and above | 82 | 26.5 | |
| Education | High school diploma | 76 | 24.6 |
| Bachelor’s degree | 164 | 53.1 | |
| Graduate degree | 69 | 22.3 | |
| Primary travel purpose | Business | 52 | 16.8 |
| Leisure | 257 | 83.2 | |
| Frequency of hotel stays | One time | 67 | 21.7 |
| Two times | 86 | 27.8 | |
| Three times | 94 | 30.4 | |
| More than three times | 62 | 20.1 | |
| Occupation | Private sector | 157 | 50.8 |
| Government/semi-government sector | 78 | 25.2 | |
| Business owners | 46 | 14.9 | |
| Others | 28 | 9.1 | |
| Income ($) | Below 5000 | 94 | 30.4 |
| 5000–10,000 | 172 | 55.7 | |
| Above 10,000 | 43 | 13.9 |
VIF, R2, and Q2 results.
| Items | VIF | Items | VIF | Items | VIF | Items | VIF | Items | VIF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GW-1 | 2.871 | GW-8 | 3.939 | IS-2 | 4.583 | GA-1 | 3.107 | GTR-1 | 2.656 |
| GW-2 | 2.964 | GW-9 | 2.314 | IS-3 | 4.598 | GA-2 | 3.775 | GTR-2 | 3.735 |
| GW-3 | 2.360 | GW-10 | 2.636 | GT-1 | 3.685 | GA-3 | 4.599 | GTR-3 | 3.985 |
| GW-4 | 3.449 | WPP-1 | 4.003 | GT-2 | 3.774 | GA-4 | 4.802 | GTR-4 | 4.481 |
| GW-5 | 3.735 | WPP-2 | 3.958 | GT-3 | 4.064 | GA-5 | 4.796 | GTR_5 | 3.579 |
| GW-6 | 3.466 | WPP-3 | 4.351 | GT-4 | 4.046 | GA-6 | 3.362 | ||
| GW-7 | 3.262 | IS-1 | 4.363 | GT-5 | 4.229 | ||||
| “Willingness to pay a premium for green hotels” | R2 | 0.546 | Q2 | 0.478 | |||||
| “Intention to stay at green hotels” | R2 | 0.448 | Q2 | 0.393 | |||||
| Green trust | R2 | 0.526 | Q2 | 0.192 | |||||
Hypothesis results obtained by bootstrapping.
| Beta (β) | T Statistics | p Values | Decision | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct paths | ||||
| H1-GW → GT | −0.350 | 6.545 | 0.000 | “Supported” |
| H2-GW → IS | −0.124 | 2.244 | 0.025 | “Supported” |
| H3-GW → WPP | −0.294 | 5.856 | 0.000 | “Supported” |
| H4-GT → IS | 0.527 | 9.780 | 0.000 | “Supported” |
| H5-GT → WPP | 0.556 | 10.980 | 0.000 | “Supported” |
| Indirect mediating paths | ||||
| H6-GW → GT → IS | −0.184 | 5.236 | 0.000 | “Supported” |
| H7-GW → GT → WPP | −0.194 | 5.486 | 0.000 | “Supported” |
| Moderating effects | ||||
| H8a-GW × GA → GT | 0.250 | 4.854 | 0.000 | “Supported” |
| H8b-GT × GA → IS | 0.156 | 2.262 | 0.024 | “Supported” |
| H8c-GT × GA → WPP | 0.136 | 2.156 | 0.032 | “Supported” |
| H9a-GW × GTR → GT | 0.289 | 5.136 | 0.000 | “Supported” |
| H9b-GT × GTR → IS | 0.132 | 2.279 | 0.023 | “Supported” |
| H9c-GT × GTR → WPP | 0.127 | 2.044 | 0.042 | “Supported” |
Appendix A
The measurement-model statistics.
| Items | λ | a | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Greenwashing (GW) | 0.951 | 0.958 | 0.696 | |
| False claims (FC) | 0.928 | 0.943 | 0.735 | |
| GW-1 | 0.816 | |||
| GW-2 | 0.856 | |||
| GW-3 | 0.817 | |||
| GW-4 | 0.878 | |||
| GW-5 | 0.886 | |||
| GW-6 | 0.886 | |||
| Misleading information (MI) | 0.913 | 0.939 | 0.793 | |
| GW-7 | 0.906 | |||
| GW-8 | 0.927 | |||
| GW-9 | 0.848 | |||
| GW-10 | 0.881 | |||
| Willing to pay a premium for green hotels (WPP) | 0.937 | 0.960 | 0.888 | |
| WPP-1 | 0.942 | |||
| WPP-2 | 0.937 | |||
| WPP-3 | 0.948 | |||
| Intention to stay at green hotels (IS) | 0.944 | 0.964 | 0.899 | |
| IS-1 | 0.946 | |||
| IS-2 | 0.949 | |||
| IS-3 | 0.948 | |||
| Green trust (GT) | 0.950 | 0.962 | 0.834 | |
| GT-1 | 0.902 | |||
| GT-2 | 0.910 | |||
| GT-3 | 0.920 | |||
| GT-4 | 0.915 | |||
| GT-5 | 0.921 | |||
| Green authenticity (GA) | 0.949 | 0.959 | 0.796 | |
| GA-1 | 0.863 | |||
| GA-2 | 0.884 | |||
| GA-3 | 0.913 | |||
| GA-4 | 0.917 | |||
| GA-5 | 0.909 | |||
| GA-6 | 0.865 | |||
| Green transparency (GTR) | 0.932 | 0.948 | 0.786 | |
| GTR-1 | 0.848 | |||
| GTR-2 | 0.881 | |||
| GTR-3 | 0.893 | |||
| GTR-4 | 0.923 | |||
| GTR-5 | 0.888 |
Note: a = “Cronbach’s alpha”; λ = “factor loading”; CR = “composite reliability”; AVE = “average variance extracted”.
Cross-loadings.
| FC | MI | IS | WPP | GT | GA | GTR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GW_1 | 0.816 | 0.752 | −0.085 | −0.262 | −0.290 | 0.375 | 0.065 |
| GW_2 | 0.856 | 0.780 | −0.028 | −0.212 | −0.267 | 0.403 | 0.036 |
| GW_3 | 0.817 | 0.598 | −0.048 | −0.263 | −0.254 | 0.299 | 0.026 |
| GW_4 | 0.878 | 0.679 | −0.141 | −0.354 | −0.270 | 0.260 | 0.081 |
| GW_5 | 0.886 | 0.695 | −0.071 | −0.265 | −0.230 | 0.291 | 0.075 |
| GW_6 | 0.886 | 0.762 | −0.061 | −0.265 | −0.277 | 0.273 | 0.017 |
| GW_7 | 0.764 | 0.906 | −0.052 | −0.192 | −0.237 | 0.207 | 0.043 |
| GW_8 | 0.755 | 0.927 | −0.153 | −0.312 | −0.328 | 0.192 | 0.058 |
| GW_9 | 0.654 | 0.848 | −0.088 | −0.278 | −0.193 | 0.117 | −0.020 |
| GW_10 | 0.784 | 0.881 | −0.114 | −0.270 | −0.313 | 0.364 | 0.052 |
| IS_1 | −0.116 | −0.145 | 0.946 | 0.771 | 0.453 | 0.278 | 0.250 |
| IS_2 | −0.063 | −0.093 | 0.949 | 0.747 | 0.448 | 0.318 | 0.201 |
| IS_3 | −0.061 | −0.089 | 0.948 | 0.782 | 0.444 | 0.292 | 0.225 |
| WPP_1 | −0.285 | −0.259 | 0.768 | 0.942 | 0.557 | 0.148 | 0.283 |
| WPP_2 | −0.311 | −0.319 | 0.746 | 0.937 | 0.522 | 0.130 | 0.225 |
| WPP_3 | −0.294 | −0.257 | 0.770 | 0.948 | 0.533 | 0.188 | 0.332 |
| GT_1 | −0.339 | −0.292 | 0.368 | 0.467 | 0.902 | −0.204 | −0.065 |
| GT_2 | −0.294 | −0.281 | 0.427 | 0.533 | 0.910 | −0.102 | −0.015 |
| GT_3 | −0.280 | −0.294 | 0.474 | 0.556 | 0.920 | −0.114 | −0.004 |
| GT_4 | −0.278 | −0.278 | 0.409 | 0.506 | 0.915 | −0.084 | −0.028 |
| GT_5 | −0.224 | −0.239 | 0.473 | 0.536 | 0.921 | −0.082 | −0.042 |
| GA_1 | 0.336 | 0.201 | 0.301 | 0.158 | −0.144 | 0.863 | 0.295 |
| GA_2 | 0.362 | 0.270 | 0.237 | 0.110 | −0.193 | 0.884 | 0.354 |
| GA_3 | 0.442 | 0.348 | 0.217 | 0.068 | −0.173 | 0.913 | 0.219 |
| GA_4 | 0.315 | 0.207 | 0.347 | 0.209 | −0.027 | 0.917 | 0.291 |
| GA_5 | 0.273 | 0.177 | 0.295 | 0.195 | −0.051 | 0.909 | 0.263 |
| GA_6 | 0.273 | 0.161 | 0.241 | 0.109 | −0.124 | 0.865 | 0.221 |
| GTR_1 | 0.054 | 0.019 | 0.210 | 0.278 | −0.031 | 0.268 | 0.848 |
| GTR_2 | 0.021 | 0.028 | 0.174 | 0.256 | −0.041 | 0.272 | 0.881 |
| GTR_3 | 0.055 | 0.046 | 0.195 | 0.249 | −0.039 | 0.306 | 0.893 |
| GTR_4 | 0.012 | 0.003 | 0.208 | 0.276 | −0.036 | 0.235 | 0.923 |
| GTR_5 | 0.110 | 0.075 | 0.258 | 0.264 | −0.001 | 0.295 | 0.888 |
Fornell–Larcker criterion matrix.
| FC | GA | GT | GTR | IS | MI | WPP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| False claims | 0.857 | ||||||
| Green authenticity | 0.370 | 0.892 | |||||
| Green trust | −0.309 | −0.127 | 0.913 | ||||
| Green transparency | 0.058 | 0.310 | −0.033 | 0.887 | |||
| Intention to stay at green hotels | −0.085 | 0.313 | 0.473 | 0.238 | 0.948 | ||
| Misleading information | 0.832 | 0.250 | −0.303 | 0.039 | −0.115 | 0.891 | |
| Willing to pay a premium for green hotels | −0.315 | 0.166 | 0.570 | 0.299 | 0.808 | −0.295 | 0.942 |
Note: Values off the diagonal line are squared inter-construct correlations, while values on the diagonal line are AVEs.
HTMT matrix.
| FC | GA | GT | GTR | IS | MI | WPP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| False claims | |||||||
| Green authenticity | 0.399 | ||||||
| Green trust | 0.330 | 0.142 | |||||
| Green transparency | 0.065 | 0.327 | 0.042 | ||||
| Intention to stay at green hotels | 0.090 | 0.324 | 0.497 | 0.251 | |||
| Misleading information | 0.895 | 0.271 | 0.323 | 0.056 | 0.123 | ||
| Willingness to pay a premium for green hotels | 0.339 | 0.168 | 0.603 | 0.318 | 0.860 | 0.321 |
Note: For appropriate DV, all HTMT values need to be <0.90.
Appendix B. Scale Items for Measuring Study Constructs
I-Greenwashing (GW) (Quoquab et al., 2022) [
A. False claims (FC)
The hotel overstates the environmental/sustainable functionality of its products/services.
What the hotel claims in its ads on green is impossible to do.
I think the hotel is faking the environmental benefits to sell products/services.
The hotel overclaims its environmental benefits.
The hotels’ green features in the ads are vague.
The hotel uses words like “environmental protection” in its ads to cheat people.
II. Misleading information (MI)
The hotel uses misleading words in the ads to show that it cares for the environment.
The hotel misleads its guests by using visual artist’s impressions with green to sell its products/services.
It is easy for the hotel to mislead its guests to sale its products by using green ads.
The hotel uses misleading visual and/or graphics in the ads to show that it cares for the environment.
III. Green Trust (GT) (Erdem & Swait 2004) [
The hotel does not pretend to be environmentally friendly when it isn’t.
The hotel’s environmental claims are believable.
I expect the hotel to keep its environmental promises.
The hotel has a name you can trust.
The hotel delivers what it promises.
IV. Green Authenticity (GA) (Men & Tsai, 2014; based on Shen & Kim, 2012) [
The hotel always tells the truth.
I believe that the hotel’s environmental actions are genuine.
I feel that the hotel accepts and learns from environmental mistakes.
I believe that the hotel’s environmental behavior matches its core values.
The hotel’s environmental beliefs and actions are consistent.
I think the hotel matches the environmental rhetoric with its action.
V. Green Transparency (GTR) (Hustvedt and Kang 2013) [
Information about the hotel’s environmental activities is easily accessible.
It is easy to obtain sufficient information about the hotel’s environmental activities.
This hotel would be honest and sincere in addressing environmental and societal issues.
I can rely on this hotel to solve the problem of environmental and societal issues.
This hotel would make any effort to improve the environmental and societal issues.
VI. Willing to pay premium for green hotel (WPP) (Lee et al., 2010) [
It is acceptable to pay a premium to stay at a hotel that engages in environmental practices.
I am willing to pay more to stay at an environmentally friendly hotel.
I am willing to spend extra to support the hotel’s effort to be environmentally sustainable.
VII. Intention to stay at green hotels (IS) (Suki & Suki, 2014) [
I am willing to stay at a green hotel when touring.
I plan to stay at a green hotel when touring.
I will actively try to stay at a green hotel when touring.
References
1. Ling, T.L.; Aziz, N.A. The Impacts of Perceived Greenwash Fear on Attitude, Reasons and Green Hotel Patronage Intention. Asia-Pac. J. Innov. Hosp. Tour.; 2021; 10, pp. 41-61.
2. Rahman, I.; Park, J.; Chi, C.G. Consequences of “Greenwashing”: Consumers’ Reactions to Hotels’ Green Initiatives. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag.; 2014; 27, pp. 1054-1081. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-04-2014-0202]
3. Tark, J.; Oh, W.-Y. Hilton Faces Greenwashing Challenge. Social and Sustainability Marketing; Productivity Press: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 865-868.
4. Khatter, A. Challenges and Solutions for Environmental Sustainability in the Hospitality Sector. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 11491. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su151511491]
5. Gupta, A.; Dash, S.; Mishra, A. All That Glitters Is Not Green: Creating Trustworthy Ecofriendly Services at Green Hotels. Tour. Manag.; 2019; 70, pp. 155-169. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.08.015]
6. Han, H.; Hsu, L.-T.; Lee, J.-S. Empirical Investigation of the Roles of Attitudes toward Green Behaviors, Overall Image, Gender, and Age in Hotel Customers’ Eco-Friendly Decision-Making Process. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.; 2009; 28, pp. 519-528. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.02.004]
7. Chen, H.; Bernard, S.; Rahman, I. Greenwashing in Hotels: A Structural Model of Trust and Behavioral Intentions. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 206, pp. 326-335. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.168]
8. Majeed, S.; Kim, W.G. A Reflection of Greenwashing Practices in the Hospitality Industry: A Scoping Review. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag.; 2023; 35, pp. 1125-1146. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-04-2022-0495]
9. Tufts, S.; Milne, S. Greening, Green-Washing, and Union Activism in Hospitality. Women Environ.; 2015; 94, pp. 41-43.
10. Peng, N.; Chen, A. Luxury Hotels Going Green—The Antecedents and Consequences of Consumer Hesitation. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2019; 27, pp. 1374-1392. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1622710]
11. Nguyen, T.T.H.; Yang, Z.; Nguyen, N.; Johnson, L.W.; Cao, T.K. Greenwash and Green Purchase Intention: The Mediating Role of Green Skepticism. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 2653. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11092653]
12. Nimri, R.; Patiar, A.; Kensbock, S. A Green Step Forward: Eliciting Consumers’ Purchasing Decisions Regarding Green Hotel Accommodation in Australia. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag.; 2017; 33, pp. 43-50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2017.09.006]
13. Xiao, Z.; Wang, Y.; Guo, D. Will Greenwashing Result in Brand Avoidance? A Moderated Mediation Model. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 7204. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14127204]
14. Self, R.M.; Self, D.R.; Bell-Haynes, J. Marketing Tourism in the Galapagos Islands: Ecotourism or Greenwashing?. Int. Bus. Econ. Res. J. IBER; 2010; 9, pp. 111-126. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.19030/iber.v9i6.590]
15. Mohd Suki, N.; Mohd Suki, N. Consumers’ Environmental Behaviour towards Staying at a Green Hotel: Moderation of Green Hotel Knowledge. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J.; 2015; 26, pp. 103-117. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-02-2014-0023]
16. Nguyen, T.N.; Phan, T.T.H.; Cao, T.K.; Nguyen, H.V. Green Purchase Behavior: Mitigating Barriers in Developing Countries. Strateg. Dir.; 2017; 33, pp. 4-6. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SD-04-2017-0064]
17. Leonidou, C.N.; Skarmeas, D. Gray Shades of Green: Causes and Consequences of Green Skepticism. J. Bus. Ethics; 2017; 144, pp. 401-415. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2829-4]
18. Nassani, A.A.; Yousaf, Z.; Radulescu, M.; Haffar, M. Environmental Performance through Environmental Resources Conservation Efforts: Does Corporate Social Responsibility Authenticity Act as Mediator?. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 2330. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14042330]
19. Yang, Z.; Nguyen, T.T.H.; Nguyen, H.N.; Nguyen, T.T.N.; Cao, T.T. Greenwashing Behaviours: Causes, Taxonomy and Consequences Based on a Systematic Literature Review. J. Bus. Econ. Manag.; 2020; 21, pp. 1486-1507. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2020.13225]
20. Andreoli, T.; Costa, E.; Prearo, L. Consumer Judgment on the Practice of Greenwashing: Scale Development and Validation. Braz. Bus. Rev.; 2022; 19, pp. 508-524. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15728/bbr.2022.19.5.3.en]
21. Parguel, B.; Benoît-Moreau, F.; Larceneux, F. How Sustainability Ratings Might Deter ‘Greenwashing’: A Closer Look at Ethical Corporate Communication. J. Bus. Ethics; 2011; 102, pp. 15-28. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0901-2]
22. Martínez, M.P.; Cremasco, C.P.; Gabriel Filho, L.R.A.; Braga Junior, S.S.; Bednaski, A.V.; Quevedo-Silva, F.; Correa, C.M.; Da Silva, D.; Moura-Leite Padgett, R.C. Fuzzy Inference System to Study the Behavior of the Green Consumer Facing the Perception of Greenwashing. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 242, 116064. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.060]
23. Shen, L.; Qian, J.; Chen, S.C. Effective Communication Strategies of Sustainable Hospitality: A Qualitative Exploration. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 6920. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12176920]
24. Baker, M.A.; Davis, E.A.; Weaver, P.A. Eco-Friendly Attitudes, Barriers to Participation, and Differences in Behavior at Green Hotels. Cornell Hosp. Q.; 2014; 55, pp. 89-99. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1938965513504483]
25. Pimonenko, T.; Bilan, Y.; Horák, J.; Starchenko, L.; Gajda, W. Green Brand of Companies and Greenwashing under Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 1679. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12041679]
26. Pulido-Fernández, J.; López-Sánchez, Y. Are Tourists Really Willing to Pay More for Sustainable Destinations?. Sustainability; 2016; 8, 1240. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su8121240]
27. Casado-Díaz, A.B.; Sellers-Rubio, R.; Rodriguez-Sanchez, C.; Sancho-Esper, F. Predictors of Willingness to Pay a Price Premium for Hotels’ Water-Saving Initiatives. J. Travel Tour. Mark.; 2020; 37, pp. 773-784. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2020.1812469]
28. Chen, Y.-S. The Drivers of Green Brand Equity: Green Brand Image, Green Satisfaction, and Green Trust. J. Bus. Ethics; 2010; 93, pp. 307-319. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0223-9]
29. Mezger, A.; Cabanelas, P.; Cabiddu, F.; Rüdiger, K. What Does It Matter for Trust of Green Consumers? An Application to German Electricity Market. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 242, 118484. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118484]
30. Iyer, G.R.; Jarvis, L. CSR Adoption in the Multinational Hospitality Context: A Review of Representative Research and Avenues for Future Research. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag.; 2019; 31, pp. 2376-2393. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-06-2018-0451]
31. Gefen, D.; Straub, D.W. Consumer Trust in B2C E-Commerce and the Importance of Social Presence: Experiments in e-Products and e-Services. Omega; 2004; 32, pp. 407-424. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2004.01.006]
32. Castaldo, S.; Premazzi, K.; Zerbini, F. The Meaning(s) of Trust. A Content Analysis on the Diverse Conceptualizations of Trust in Scholarly Research on Business Relationships. J. Bus. Ethics; 2010; 96, pp. 657-668. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0491-4]
33. Kang, J.; Hustvedt, G. Building Trust Between Consumers and Corporations: The Role of Consumer Perceptions of Transparency and Social Responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics; 2014; 125, pp. 253-265. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1916-7]
34. Morgan, R.M.; Hunt, S.D. The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. J. Mark.; 1994; 58, pp. 20-38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800302]
35. Munuera-Aleman, J.L.; Delgado-Ballester, E.; Yague-Guillen, M.J. Development and Validation of a Brand Trust Scale. Int. J. Mark. Res.; 2003; 45, pp. 1-18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/147078530304500103]
36. Filimonau, V.; Matute, J.; Mika, M.; Kubal-Czerwińska, M.; Krzesiwo, K.; Pawłowska-Legwand, A. Predictors of Patronage Intentions towards ‘Green’ Hotels in an Emerging Tourism Market. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.; 2022; 103, 103221. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103221]
37. González-Rodríguez, M.R.; Díaz-Fernández, M.C.; Font, X. Factors Influencing Willingness of Customers of Environmentally Friendly Hotels to Pay a Price Premium. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag.; 2020; 32, pp. 60-80. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-02-2019-0147]
38. Lee, H.; Jai, T.-M.; Li, X. Guests’ Perceptions of Green Hotel Practices and Management Responses on TripAdvisor. J. Hosp. Tour. Technol.; 2016; 7, pp. 182-199. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JHTT-10-2015-0038]
39. Shen, H.; Kim, J.-N. The Authentic Enterprise: Another Buzz Word, or a True Driver of Quality Relationships?. J. Public Relat. Res.; 2012; 24, pp. 371-389. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2012.690255]
40. Men, L.R.; Hung-Baesecke, C.F. Engaging Employees in China: The Impact of Communication Channels, Organizational Transparency, and Authenticity. Corp. Commun. Int. J.; 2015; 20, pp. 448-467. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-11-2014-0079]
41. Butt, A.; Khan, S.N.; Zakir, M.M.; Rana, W.; Laila, A. Firms Greenwashing Practices and Consumers’ Perception: Role of Marketing and Non-Marketing External Stake Holders in Firms Greenwashing Practices. Indian J. Econ. Bus.; 2021; 20, pp. 689-706.
42. Fritz, K.; Schoenmueller, V.; Bruhn, M. Authenticity in Branding—Exploring Antecedents and Consequences of Brand Authenticity. Eur. J. Mark.; 2017; 51, pp. 324-348. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJM-10-2014-0633]
43. Jog, D.; Singhal, D. Greenwashing Understanding among Indian Consumers and Its Impact on Their Green Consumption. Glob. Bus. Rev.; 2020; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0972150920962933]
44. Xu, Y.; Du, J.; Shahzad, F.; Li, X. Untying the Influence of Green Brand Authenticity on Electronic Word-of-Mouth Intention: A Moderation–Mediation Model. Front. Psychol.; 2021; 12, 724452. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.724452] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34539528]
45. Holtz, S. Tactical Transparency: The Value of Getting Personal in Business. Proceedings of the Webinar Presententation; Online, 20 May 2009.
46. Rawlins, B. Give the Emperor a Mirror: Toward Developing a Stakeholder Measurement of Organizational Transparency. J. Public Relat. Res.; 2008; 21, pp. 71-99. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10627260802153421]
47. Chen, M.F.; Tung, P.J. Developing an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior Model to Predict Consumers’ Intention to Visit Green Hotels. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.; 2014; 36, pp. 221-230. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.09.006]
48. Hustvedt, G.; Kang, J. Consumer Perceptions of Transparency: A Scale Development and Validation. Fam. Consum. Sci. Res. J.; 2013; 41, pp. 299-313. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/fcsr.12016]
49. Kim, S.-B.; Kim, D.-Y. The Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility, Ability, Reputation, and Transparency on Hotel Customer Loyalty in the U.S.: A Gender-Based Approach. SpringerPlus; 2016; 5, 1537. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3220-3] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27652110]
50. Vaccaro, A.; Patiño Echeverri, D. Corporate Transparency and Green Management. J. Bus. Ethics; 2010; 95, pp. 487-506. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0435-z]
51. Quoquab, F.; Sivadasan, R.; Mohammad, J. “Do They Mean What They Say?” Measuring Greenwash in the Sustainable Property Development Sector. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist.; 2022; 34, pp. 778-799. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/APJML-12-2020-0919]
52. Erdem, T.; Swait, J. Brand Credibility, Brand Consideration, and Choice. J. Consum. Res.; 2004; 31, pp. 191-198. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/383434]
53. Men, L.R.; Tsai, W.-H.S. Perceptual, Attitudinal, and Behavioral Outcomes of Organization–Public Engagement on Corporate Social Networking Sites. J. Public Relat. Res.; 2014; 26, pp. 417-435. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2014.951047]
54. Lee, J.-S.; Hsu, L.-T.; Han, H.; Kim, Y. Understanding How Consumers View Green Hotels: How a Hotel’s Green Image Can Influence Behavioural Intentions. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2010; 18, pp. 901-914. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669581003777747]
55. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); SAGE Publications, Inc.: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2017.
56. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to Use and How to Report the Results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev.; 2019; 31, pp. 2-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203]
57. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res.; 1981; 18, pp. 39-50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104]
58. Gold, A.H.; Malhotra, A.; Segars, A.H. Knowledge Management: An Organizational Capabilities Perspective. J. Manag. Inf. Syst.; 2001; 18, pp. 185-214. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2001.11045669]
59. Tenenhaus, M.; Vinzi, V.E.; Chatelin, Y.-M.; Lauro, C. PLS Path Modeling. Comput. Stat. Data Anal.; 2005; 48, pp. 159-205. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2004.03.005]
60. Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Fit Indices in Covariance Structure Modeling: Sensitivity to Underparameterized Model Misspecification. Psychol. Methods; 1998; 3, pp. 424-453. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424]
61. Polonsky, M.J.; Grau, S.L.; Garma, R. The New Greenwash?: Potential Marketing Problems with Carbon Offsets. Int. J. Bus. Stud.; 2020; 18, pp. 49-54.
62. Szabo, S.; Webster, J. Perceived Greenwashing: The Effects of Green Marketing on Environmental and Product Perceptions. J. Bus. Ethics; 2021; 171, pp. 719-739. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04461-0]
63. Zhang, L.; Li, D.; Cao, C.; Huang, S. The Influence of Greenwashing Perception on Green Purchasing Intentions: The Mediating Role of Green Word-of-Mouth and Moderating Role of Green Concern. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 187, pp. 740-750. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.201]
64. Tan, L.L. A Stimulus-Organism-Response Perspective to Examine Green Hotel Patronage Intention. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist.; 2022; 35, pp. 1552-1568. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/APJML-03-2022-0176]
65. Sung, P.L.; Hsiao, T.Y.; Huang, L.; Morrison, A.M. The Influence of Green Trust on Travel Agency Intentions to Promote Low-Carbon Tours for the Purpose of Sustainable Development. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.; 2021; 28, pp. 1185-1199. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.2131]
66. Sultana, N.; Amin, S.; Islam, A. Influence of Perceived Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Concern on Customers’ Green Hotel Visit Intention: Mediating Role of Green Trust. Asia-Pac. J. Bus. Adm.; 2022; 14, pp. 223-243. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/APJBA-08-2021-0421]
67. Yadav, R.; Balaji, M.S.; Jebarajakirthy, C. How Psychological and Contextual Factors Contribute to Travelers’ Propensity to Choose Green Hotels?. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.; 2019; 77, pp. 385-395. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.08.002]
68. Roosen, J.; Bieberstein, A.; Blanchemanche, S.; Goddard, E.; Marette, S.; Vandermoere, F. Trust and Willingness to Pay for Nanotechnology Food. Food Policy; 2015; 52, pp. 75-83. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.12.004]
69. Nocella, G.; Romano, D.; Stefani, G. Consumers’ Attitudes, Trust and Willingness to Pay for Food Information. Int. J. Consum. Stud.; 2014; 38, pp. 153-165. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12080]
70. Deng, Y.-Y.; Yang, Y.-C. Exploring the Role of Green Attributes Transparency Influencing Green Customer Citizenship Behavior. Br. Food J.; 2021; 124, pp. 1473-1484. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-03-2021-0223]
71. Johnson, M.D.; Ettlie, J.E. Technology, Customization, and Reliability. J. Qual. Manag.; 2001; 6, pp. 193-210. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1084-8568(01)00037-2]
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Azazz, Alaa M S 2
; Fayyad, Sameh 3
; Elshaer, Ibrahim A 4
; Mohammad, Abuelkassem A A 5
1 Department of Management, College of Business Administration, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsaa 380, Saudi Arabia;
2 Department of Tourism and Hospitality, Arts College, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsaa 380, Saudi Arabia; Tourism Studies Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Suez Canal University, Ismailia 41522, Egypt
3 Hotel Studies Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Suez Canal University, Ismailia 41522, Egypt;
4 Department of Management, College of Business Administration, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsaa 380, Saudi Arabia;
5 Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Minia University, Minia 61519, Egypt;