the effects of quality and environmental management

lable at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management 50 (2015) 41e54

Contents lists avai

Tourism Management

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

The effects of quality and environmental management on competitiveadvantage: A mixed methods study in the hotel industry

Jose F. Molina-Azorín, Juan Jos�e Tarí, Jorge Pereira-Moliner*, María D. L�opez-Gamero,Eva M. Pertusa-OrtegaBusiness Management Department, University of Alicante, PO Box 99, E-03080 Alicante, Spain

h i g h l i g h t s

� Quality management is related with competitive advantage.� Environmental management is related with competitive advantage.� Quality management is related with environmental management.� Mixed methods approach combining qualitative and quantitative methods.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 14 April 2014Accepted 10 January 2015Available online 30 January 2015

Keywords:Quality managementEnvironmental managementCompetitive advantageHotelMixed methods research

* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: þ34 965903606.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.F. Molina-Az

[email protected] (J. Pereira-Moliner), [email protected]@ua.es (E.M. Pertusa-Ortega).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.01.0080261-5177/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

This paper reports results derived from a mixed methods study where 13 hotel managers were initiallyinterviewed, followed by a quantitative study of 355 additional managers. Data were analysed usingpartial least squares path modelling. The research question related to the relationship between qualityand environmental management and the competitive advantage sought by hotels. The results indicatethat quality management and environmental management permit the improvement of competitiveadvantage in terms of both costs and differentiation. Moreover, hotels implementing quality programmesfind fewer obstacles in implementing environmental management.

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The international environment for tourism has produced eco-nomic and social changes leading to greater uncertainty. Suchchanges suggest the need for some reflection, so that, by means ofcontinuous improvement, quality and sustainability, a responsemay be given in the tourism industry to all the competitive chal-lenges. Specifically, an interesting issue is to analyse the impact ofquality and environmental management on competitive advantageof tourist companies.

There is theoretical and empirical literature on the influence ofquality management on firm competitive advantage and perfor-mance (Nair, 2006). Similarly, theoretical and empirical studies

orín), [email protected] (J.J. Tarí),ua.es (M.D. L�opez-Gamero),

have analysed the relationship between environmental manage-ment and firm competitive advantage (Molina-Azorín, Claver-Cort�es, L�opez-Gamero, & Tarí, 2009). As will be indicated in theliterature review section, this literature shows conflicting evidenceregarding the relationship between these variables.

Most of this previous research has tackled the implementationof quality practices and environmental practices separately, butvery few empirical works have carried out a joint analysis of thetwo management systems (Curkovic, Melnyk, Handfield, &Calantone, 2000). Therefore, while previous research hasenhanced our understanding about the relationship betweenquality management and firm performance (Alonso-Almeida,Rodríguez-Ant�on, & Rubio-Andrada, 2012; Inoue & Lee, 2011;Ladhari, 2012; Prajogo & Sohal, 2006; Sila, 2007) and betweenenvironmental management and firm performance (Gonz�alez-Benito & Gonz�alez-Benito, 2005; Leonidou, Leonidou, Fotiadis, &Zeriti, 2013; Link & Naveh, 2006; L�opez-Gamero, Molina-Azorín,& Claver-Cort�es, 2011), there is limited research that examinesthe joint impact of quality management and environmental

mailto:[email protected]





http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.tourman.2015.01.008&domain=pdf

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02615177

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.01.008



J.F. Molina-Azorín et al. / Tourism Management 50 (2015) 41e5442

management on competitive advantage together with the in-fluences of quality management on environmental management inthe tourism industry.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse quality management andenvironmental management simultaneously, examining the influ-ence of the two management systems on competitive advantage inthe hotel industry along with the impact of quality management onenvironmental management. Consequently, this research sets outto examine the following three main research questions:

1. Does quality management influence hotel competitiveadvantage?

2. Does environmental management influence hotel competitiveadvantage?

3. Is there any influence between quality management and envi-ronmental management in the hotel industry?

This paper makes several contributions to the literature,extending previous research in three distinct ways. First, this studyexamines jointly the relationship between quality managementand environmental management in the hotel industry. Second, thepaper analyses the joint influence of the two management systemson hotel competitive advantage. Third, from amethodological pointof view, a mixed methods study is used, combining a qualitativeand a quantitative component. More specifically, a qualitative studyis made first, followed by a quantitative study. The main reason forthe qualitative study derives from the fact that the literature con-tains inconclusive results with regard to the connection betweenquality management and competitive advantage, and the rela-tionship between environmental management and competitiveadvantage. Also, the qualitative study makes it possible to contex-tualize the study within the sector analysed.

2. Literature review

2.1. Quality management and competitive advantage

Quality management is a management system entailing thedevelopment of a number of practices for the management of or-ganizations. The most common practices identified in the literatureare leadership, people management, planning, information andanalysis, process management, supplier management, focus oncustomers/stakeholders and design (Nair, 2006; Sila, 2007).

Initially, it was considered that the implementation of thesepractices had a certain cost and, therefore, an increase in qualityimplied increased costs. This view of quality has progressivelychanged, and today it is believed that a commitment to qualityimprovement may lead to reduced costs and increased productiv-ity, which allow firms to gain market share and improve theircompetitiveness (Deming, 1982). Therefore, quality may be appliedat all organizational levels, allowing a reduction in costs and anincrease in differentiation levels (Belohlav, 1993).

This connection between quality management and competitiveadvantage and performance started to be analysed academicallyand empirically in the 1990s, with conflicting conclusions. Whilesome studies demonstrated a positive relationship between thesevariables (Easton & Jarrell, 1998; Fotopoulos & Psomas, 2010;Powell, 1995; Zhang, Linderman, & Schroeder, 2012), others havepointed out that the relationship does not always exist, or is not aclear one (Boje&Winsor, 1993; Taylor&Wright, 2003). The studiesexamining these relationships through qualitative and quantitativestudies have analysed both manufacturing and service firms,although the study of manufacturing firms has beenmore frequent.Also, mention must be made of the analyses focussing on the total

quality management (TQM) variable and those considering the ISO9001 certification as a variable to measure quality management.

The studies analysing quality management using the TQM var-iable show that quality management practices lead to improve-ments in customer satisfaction (Anderson, Rungtusanatham,Schroeder, & Devaraj, 1995; Lai & Cheng, 2003; Lee, To, & Yu,2009; Sila, 2007), quality perception, the percentage of errors inproducts (Flynn, Schroeder, & Sakakibara, 1995), efficiency andemployee results (Lee et al., 2009; Sila, 2007). In this way, thesestudies show how quality management has positive effects onquality performance (Fotopoulos & Psomas, 2010). In turn, suchimprovement in quality performance may help the firm to improveits competitive advantage (Deming, 1982).

When these studies have analysed the effects of the imple-mentation and certification of the ISO 9001 standard, the results arenot particularly conclusive, since three types of results can befound. Firstly, some research works point out that the ISO 9001standard improves issues such as efficiency, customer andemployee satisfaction, service quality and profitability (H€aversj€o,2000; Lee et al., 2009; Lo, Wiengarten, Humphreys, Yeung, &Cheng, 2013; Mak, 2011; Tzelepis, Tsekouras, Skuras, & Dimara,2006). According to this position, the ISO 9001 standard entailsoperational benefits, such as those related to quality performance(customer and employee satisfaction, etc.). Secondly, other worksshow that certified firms have improved economic results (Chow-Chua, Goh, & Wan, 2003; Heras, Dick, & Casadesús, 2002;Mokhtar & Muda, 2012). Finally, the third, most negative posi-tion, holds that certification has no influence upon a firm's resultsand competitiveness (Lo, Yeung, & Cheng, 2011; Martínez-Costa,Choi, Marínez, & Martínez-Lorente, 2009; Rahman, 2001; Singels,Ru€el, & van de Water, 2001; Tsekouras, Dimara, & Skuras, 2002).

Therefore, in general, the literature appears to show that theeffects of quality management on performance and competitiveadvantage are not conclusive. On the one hand, some authors statethat quality management does not generate improved performancein all firms (for instance, due to lack of motivation to implement areal quality culture, or because the firm has implemented it in aninefficient way, or because of lack of management support). On theother hand, other authors indicate that quality management mayhave positive effects on performance. Similarly, some studies alsoindicate that quality management is related to differentiationstrategies, but not to leadership regarding costs (Prajogo, 2007;Prajogo & Sohal, 2006).

In the specific case of the hotel industry, analyses have also beenmade of the relationship between quality management andcompetitive advantage, but to a lesser extent. The literature ex-amines the implementation of quality management initiatives inhotels through theoretical and empirical studies. Among theempirical studies, both qualitative and quantitative, mention mustbe made of those analysing the level of implementation of qualitymanagement in hotels, without establishing a relationship withperformance and competitive advantage (Albacete-S�aez, Fuentes-Fuentes, & Llor�ens-Montes, 2007; Arasli, 2002; Briggs, Suther-land, & Drummond, 2007; Harrington & Keating, 2006; Soriano,1999) and those which investigate the effects of quality manage-ment on the performance and competitive advantage of hotels(Alonso-Almeida et al., 2012; Claver-Cort�es, Pereira-Moliner, Tarí,&Molina-Azorín, 2008; Inoue & Lee, 2011; Wang, Chen, & Chen,2012). Qualitative and quantitative studies show that hotels maysuccessfully adopt quality management practices, like manymanufacturing firms.

In the case of those studies showing positive results, it may bepointed out that such benefits are related to improved satisfactionamong customers, employees and other interest groups, animprovement in operational results, improved efficiency, which in

J.F. Molina-Azorín et al. / Tourism Management 50 (2015) 41e54 43

turn leads to an improved hotel image and differentiation fromcompetitors (Alonso-Almeida et al., 2012; Callan, 1992; Nield &Kozak, 1999; Rubio-Andrada, Alonso-Almeida, & Rodríguez-Ant�on, 2011; Viada-Stenger, Balbastre-Benavent, & Redondo-Cano,2010). Thus, as was the case with the general studies on qualitymanagement, some of these analyses show that quality manage-ment has positive effects on competitive advantage (Birdir &Pearson, 1998; Nield & Kozak, 1999). This indicates that qualitymanagement may improve the internal functions of the hotel,which leads to increased productivity of workers and facilities,improved efficiency, and a reduction in errors and waste whenproviding services. In turn, it may also have positive results uponcustomer satisfaction, which may make it possible to increase salesand market share, reinforce guest loyalty, attract new guests, in-crease tourist satisfaction and improve the hotel's image. In thisway, quality management may increase quality performance, andin turn, may improve the competitive advantage of hotelestablishments.

Nevertheless, the literature also emphasizes a number ofproblems while implementing quality management in this sector,which hinder its success and even may prevent some hotels fromobtaining positive results. In this respect, Breiter and Bloomquist(1998) pointed out that 14 out of the 116 hotels they studiedwhich implemented quality management did not succeed. Nieldand Kozak (1999) showed only a few hotels improved customersatisfaction and competitiveness by implementing quality man-agement. This could be due mainly to lack of managerial commit-ment (Viada-Stenger et al., 2010) and lack of employeeparticipation (Baldacchino, 1995). Alongside these issues, otherbarriers mentioned in the literature, which may hinder theimplementation of a quality management system in hotels, areeconomic results, employees' resistance to change, employees notconsidering quality as an important factor, and lack of enthusiasm(Harrington & Keating, 2006). Lack of commitment, both by themanagement and by employees, is a key problem, and the twogroups are mutually interconnected, since lack of managerialcommitment prevents employees from being given responsibilityand receiving enough training.

In summary, both the general literature on quality managementand the specific studies dealing with the hotel industry showinconclusive results regarding the influence of quality managementon competitiveness.

2.2. Environmental management and competitive advantage

The influence of environmental management on competitiveadvantage may be analysed through its impact on costs and dif-ferentiation (Arag�on-Correa, 1998; Gonz�alez-Benito & Gonz�alez-Benito, 2005; Shrivastava, 1995). Proactive environmental man-agement may allow the firm to save on costs, inputs and energyconsumption, and to re-use materials through recycling (Hart,1997). Thus, the notion of eco-efficiency implies the productionand development of goods while simultaneously reducing envi-ronmental impact and the use of resources (Starik&Marcus, 2000).In this context, pollution is seen as a sign of inefficiency (Porter &Van der Linde, 1995) and firms must learn to see environmentalimprovement in terms of resource productivity. As regardscompetitive advantage through differentiation, by reducing pollu-tion it may be possible to increase demand from environmentally-sensitive consumers, whose purchase decisions are influenced by aproduct's environmental features (Elkington, 1994). Also, a firmwith good environmental initiatives may enhance its environ-mental reputation (Miles & Covin, 2000). Firms adopting proactiveenvironmental strategies may benefit from higher prices andincreased sales thanks to their greater market legitimacy and social

approval (Molina-Azorín, Claver-Cort�es, L�opez-Gamero, et al.,2009). In this respect, Jacobs, Singhal, and Subramanian (2010)indicate that announcements of philanthropic gifts for environ-mental causes are associated with significant positive market re-actions, and ISO 14001 certification is associated with significantpositive market reaction.

Environmental management is also linked to improved re-lationships with stakeholders (Sarkis, Gonz�alez-Torre, & Alonso-Díaz, 2010), and may prevent potential conflict with them (Hull &Rothenberg, 2008). Relationships with institutions and stake-holders play a significant role in a firm's success (Donaldson &Preston, 1995). In fact, such relationships may contribute toimprove corporate performance through the creation, develop-ment or maintenance of bonds which provide firms with importantresources (Brammer & Millington, 2008). Prevention techniquesmay, therefore, help firms to reach awinewin situation fromwhichboth the firm and the environment may benefit. This approachincorporates the idea that environmental investment may have apositive influence on a firm's competitive advantage and perfor-mance, and is known as “Porter's hypothesis” (Porter & Van derLinde, 1995).

However, this positive approach coexists with a negativeapproach, according to which environmental investment mayreduce a firm's competitiveness and performance. From this pointof view, it is suggested that complying with environmental lawsentails high costs, which harms a firm's ability to compete (Jaffe,Peterson, Portney, & Stavins, 1995). In addition, those who holdthis negative view respond to those supporting Porter's hypothesisby pointing out that, although cost savings may be easily obtainedby adopting a few preventivemeasures, more ambitious preventionpractices may imply costs which exceed any savings which mightderive from them (Walley & Whitehead, 1994). Thus, they suggestthat there is a negative relationship between environmentalmanagement and a firm's performance and competitiveness,arguing that firms try to improve their environmental performance(environmental impacts) by withdrawing resources and manage-rial effort from other key areas, which results in lower profits. Ac-cording to this analysis, managers may not invest in theenvironment and be more competitive at the same time (Hull &Rothenberg, 2008). Agency theory, as applied to the environ-mental sphere, emphasizes that, if there is not strict control byshareholders, managers may inappropriately allocate corporateresources in order to advance goals increasing their own utilityfunction in areas where the firm is not likely to obtain importantprofits. Therefore, good environmental performance is obtained atthe cost of good corporate results, because the firm's resources aredevoted to reducing environmental impacts, thus preventing thefirm from allocating them to alternative investment projects orsimply returning them to shareholders.

In order to examine empirically the links between environ-mental management and competitive advantage, the studies car-ried out have resorted to qualitative and quantitative methods.Some empirical studies used case study as a qualitative method.These contributions analysed specific firms, and therefore theycould not be generalized statistically (Blanco, Rey-Maquieira, &Lozano, 2009). Alongside these qualitative studies, other workshave used statistical methods in order to analyse how environ-mental management relates to performance and competitiveadvantage. It might be said that, as was the case with qualitymanagement, the results are inconclusive. Molina-Azorín, Claver-Cort�es, L�opez-Gamero, et al. (2009) have reviewed the quantita-tive empirical works analysing this relationship, and have foundcontributions that obtain a positive relationship (Al-Tuwaijri,Christensen, & Hughes, 2004; Melnyk, Sroufe, & Calantone, 2003;Wahba, 2008), but there are also works where a negative


relationship exists, or where no statistically significant relationshipemerges (Link & Naveh, 2006; Wagner, Van Phu, Azomahou, &Wehrmeyer, 2002). Jacobs et al. (2010) indicated that voluntaryemission reductions are associated with significant negative mar-ket reaction.

Several works have studied environmental management in thehotel industry. The first studies dealing with this topic were of aqualitative nature; they analysed the specific features of the hotelunder study, and the results could not be extrapolated to the wholeindustry (Goodman, 2000). The subsequent studies adopted aquantitative methodology, analysing more specific characteristicsof the hotel industry. Thus, some works classified hotels intogroups, in order to observe the difference between various degreesof environmental proactivity with regard to certain contextual andperformance variables (Carmona-Moreno, C�espedes-Lorente, & deBurgos-Jim�enez, 2004; Claver-Cort�es, Molina-Azorín, Pereira-Moliner, & L�opez-Gamero, 2007; Molina-Azorín, Claver-Cort�es,Pereira-Moliner, & Tarí, 2009). There are also some contributionsthat include competitive advantage and customer satisfaction andloyalty as variables measuring the connection between environ-mental strategy and profitability (Kassinis & Soteriou, 2005;Leonidou et al., 2013; L�opez-Gamero, Claver-Cort�es, & Molina-Azorín, 2011). Finally, Segarra-O~na, Peir�o-Signes, Verma, andMiret-Pastor (2012) check whether there are significant differ-ences between the economic performance of hotels with andwithout ISO 14001 certification.

Some of the studies listed above point out the positive effectsthat environmental management may have on hotels' performanceand competitive advantage, although a positive relationship is notalways confirmed. In fact, someworks have found a positive impact(Kassinis & Soteriou, 2005; L�opez-Gamero, Molina-Azorín, et al.,2011; Molina-Azorín, Claver-Cort�es, Pereira-Moliner, et al., 2009),but there are also others which have found a neutral relationship(Carmona-Moreno et al., 2004; Claver-Cort�es et al., 2007).

In summary, and as in the case of quality management, both thegeneral literature on environmental management and the specificstudies carried out in the hotel sector show inconclusive resultsregarding the impact of environmental management oncompetitiveness.

2.3. The relationship between quality management andenvironmental management

Both the relationships between quality management and envi-ronmental management, and the integration of the two manage-ment systems, are interesting topics for academic research and forthe practice of many firms. In fact, many firms are implementingboth management systems, either successively or simultaneously.The implementation of the two management systems may be car-ried out in three ways (Karapetrovic & Willborn, 1998): imple-menting a quality management system first, and thenenvironmental management; implementing an environmentalmanagement system first, and then quality management; orsimultaneously implementing the quality and environmentalmanagement systems. The practice among many firms shows thatthe first option is the most usual one, that is, firms benefit from theknowledge acquired through the implementation of quality man-agement in order to adopt environmental practices. This is due tothe fact that quality management may include the implementationof certain resources and capabilities which are useful for thedevelopment of environmental management practices (Darnall &Edwards, 2006).

Quality management and environmental management differ insome respects. For instance, although both systems focus onsatisfying the needs of customers and other stakeholders

(employees, suppliers, etc.), environmental management is awider approach, as it includes other stakeholders who are notincluded in the literature on quality management (e.g. govern-ment, local community, general public, etc.) (Klefsj€o, Bergquist, &Garvare, 2008; Poksinska, Dahlgaard, & Eklund, 2003; Zutshi &Sohal, 2005).

However, despite of the existence of some differences betweenthe two systems, the literature shows that quality management hasa number of parallels with environmental management (Klassen &McLaughlin,1996; Kleiner, 1991; Molina-Azorín, Tarí, Claver-Cort�es,& L�opez-Gamero, 2009) which make it easier to develop environ-mental management practices. These similarities between the twomanagement systems lead some firms to first adopt one system andthen the other (for instance, first quality, then environment) oreven to implement both systems jointly (Karapetrovic & Willborn,1998; Wilkinson & Dale, 1999). Some of these similarities includethe existence of common implementation factors. Thus, bothmanagement systems require a cultural change directed by leadersseeking to improve quality and environmental factors. Both sys-tems emphasize long-term planning, improved relationships be-tween the organization and its employees, suppliers andcustomers, they reinforce the improvement of information,communication, training and transparency, and require a culture ofevaluation and continuous improvement. In this respect, a widerview of quality management might also include environmentalissues (Curkovic, 2003; Klassen & McLaughlin, 1993).

These common implementation factors, together with the factthat both quality and environmental management focus on pre-vention, justify the positive relationships between the two man-agement systems. In fact, the evolution of quality has progressivelyincluded environment-related issues, and the concept of qualitymanagement is now being applied to environmental management,as some authors have pointed out (Curkovic, 2003; Klassen &McLaughlin, 1993).

In view of these parallels, and considering that research onquality management is more advanced than research on environ-mental management, one might expect benefits from applying theknowledge acquired on quality to environmental issues (Curkovic,2003; Klassen & McLaughlin, 1993; Molina-Azorín, Tarí, et al.,2009). Therefore, environmental management may be morewidely adopted in those firms where quality management is mostdeveloped (Curkovic et al., 2000). In this way, some firms mayobtain more benefits from the implementation of environmentalmanagement because they already possess the competenciesneeded for the adoption of these environmental approaches. Thesesupplementary competencies derive from the fact that qualitymanagement has been implemented previously (Darnall &Edwards, 2006).

3. Methodology

In this study, a mixed methods approach has been used(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010),combining qualitative and quantitative methods. More specifically,a sequential study has been designed, where first qualitativeresearch is performed, followed by quantitative research.

In this work, it has been considered appropriate to develop aninitial qualitative stage due to the inconclusive and even contra-dictory results found in the literature analysing the relationshipsbetween quality management, environmental management andcompetitive advantage, and also due to the need to contextualizethis analysis in the hotel industry. The purpose of this exploratoryqualitative stage is to establish a number of propositions which arethen tested in the quantitative stage.


This study examines the tourism industry, specifically theSpanish hotel sector. In the international sphere, Spain was thesecond most important country regarding income from interna-tional tourism, after the United States, and the third most impor-tant in terms of the number of international tourist arrivals, afterFrance and the United States (UNWTO, 2013).

4. Qualitative research: methodology and results

4.1. Qualitative methodology

The main technique for obtaining qualitative information wasa semi-structured depth-interview with open questions onvarious issues related to the competitive implications of qualitymanagement and environmental management in the hotelindustry.

A total of 13 interviews were conducted. Data collection wasstopped after theoretical saturation seemed to have been reached;that is, new insights into the phenomena being examined were nolonger gained. We chose interviewees to represent various types ofactors in the hotel industry, who would have an adequate knowl-edge of quality and environmental issues in this industry. Specif-ically, we interviewed 7 hotel managers (who worked inindependent and chain-affiliated hotels from 3 to 5 stars), 4 rep-resentatives of hotel associations (3 representatives of geographicalassociations of hotels and 1 representative of a technologicalinstitute), 1 representative of a quality institute in the tourism in-dustry, and 1 manager of a consulting firm specializing in qualityand environmental management in hotels. We guaranteed dataconfidentiality and the informants' anonymity in order to enhancetrust and reduce the chance that interviewees might try to play therole of ‘good subjects’ by telling interviewers what they thoughtthey wanted to hear.

Interviews were performed at the hotels or the place whereinterviewees worked. Interviews lasted approximately 2 h onaverage. Two coauthors recorded the interviews and took notes.Interviews were audiotaped and later transcribed verbatim. Inter-view transcripts were checked for accuracy by the interviewees.The quotations that appear below are from the transcripts. Theinformation was supplemented with data from web pages, docu-ments and direct observation. The questions were linked to therelationship between the variables analysed in this paper.

4.2. Qualitative results

With regard to quality management, all respondents pointedout that quality management has positive results for customer andemployee satisfaction, service quality and efficiency. They alsopointed out that improvements in these variables will lead to lowercosts and improved differentiation levels (e.g. image).

Some of the comments by respondents were as follows:

“Quality makes it possible to document processes towardscontinuous improvement [ … ], therefore, it helps to improvecompetitiveness”.

“Quality management helps to improve management [ … ], thissystematization of management processes helps to improvecompetitiveness”.

“By applying procedures, we can reduce the waste and errors,and thus save on costs”.

“Quality makes it possible to systematize everything, and eachemployee knows exactly what they have to do at every stage […], this makes it possible to reduce costs from errors”.

“When we do things right, we save money”.

“Management is efficient [ … ]. Therefore, efficiency and orga-nizational improvement allow us to reduce costs”.

“Quality measures help to reinforce customer loyalty, […] toincrease the quality of the service provided […], and to improvethe image, which will grow as the quality certificate issue be-comes known”.

“Obviously, improvements in quality contribute towardsimproving service quality and brand image”.

These ideas indicate that quality management has positive ef-fects on quality performance (for instance, customer satisfaction,efficiency, and process systematization) which can lead hotels tosave on costs and improve differentiation (e.g. by improving thehotel's image). For example, a good management system meansthat people know how to develop processes better, and this willallow them to provide a better service. Similarly, as some re-spondents pointed out, when processes are managed more effi-ciently, re-work is reduced, which results in lower costs.

Respondents explained these positive effects through animprovement of the management system. Some hotel managersand experts said:

“Quality management improves the way the hotel is managed,which leads to improved customer satisfaction, service qualityand hotel image”.

Another expert pointed out:

“Quality management systematizes the way the hotel ismanaged in order to transform tacit knowledge into explicitknowledge”.

On the basis of these ideas, which confirm some of the con-clusions from previous studies on quality management in general,and specifically on quality management in the hotel industry, thefollowing propositions are formulated:

P1. Quality management influences quality performance.P2. Quality performance influences cost advantage.P3. Quality performance influences differentiation advantage.

Regarding environmental management, respondents empha-sized that the impact of environmental management on competi-tiveness in the hotel industry is mainly due to the cost advantagesobtained, as a result of practices basically related to lower waterand energy consumption. In this respect, a hotel manager stated:

“One of the main advantages of environmental managementand certification is the implementation of measures helping thehotel to save on costs. These measures are mainly related tolower energy and water consumption”.

Another manager pointed out:

“Basically, environmental measures provide hotels with an op-portunity to save. Therefore, there is a direct connection be-tween environmental practices and cost savings in the hotel.The main savings can be obtained through the implementationof measures to reduce water and energy consumption”.

A representative of a hotel association also emphasized thisrelationship:


“The main argument we can use in order to persuade hotelmanagers to implement environmental practices and certifiedenvironmental management systems is that their hotels mayreduce their costs. Real savings may be obtained from a tech-nological point of view, mainly through the reduction in waterand energy consumption”.

Thus, it seems that environmental management helps to reducethe environmental impact of hotels, or in other words, it helps toimprove their environmental performance, which entails saving oncosts.

Concerning differentiation, there is greater diversity among theanswers provided by the professionals in the industry. Thus, somerespondents pointed out that nowadays most consumers do notconsider the environmental characteristics of hotels to be a keyfactor when it comes to choosing their accommodation. One hotelmanager said:

“Although hotels try to use the implementation of environ-mental practices as a differentiation element against theircompetitors, as a rule environmental management does nothave an influence on customer satisfaction levels, and cus-tomers do not usually consider whether the hotel, for instance,has a certified environmental management system”.

On the other hand, several respondents stated that an adequateenvironmental management may have an influence on hotel dif-ferentiation. In addition, it was also pointed out that some cus-tomers from certain countries (e.g. Germany) do considerenvironmental issues when choosing a hotel. For instance, one ofthe managers mentioned:

“Environmental management is helping us to differentiateourselves from our competitors, allowing us to improve ourimage, and in this way we use environmental issues as a mar-keting tool. I think that, in the future, as environmentalawareness becomes greater, it will help us even more todistinguish ourselves from our competitors”.

Therefore, from the interviews it emerged that environmentalmanagement in the hotel industry has positive effects uponenvironmental performance, and this environmental perfor-mance may have an influence on a hotel's competitiveness,mainly regarding costs, although it may also affect differentiation.On the basis of this, which is related to some argumentsmentioned in the literature review, the following propositions areformulated:

P4. Environmental management influences environmentalperformance.P5. Environmental performance influences cost advantage.P6. Environmental performance influences differentiationadvantage.

Finally, with regard to the relationship between the two sys-tems, most respondents pointed out that hotels first implementedquality management practices and then environmental manage-ment practices. One manager stated that:

“First we introduced quality practices and certified our qualitymanagement system based on the ISO 9001 standard. Later, weimplemented environmental measures, although we have notobtained certification for our environmental managementsystem”.

Another idea put forward by hotel managers and representa-tives from associations is that the implementation of environ-mental management practices becomes easier if qualitymanagement has been implemented first. According to a hotelmanager:

“An environmental management system is very similar to aquality management system. When a hotel implements aquality management system, it is easier to introduce an envi-ronmental management system. Hotels implementing a qualitysystem start by introducing the idea of continuous improve-ment, and then the subsequent implementation of environ-mental management helps to make additional improvements tothe hotel.”

Environmental management has a number of parallels withquality management. Some respondents pointed out that envi-ronmental management practices may be a part of qualitymanagement:

“Quality management is a concept that includes environmentalmanagement […] Environmental management could be a partof quality management”.

“Environmental management is one of the aspects of our qualitymanagement system”.

“Our quality management system leads to the development ofpractices aimed at reducing environmental costs (for instance,water, energy, etc.)”.

All these ideas suggest that quality management creates acontinuous improvement culture which facilitates the develop-ment of environmental management practices as a way to furtherquality management. These arguments lead us to formulate thefollowing proposition:

P7. Quality management influences environmentalmanagement.

The propositions formulated above will be subject to statisticalverification. What follows is a description of the design and resultsof the quantitative part of this research.

5. Quantitative research: methodology and results

5.1. Quantitative methodology

5.1.1. Population and sampleThe population for this study includes all Spanish hotel estab-

lishments from 3 to 5 stars. The September 2011 edition of the“Censo de Hoteles Hostelmarket” database was used. It was neces-sary to refine the population, because some firms had ceased tooperate and there were occasional duplications. In the end, thepopulation was 4770 hotels.

It was decided to study the whole population by means of astructured questionnaire with closed questions, which was sent intwo waves by ordinary mail. For the distribution of the question-naire, support was received from the Spanish Hotel TechnologicalInstitute (Instituto Tecnol�ogico Hotelero, ITH), which belongs to theSpanish Confederation of Hotels and Tourist Accommodation(Confederaci�on Espa~nola de Hoteles y Apartamentos Turísticos,CEHAT), who also distributed the questionnaire among all its hotelassociations. 355 hotel managers answered, a 7.44% response rate.Table 1 shows the main characteristics of the sample.

Table 1Category and size by rooms and beds in population and sample. Non-response biascheck.

Category Sample (frequency) Population (frequency)

3 160 (45.07%) 2417 (50.67%)4 169 (47.61%) 2063 (43.25%)5 26 (7.33%) 290 (6.07%)Total 355 4770

ChieSquare test 3183.69***

Sample (average) Population (average) Mann Whitney's U

No. of rooms 129.36 117.55 872,360.50No. of beds 267.63 249.02 576,358.00

***p � 0.001, **0.001 < p � 0.01, *0.01 < p � 0.05, y0.05 < p � 0.10.


Although the response rate may seem low, it is close to themean obtained by mail surveys in Spain (del Brío, Fern�andez, &Junquera, 2002). There is not a strong tradition of collaborationbetween industry and research centers in Spain. Some interna-tional studies have even had to admit that they had seriousproblems with response rates in Spanish firms (Very, Lubatkin,Calori, & Veiga, 1997). In addition, when it comes to studyingvariables related to competitive advantage, companies are usuallyreluctant to answer because they are afraid to show their strengthsand weaknesses. Stamped addressed envelopes for the answerswere enclosed in order to improve the response rate, together withthe promise of receiving a management report benchmarking re-sults for the participants. Furthermore, any gaps detected in theanswers were corrected through follow-up telephone calls, fax ande-mail.

In order to check non-response bias (see Table 1), the variables“category” (number of stars), “number of rooms” and “number ofbeds” were used. These variables were applied because they areavailable both for the sample and for the population. There are nosignificant differences regarding the number of rooms and bedsbetween the population and the sample; moreover, the number ofstars is significantly related between the population and the sam-ple. Non-response bias was also checked following the methodproposed by Armstrong and Overton (1977), comparing early re-spondents to the questionnaire with late respondents. The ratio-nale is that late respondents are more similar to non-respondentsthat are early respondents. The data set was divided into threegroups according to the number of days from initial mailing untilreceipt of the returned questionnaire. Comparing the first (earlyrespondents) and the third (late respondents) groups of firms, itwas confirmed that there were no significant differences in themean responses for all the variables measured in the questionnaire.Therefore, it is presumed that the sample (hotels that answered thequestionnaire) is not affected by any non-response bias problems,and then this group of hotels that participated in our study can beconsidered as representative of the population.

In the introductory letter, it was indicated that the question-naire was to be filled in by several people in each hotel: the hotelmanager had to answer the questions related to competitiveadvantage, the person responsible for quality issues had to answerquestions on quality, and the person responsible for environmentalissues had to answer those questions. However, it was decided torule out the presence of common variance bias by applying Har-man's single factor test (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). After applyingan exploratory factor analysis with Varimax rotation to all thevariables measured, they were classified into 7 factors and the firstone only explains around 25% of the total variance. Therefore, theobserved relationships among constructs are not largely accountedfor by the systematic variance associated with the measurementtechnique.

5.1.2. VariablesQuality management. In order to measure this variable, the

quality management practices most frequently found in the liter-ature were applied, grouped into four dimensions: operationalsystems, information systems, strategic systems and technicalsystems (Curkovic et al., 2000). The managers had to assess, in aLikert 1e7 opinion scale, if their establishment had never adopted aquality practice, or if it always applied it (Appendix A).

Quality performance. A variable was used consisting of 10 items,in order to measure the impact of quality management on qualityperformance, based on Curkovic et al. (2000) and Molina-Azorín,Tarí, et al. (2009). Each item was measured within a Likert scale,from 1 (no impact) to 7 (very high impact) (Appendix A).

Environmental management. This variable was measured on aLikert opinion scale, from 1 (that environmental practice had neverbeen adopted) to 7 (it was always applied). Also, four dimensionswere used: operational systems, information systems, strategicsystems and technical systems. These dimensions and theirconstituting items are based on Curkovic et al. (2000) and L�opez-Gamero, Claver-Cort�es, and Molina-Azorín (2008) (Appendix B).

Environmental performance. This was measured through 10items obtained fromWagner (2009). The managers had to indicatetowhat extent their efforts to improve environmental managementcontributed to reduce the environmental impacts indicated. Eachitem was measured within a Likert scale, from 1 (no impact) to 7(very high impact) (Appendix B).

Competitive advantage. This was measured using differentiation(4 items) and cost (3 items) scales. These items were obtained fromthe works by Miller (1988), Govindarajan (1988), Lee and Miller(1996) and Beal (2000). The managers had to indicate in a scalefrom 1 (the strategy was not used at all) to 7 (the strategy was veryimportant for their establishment) their opinion on the competitivestrategies followed by their organization (Appendix C).

5.1.3. Statistical analysisThis study applies PLS path modelling by means of the PLS-

Graph 3.0 software (Chin & Frye, 2003). This technique allows forthe joint use of formative and reflective constructs in the samemodel, which is usually not possible with structural equationtechniques based on the covariance method (Chin, 1998; Fornell &Bookstein, 1982). Also, in the structural model to be analysed,second-order constructs are used, that is, constructs made up offirst-order factors. The measurement model contains formativesecond-order constructs and reflective first-order constructs. Morespecifically, reflective constructs include operational, technical,strategic and information systems for quality and environmentmanagement, quality performance and environmental perfor-mance, and competitive advantage regarding costs and differenti-ation. The consideration of formative constructs was applied to thefollowing second-order constructs: quality management andenvironmental management.

In this way, for the reflective elements of the model, constructreliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity have beenanalysed:

- Individual reliability of reflective items. This reliability isconsidered adequate when an item has a loading over 0.7 in itsconstruct (Carmines & Zeller, 1979). The analyses show that theitems meet this condition (see Appendix A, B, and C).

- Construct reliability. Construct reliability is checked through aninternal consistency measure called composite reliability (rc)and its values should also be higher than 0.7 (Werts, Linn, &J€oreskog, 1974). In this case, this requirement is fulfilled in allconstructs (see Appendix A, B, and C).


- Convergent validity. For the assessment of convergent validity,the average variance extracted (AVE) was used, whose valuesmust exceed 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). This condition is metin all cases (see Appendixes A, B, and C).

- Discriminant validity. For its assessment, the square root of theAVE should be greater than the correlation coefficients betweenthe constructs, as is the case in this study (Table 2).

The diagonal values (between brackets) are the square root ofAVE. The other values in the matrix are the correlations betweenthe constructs. In order to check discriminant validity, the diagonalvalues must be greater than the others.

For the formative constructs, different techniques are requiredfrom those used for the analysis of the validity of reflective con-structs. These include checking for potential multicollinearity be-tween its items and the weights from each item in order to explainits construct (Diamantopoulos & Winklhofer, 2001; Podsakoff,Shen, & Podsakoff, 2006).

- Multicollinearity was checked by calculating the values for thevariance inflation factor (VIF) (which must be lower than 5) andthe condition indexes (under 30) for each item (Kleinbaum,Kupper, & Muller, 1988). In the case of the second-orderconstruct “quality management”, the results show that thereare no multicollinearity problems, since the VIF ranges from2.89 to 4.72, depending on the item, and the condition indexesreach a maximum value of 4.75. Regarding the second-orderconstruct “environmental management”, the VIF of its itemsranges from 1.69 to 4.83, and the condition indexes are lowerthan 30. Therefore, the formative constructs do not presentmulticollinearity problems.

- As for the weights of the formative constructs, a canonical cor-relation analysis was used, yielding information on how eachindicator contributes to its respective construct. The analyses inAppendix D show the weights of the first-order factors in eachsecond order formative construct. The weights indicate theitems with greater influence in the explanation of eachconstruct. Thus, the factor best accounting for quality manage-ment is the strategic system, and in the case of environmentalmanagement, the technical system.

PLS is an iterative combination of principal components anal-ysis, relating measures to constructs and path analysis, permittingthe construction of a system of constructs. The estimation of theparameters representing the measurement and path relationshipsis accomplished using ordinary least squares (OLS) techniques. ThePLS algorithm takes segments of complex models and applies thesame process until the entiremodel converges. It is this segmentingof complexmodels that allows PLS towork with small sample sizes.

The subset estimation process consists of simple and multipleregressions, so the sample required is that whichwould support themost complex multiple regression encountered. In general, themost complex regression will involve (1) the indicators of the mostcomplex formative construct, or (2) the largest number of ante-cedent constructs leading to an endogenous construct as predictors

Table 2Discriminant validity analysis.

Constructs Mean S.D. Qualityperformance

Quality performance 5.13 1.19 (0.81)Environmental performance 4.70 1.49 0.53Differentiation competitive advantage 5.66 1.04 0.56Costs competitive advantage 4.51 1.29 0.50

in an OLS regression. Sample size requirements, using the ‘rule ofthumb’ of ten cases per predictor, become ten times the number ofpredictors from (1) or (2), whichever is greater. In our model, themost complex regression involves two formative constructs withten items requiring a minimum sample of ten times ten, that is, 100.Our sample size is 355.

Lastly, to evaluate the structural model, Fig. 1 in the followingsection shows the explained variance for each construct (R2) andthe regression or path coefficients (b) between the various con-structs. Also, after carrying out a bootstrap test with 500 sub-samples, the t statistic values are obtained for each b, which makesit possible to determine its significance.

5.2. Quantitative results

Fig. 1 shows that quality management has significant, positiveeffects on quality performance (b ¼ 0.72; p ¼ 0.000), which in turnallow firms to obtain competitive advantage regarding differenti-ation (b ¼ 0.45; p ¼ 0.000) and costs (b ¼ 0.38; p ¼ 0.000). In thisway, propositions 1, 2 and 3 are supported.

The same may be said about environmental management,which permits firms significantly to improve their environmentalperformance (b ¼ 0.74; p ¼ 0.000), and in turn this environmentalperformance results in competitive advantage concerning differ-entiation (b ¼ 0.21; p ¼ 0.001) and costs (b ¼ 0.23; p ¼ 0.000). Inthis case, propositions 4, 5 and 6 are also supported. Fig. 1 alsoshows that quality management also has a significant influence onenvironmental management (b¼ 0.69; p¼ 0.000), which thereforesupports proposition 7.

6. Discussion and conclusions

This paper analyses the relationship between quality manage-ment and competitive advantage, environmental management andcompetitive advantage, and the relationship between quality andenvironmental management in the hotel industry. This joint rela-tionship between quality and environmental management hasbeen scarcely analysed in the general literature. Furthermore, thispaper employs a mixedmethods approach. Specifically, we conducta qualitative study with personal interviews suggesting proposi-tions and then we test these qualitative propositions carrying out aquantitative study with PLS path modelling.

The results show, first, that hotels applying quality managementpractices (e.g., manager and employee training, cooperation withintermediaries, use of indicators/data, defining and communicatinggoals) improve their quality performance, which in turn gives themadvantages regarding differentiation and costs. Therefore, the moreadvanced the degree of implementation of quality managementpractices, the greater the possibility to improve customer satisfac-tion, reduce errors in service provision, increase the quality of theservice offered and improve employee satisfaction. In this way,quality management may help to improve hotel management,because the hotel is better managed and organized, the employeesare more productive, and more information is analysed, which canhelp to improve processes. In turn, these positive results increase

Environmentalperformance

Differentiation competitiveadvantage

Costs competitiveadvantage

e e e

(0.82) e e

0.45 (0.83) e

0.43 0.56 (0.84)

Fig. 1. Relationships between quality, environment and competitive advantage.


hotel differentiation, because the hotel has a better image, offersbetter services than its competitors, and innovates in its services.Similarly, this quality performance also allows hotels to reducecosts. Regarding quality management, operational, information andstrategic systems are the most important ones to create thesepositive effects. In addition, strategic practices are the most criticalas the definition and communication of policies and objectives andcustomer focus are key quality practices to reinforce these positiveeffects. These results support the conclusions reached by part of theliterature on quality management, which emphasizes its positiveimpact on performance in general (Baird, Kristal, & Reeve, 2011),and specifically for the hotel industry (Alonso-Almeida et al., 2012;Inoue & Lee, 2011).

Secondly, as was the case with quality management, environ-mental management practices (e.g., training managers and em-ployees, using indicators/data, communicating policies andstrategies, and using techniques aimed at saving water, energy andother resources) allow hotels to improve their environmental per-formance by reducing environmental impacts. This improved envi-ronmental performance contributes towards a greater developmentof cost and differentiation advantage, insofar as it may help toimprove the hotel's image and to reduce the use of energy,water andresources, and also to reduce other operational costs which areimportant to hotels. Environmental management may become adifferentiation factor, as there are few hotels applying advancedenvironmental management techniques. Technical and strategicsystems are the most important aspects to create these positive ef-fects. These results agreewith part of the literature,which shows thepositive effects of environmental management on results (Menguc,Auh, & Ozanne, 2010), in the hotel industry (Leonidou et al., 2013).

Comparing quality management and environmental manage-ment, as shown in Fig. 1, an interesting finding is that the technicaldimension is the most important system for environmental man-agement, but this technical system is not relevant to explain quality

management. Moreover, operational and information systems arerelevant for qualitymanagement, but these two systems have not animportant influence on environmental management. Strategic sys-temsare important for bothqualityandenvironmentalmanagement.

Thirdly, the results of our research show that quality manage-ment has an impact upon environmental management. When ahotel develops quality management practices, it might find it easierto develop environmental management practices, since it possessesthe infrastructure and knowledge required for the development ofother similar management techniques, such as environmentaltechniques. Thus, the results indicate that quality practices maysimplify the implementation of environmental practices, whichsupports the theory on this relationship and some empirical ana-lyses carried out in the manufacturing sector (Curkovic et al., 2000).When a hotel has a management system in place, the hotel staff willfind it easier to understand what environmental management isabout, as there is a certain awareness of, and commitment to,quality. Nor will not be necessary to prepare some of the documentsfor environmental management, because the hotel possessing aquality system that already has such documents, or informationthat can be used as the basis for the environmental management. Inthis way, synergies will occur, because the hotel may use the in-dicators and plans used for quality management and then developfrom them, as required, new indicators and plans related to envi-ronmental management. Moreover, the employees are alreadyaccustomed to working with quality records and to filling in doc-uments, and know what a procedure is. Therefore it will be easierfor them to perform these tasks for environmental management.

From an academic point of view, this paper makes a contribu-tion to the literature on quality management and environmentalmanagement by jointly considering the two management systemsand examining their impact on competitive advantage regardingcosts and differentiation. An analysis has also been made of theinfluence that the implementation of a quality systemmay have on


environmental management. In order to measure quality man-agement and environmental management, a full set of items hasbeen used, grouped into various systems that may serve as reliableand valid scale for future studies. In addition, a further methodo-logical contribution should be mentioned, consisting of the designand use of a mixed research method, combining a qualitative and aquantitative component.

Regarding implications for practice, hotel managers should beaware that a suitable implementation of quality management andenvironmental management has positive effects on quality per-formance and on environmental performance. These practices willallow them to improve theway their hotel is managed and to createan awareness of a continuous improvement culture, which willmake it possible to reduce customer complaints and increasecustomer satisfaction, reduce service errors, provide services faster,reduce the use of water, energy and other resources, and to cutdown on waste, emissions and pollution.

Furthermore, hotel managers should understand that, if qualitymanagement practices are already suitably in place, it will be easierto implement environmental management practices because of theknowledge acquired previously. In addition, managers may use theitems in the questionnaire as a guide in order to identify whichaspects are better implemented in their hotels, and which issueshave not been implemented, or need some improvement. This willallow them to identify strengths and areas for improvement, fromwhich improvement actionsmay be designed. As Fig.1 shows, hotelmanagers should pay special attention to strategic practices in thecase of quality management and to technical ones in the case of

Scale items

QUALITY MANAGEMENT (second order, formative)Operational systems (reflective)1. Quality training courses are offered for all hotel managers and area managers2. Quality training is offered to all employees3. Employee motivation is encouraged4. Quality issues are considered when the services are offered5. The firm collaborates with intermediaries in order to improve the

product offered in the establishment6. The firm collaborates with suppliers in order to improve the product

offered in the establishmentInformation systems (reflective)1. Quality information/data is used in day to day in different areas2. Quality information/data is available for all employees3. Quality information/data is used to improve the quality of the service4. Financial and operational indicators are used to measure quality effectsStrategic systems (reflective)1. Quality policy is formally communicated to all employees2. Quality is highlighted by a well-defined set of policies and procedures3. Required resources are provided to improve quality service4. The needs of customers are used to improve the quality5. Complaints and suggestions from customers are evaluated to improve the service qTechnical systems (reflective)1. Internal audits are performed2. Satisfaction surveys are conducted3. Complaints and suggestions system is employed4. A system of quality indicators is used for continuous improvementQUALITY PERFORMANCE (first order, reflective)1. Reduction in customer complaints2. Increased customer satisfaction3. Fewer service errors4. Lower cost of quality5. Lower employee absenteeism6. Fewer employee complaints7. Increased employee satisfaction8. Increased service quality9. Increased productivity10. Service is provided faster

***p � 0.001, **0.001 < p � 0.01, * 0.01 < p � 0.05, y0.05 < p � 0.10 (based on t(499), twt(0.001; 499) ¼ ±3.31; t(0.01; 499) ¼ ±2.56; t(0.05; 499) ¼ ±1.96; t(0.10: 499) ¼ ±1.65.

environmental management because both are the most importantin explaining these management systems.

Concerning the limitations of this study, perceptual data havebeen used for the variables, and not objective data, although theproblem is that such objective data are not available. In any case,using perceptual scales is a commonly accepted practice, and anumber of issues have been considered to prevent this from leadingto biased results. Another limitation is that the study is not a lon-gitudinal one.

As for future research, in addition to performing longitudinalstudies, it would be interesting to analyse how some variables, suchas the culture or certain resources or capabilities, may play amoderating and/or mediating role in the relationship betweenquality and environmental management, on the one hand, andcompetitiveness on the other. Also, it might be relevant to study therelationship between all the variables used in this research, dis-tinguishing, for example, between quality and environmentallycertified firms (e.g., ISO 9001, ISO 14001) and those not possessingsuch certification.

Acknowledgements

This work has been carried out as part of the research projectECO2009-12231 funded by the Spanish Government. The authorsthank and acknowledge the support received.

Appendix A. Measurement model evaluation (qualitymanagement).

Weight Loadings(item reliability) (l)

Compositereliability (rc)

Average varianceextracted (AVE)

n.a. n.a.0.89 0.57

0.20*** 0.740.20*** 0.730.23*** 0.760.25*** 0.770.22*** 0.73

0.24*** 0.79

0.92 0.750.30*** 0.890.27*** 0.870.30*** 0.900.29*** 0.81

0.92 0.700.23*** 0.830.26*** 0.860.25*** 0.850.25*** 0.84

uality 0.22*** 0.790.90 0.69

0.29*** 0.760.27*** 0.730.31*** 0.850.34*** 0.89

0.95 0.650.12*** 0.780.14*** 0.820.13*** 0.830.12*** 0.710.10*** 0.740.11*** 0.790.12*** 0.830.14*** 0.870.13*** 0.830.14*** 0.85

o-tailed test).


Appendix B. Measurement model evaluation (environmentalmanagement).

Scale items Weight Loadings(item reliability) (l)



ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (second order, formative) n.a. n.a.Operational systems (reflective) 0.93 0.781. Environmental training courses are offered for all CEOs and area managers 0.30*** 0.922. Environmental training are offered to all employees 0.28*** 0.923. Environmental issues are taken into account when offering the various services available

at the establishment0.29*** 0.84

4. The environmental record of suppliers is assessed 0.28*** 0.85Information systems (reflective) 0.95 0.831. Environmental information/data are periodically reviewed and updated 0.27*** 0.922. Environmental communication is fostered between the staff and the managers at the

establishment0.31*** 0.91

3. An environmental report is prepared in order to disseminate the environmental activitiescarried out by the establishment

0.25*** 0.92

4. Financial and operational indicators are used in order to measure and inform on theestablishment's environmental impact and its costs

0.27*** 0.91

Strategic systems (reflective) 0.95 0.761. The policy of the establishment and its environmental strategy are formally communicated

to all its employees0.19*** 0.87

2. Procedures are defined and documented for all activities, products and processeswhich have, or may have if not controlled, a direct or indirect, significant impact on theenvironment

0.19*** 0.91

3. There is an assessment of the results obtained by employees related to environmentalimpact reduction

0.18*** 0.88

4. The necessary resources are provided in order to carry out environmental improvementsin the establishment

0.20*** 0.88

5. Customers' complaints and suggestions are assessed in order to improve environmentalpractices

0.19*** 0.82

6. Indicators are developed in order to gauge the customers' degree of satisfaction withenvironmental practices

0.19*** 0.87

Technical systems (reflective) 0.91 0.621. Low environmental impacts products are chosen 0.23*** 0.762. A suitable disposal/treatment/storage of waste is performed 0.20*** 0.793. Practices are implemented in order to reduce water consumption 0.22*** 0.824. Techniques are used to reduce energy consumption 0.21*** 0.805. Practices are implemented towards lower resource intensity 0.22*** 0.816. Product re-use/recycling is encouraged 0.20*** 0.74ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE (first order, reflective) 0.95 0.671. Lower water consumption 0.13*** 0.792. Lower energy consumption 0.12*** 0.813. Lower use of non-renewable resources 0.14*** 0.844. Lower use of toxic materials 0.12*** 0.845. Less solid waste 0.13*** 0.856. Fewer discharges 0.13*** 0.897. Fewer emissions 0.13*** 0.868. Noise abatement 0.12*** 0.799. Less damage to landscape 0.11*** 0.7410. Lower risk of serious accidents 0.11*** 0.74

***p � 0.001, **0.001 < p � 0.01, *0.01 < p � 0.05, y0.05 < p � 0.10 (based on t(499), two-tailed test).t(0.001; 499) ¼ ±3.31; t(0.01; 499) ¼ ±2.56; t(0.05; 499) ¼ ±1.96; t(0.10: 499) ¼ ±1.65.


Appendix C. Measurement model evaluation (competitiveadvantage).

Scale items Weight Loadings(item reliability) (l)



COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGEDifferentiation competitive advantage (reflective) 0.90 0.691. Creation of a brand image identifying the firm 0.25*** 0.752. The quality of the service offered is better than that offered by competitors 0.33*** 0.853. A great number of supplementary services is offered, adding value for customers 0.29*** 0.854. Important innovations are made in the service 0.33*** 0.86Costs competitive advantage (reflective) 0.87 0.701. General costs are minimized 0.35*** 0.832. An attempt is made to improve productivity 0.47*** 0.893. Efforts are made to reach economies of scale, i.e. high occupancy rates

in order to obtain the maximum performance from hotel size0.37*** 0.78

***p � 0.001, **0.001 < p � 0.01, *0.01 < p � 0.05, y0.05 < p � 0.10 (based on t(499), two-tailed test).t(0.001; 499) ¼ ±3.31; t(0.01; 499) ¼ ±2.56; t(0.05; 499) ¼ ±1.96; t(0.10: 499) ¼ ±1.65.

Appendix D. Measurement model evaluation (Second orderformative constructs).

Scale items Weight Loadings (item reliability) (l) Composite reliability (rc) Average variance extracted (AVE)

QUALITY MANAGEMENT (second order, formative) 0.94 0.78Operational systems (reflective) 0.27** 0.89Information systems (reflective) 0.22y 0.90Strategic systems (reflective) 0.57*** 0.96Technical systems (reflective) 0.02 0.78ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (second order, formative) 0.91 0.72Operational systems (reflective) 0.07 0.81Information systems (reflective) 0.17 0.80Strategic systems (reflective) 0.26** 0.85Technical systems (reflective) 0.64*** 0.93

***p � 0.001, ** 0.001 < p � 0.01, *0.01 < p � 0.05, y0.05 < p � 0.10 (based on t(499), two-tailed test).t(0.001; 499) ¼ ±3.31; t(0.01; 499) ¼ ±2.56; t(0.05; 499) ¼ ±1.96; t(0.10: 499) ¼ ±1.65.Note: “When an indicator's weight is not significant but the corresponding item loading is relatively high (i.e., >0.50), the indicator should generally be retained” (Hair, Hult,Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2014, p. 132), because dropping a formative indicator implies dropping a part of the composite latent construct (Roberts & Thatcher, 2009; Rold�an &S�anchez-Franco, 2010). This fact could be due to nomological network effects that could differ depending on the context and the sample (Cenfetelli & Bassellier, 2009).

References

Al-Tuwaijri, S., Christensen, T., & Hughes, K. (2004). The relations among environ-mental disclosure, environmental performance, and economic performance: asimultaneous equations approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29,447e471.

Albacete-S�aez, C. A., Fuentes-Fuentes, M. M., & Llor�ens-Montes, F. J. (2007). Servicequality measurement in rural accommodation. Annals of Tourism Research, 34,45e65.

Alonso-Almeida, M. M., Rodríguez-Ant�on, J. M., & Rubio-Andrada, L. (2012). Reasonsfor implementing certified quality systems and impact on performance: ananalysis of the hotel industry. The Service Industries Journal, 32, 919e936.

Anderson, J. C., Rungtusanatham, M., Schroeder, R. G., & Devaraj, S. (1995). A pathanalytic model of a theory of quality management underlying the Demingmanagement method: preliminary empirical findings. Decision Sciences, 26,637e658.

Arag�on-Correa, J. A. (1998). Strategic proactivity and firm approach to the naturalenvironment. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 556e567.

Arasli, H. (2002). Gearing total quality into small-and medium-sized hotels in NorthCyprus. Journal of Small Business Management, 40(4), 350e359.

Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating non-response bias in mail sur-veys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 396e402.

Baird, K., Kristal, J. H., & Reeve, R. (2011). The relationship between organiza-tional culture, total quality management practices and operational perfor-mance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 31(7),789e814.

Baldacchino, G. (1995). Total quality management in a luxury hotel: a critique ofpractice. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 14(1), 67e78.

Beal, R. M. (2000). Competing effectively: environmental scanning, competitivestrategy, and organizational performance in small manufacturing firms. Journalof Small Business Management, 38(1), 27e47.

Belohlav, J. A. (1993). Developing the quality organization. Quality Progress, October,119e122.

Birdir, K., & Pearson, T. (1998). Hospitality certification: experiences in North-America. International implications. International Journal of ContemporaryHospitality Management, 10, 116e121.

Blanco, E., Rey-Maquieira, J., & Lozano, J. (2009). Economic incentives for tourismfirms to undertake voluntary environmental management. Tourism Manage-ment, 30, 112e122.

Boje, D. M., & Winsor, R. D. (1993). The resurrection of Taylorism: total qualitymanagement's hidden agenda. Journal of Organizational Change Management,6(4), 57e70.

Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2008). Does it pay to be different? An analysis of therelationship between corporate social and financial performance. StrategicManagement Journal, 29, 1325e1343.

Breiter, D., & Bloomquist, P. (1998). TQM in American hotels. Cornell and RestaurantAdministration Quarterly, 39(1), 26e33.

Briggs, S., Sutherland, J., & Drummond, S. (2007). Are hotels serving quality? Anexploratory study of service quality in the Scottish hotel sector. Tourism Man-agement, 28, 1006e1019.

del Brío, J. A., Fern�andez, E., & Junquera, B. (2002). The role of the public admin-istrations in the promotion of the environmental activity in Spanish industrialcompanies. Ecological Economics, 40, 279e294.

Callan, R. J. (1992). Quality control at Avant Hotels: the debut of BS 5750. The ServiceIndustries Journal, 12, 17e33.

Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Sage Uni-versity paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences. N. 07e017.Beberly Hills (CA): Sage.

Carmona-Moreno, E., C�espedes-Lorente, J., & de Burgos-Jim�enez, J. (2004). Envi-ronmental strategies in Spanish hotels: contextual factors and performance. TheService Industries Journal, 24, 101e130.

Cenfetelli, R. T., & Bassellier, G. (2009). Interpretation of formative measurement ininformation systems research. MIS Quarterly, 33, 689e707.

Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equationmodeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chin,W.W.,&Frye, T. (2003).PLS-graph. Version3.00 (Build1017). UniversityofHouston.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(15)00011-4/sref1
































































































Chow-Chua, C., Goh, M., & Wan, T. B. (2003). Does ISO 9000 certification improvebusiness performance? International Journal of Quality & Reliability Manage-ment, 20, 936e953.

Claver-Cort�es, E., Molina-Azorín, J. F., Pereira-Moliner, J., & L�opez-Gamero, M. D.(2007). Environmental strategies and their impact on hotel performance.Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(6), 663e679.

Claver-Cort�es, E., Pereira-Moliner, J., Tarí, J. J., & Molina-Azorín, J. F. (2008). TQM,managerial factors and performance in the Spanish hotel industry. IndustrialManagement & Data Systems, 108(2), 228e244.

Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methodsresearch. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Curkovic, S. (2003). Environmentally responsible manufacturing: the developmentand validation of a measurement model. European Journal of OperationalResearch, 146, 130e155.

Curkovic, S., Melnyk, S., Handfield, R., & Calantone, R. (2000). Investigating thelinkage between total quality management and environmentally responsiblemanufacturing. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 47, 444e464.

Darnall, N., & Edwards, D. (2006). Predicting the cost of environmental manage-ment system adoption: the role of capabilities, resources and ownershipstructure. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 301e320.

Deming, W. E. (1982). Quality, productivity and competitive position. Cambridge, MA:MIT Center for Advanced Engineering.

Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. (2001). Index construction with formativeindicator. An alternative to scale development. International Marketing Review,37(2), 269e277.

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: con-cepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65e91.

Easton, G. S., & Jarrell, S. L. (1998). The effects of total qualitymanagementon corporateperformance: an empirical investigation. Journal of Business, 71, 253e307.

Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: winewin business strate-gies for sustainable development. California Management Review, 36(2), 90e100.

Flynn, B. B., Schroeder, R. G., & Sakakibara, S. (1995). The impact of quality man-agement practices on performance and competitive advantage. Decision Sci-ences, 26, 659e691.

Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. L. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLSapplied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4),440e452.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models in unob-servable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18,39e50.

Fotopoulos, C. V., & Psomas, E. L. (2010). The structural relationships between TQMfactors and organizational performance. The TQM Journal, 22(5), 539e552.

Gonz�alez-Benito, J., & Gonz�alez-Benito, O. (2005). Environmental proactivity andbusiness performance: an empirical analysis. Omega, 33, 1e15.

Goodman, A. (2000). Implementing sustainability in service operations at Scandichotels. Interfaces, 30, 202e214.

Govindarajan, V. (1988). A contingency approach to strategy implementation at thebusiness-unit level: integrating administrative mechanisms with strategy.Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 828e853.

Hair, J. F., Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial leastsquares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). SAGE Publications.

Harrington, D., & Keating, M. (2006). Quality management initiatives in Irish hotels-emerging agendas in a changing environment. Tourism and Hospitality Research,6(4), 267e283.

Hart, S. (1997). Beyond greening: strategies for a sustainable world. Harvard Busi-ness Review, 75(1), 66e76.

H€aversj€o, T. (2000). The financial effects of ISO 9000 registration for Danish com-panies. Managerial Auditing Journal, 15, 47e52.

Heras, I., Dick, G. P. M., & Casadesús, M. (2002). ISO 9000 registration's impact onsales and profitability: a longitudinal analysis of performance before and afteraccreditation. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 19(6),774e791.

Hull, C., & Rothenberg, S. (2008). Firm performance: the interactions of corporatesocial performance with innovation and industry differentiation. StrategicManagement Journal, 29, 781e789.

Inoue, Y., & Lee, S. (2011). Effects of different dimensions of corporate social re-sponsibility on corporate financial performance in tourism-related industries.Tourism Management, 32, 790e804.

Jacobs, B. W., Singhal, V. R., & Subramanian, R. (2010). An empirical investigation ofenvironmental performance and the market value of the firm. Journal of Op-erations Management, 28, 430e441.

Jaffe, A., Peterson, S., Portney, P., & Stavins, R. (1995). Environmental regulation andthe competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing: what does the evidence tell us?Journal of Economic Literature, 33, 132e163.

Karapetrovic, S., & Willborn, W. (1998). Integration of quality and environmentalmanagement systems. The TQM Magazine, 10(3), 204e213.

Kassinis, G. I., & Soteriou, A. C. (2005). Greening service organizations: environ-mental management practices and performance. In S. Sharma, & J. A. Arag�on-Correa (Eds.), Corporate environmental strategy and competitive advantage (pp.115e138). Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Klassen, R., & McLaughlin, C. (1993). TQM and environmental excellence inmanufacturing. Industrial Management & Data System, 93(6), 14e22.

Klassen, R., & McLaughlin, C. (1996). The impact of environmental management onfirm performance. Management Science, 42, 1199e1214.

Klefsj€o, B., Bergquist, B., & Garvare, R. (2008). Quality management and businessexcellence, customers and stakeholders. The TQM Journal, 20, 120e129.

Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L., & Muller, K. E. (1988). Applied regression analysis andother multivariate analysis methods. Boston: PWS-Kent Publishing Company.

Kleiner, A. (1991). What does it mean to be green? Harvard Business Review, 69(4),38e47.

Ladhari, R. (2012). The lodging quality index: an independent assessment of validityand dimensions. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,24, 628e652.

Lai, K.-h., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2003). Initiatives and outcomes of quality managementimplementation across industries. Omega, 31, 141e154.

Lee, J., & Miller, D. (1996). Strategy, environment and performance in two techno-logical contexts: contingency theory in Korea. Organization Studies, 17(5),729e750.

Lee, P. K. C., To, W. M., & Yu, B. T. W. (2009). The implementation and performanceoutcomes of ISO 9000 in service organizations: an empirical taxonomy. Inter-national Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 26, 646e662.

Leonidou, L. C., Leonidou, C. N., Fotiadis, T. A., & Zeriti, A. (2013). Resources andcapabilities as drivers of hotel environmental marketing strategy: implicationsfor competitive advantage and performance. Tourism Management, 35, 94e110.

Link, S., & Naveh, E. (2006). Standardization and discretion: does the environmentalstandard ISO 14001 lead to performance benefits? IEEE Transactions on Engi-neering Management, 53, 508e519.

L�opez-Gamero, M. D., Claver-Cort�es, E., & Molina-Azorín, J. F. (2008). Complemen-tary resources and capabilities for an ethical and environmental management: aqual/quan study. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 701e732.

L�opez-Gamero, M. D., Claver-Cort�es, E., & Molina-Azorín, J. F. (2011). Environmentalperception, management, and competitive opportunity in Spanish hotels. Cor-nell Hospitality Quarterly, 52(4), 480e500.

L�opez-Gamero, M. D., Molina-Azorín, J. F., & Claver-Cort�es, E. (2011). The relation-ship between managers' environmental perceptions, environmental manage-ment and firm performance in Spanish hotels: a whole framework. InternationalJournal of Tourism Research, 13, 141e163.

Lo, D. K. Y., Wiengarten, F., Humphreys, P., Yeung, A. C. L., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2013).The impact of contextual factors on the efficacy of ISO 9000 adoption. Journal ofOperations Management, 31, 229e235.

Lo, C. K. Y., Yeung, A. C. L., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2011). Meta-standards, financial per-formance and senior executive compensation in China: an institutionalperspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 129, 119e126.

Mak, B. L. M. (2011). ISO certification in the tour operator sector. InternationalJournal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23, 115e130.

Martínez-Costa, M., Choi, T. Y., Marínez, J. A., & Martínez-Lorente, A. R. (2009). ISO9000/1994, ISO 9001/2000 and TQM: the performance debate revisited. Journalof Operations Management, 27, 495e511.

Melnyk, S., Sroufe, R., & Calantone, R. (2003). Assessing the impact of environmentalmanagement systems on corporate and environmental performance. Journal ofOperations Management, 21, 329e351.

Menguc, B., Auh, S., & Ozanne, L. (2010). The interactive effect of internal andexternal factors on a proactive environmental strategy and its influence on afirm's performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 279e298.

Miles, M., & Covin, J. (2000). Environmental marketing: a source of reputational,competitive and financial advantage. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(3), 299e311.

Miller, D. (1988). Relating Porter's business strategies to environment and structure:analysis and performance implications. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2),280e308.

Mokhtar, M. Z., & Muda, M. S. (2012). Comparative study on performance measureand attributes between ISO and non-ISO certification companies. InternationalJournal of Business and Management, 7, 185e193.

Molina-Azorín, J. F., Claver-Cort�es, E., L�opez-Gamero, M. D., & Tarí, J. J. (2009). Greenmanagement and financial performance: a literature review. Management De-cision, 47, 1080e1100.

Molina-Azorín, J. F., Claver-Cort�es, E., Pereira-Moliner, J., & Tarí, J. J. (2009). Envi-ronmental practices and firm performance: an empirical analysis in the Spanishhotel industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 516e524.

Molina-Azorín, J. F., Tarí, J., Claver-Cort�es, E., & L�opez-Gamero, M. D. (2009). Qualitymanagement, environmental management and firm performance: a review ofempirical studies and issues of integration. International Journal of ManagementReviews, 11(2), 197e222.

Nair, A. (2006). Meta-analysis of the relationship between quality managementpractices and firm performance-implications for quality management theorydevelopment. Journal of Operations Management, 24, 948e975.

Nield, K., & Kozak, M. (1999). Quality certification in the hospitality industry:analyzing the benefits of ISO 9000. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant AdministrationQuarterly, 40, 40e45.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research:problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531e544.

Podsakoff, M. P., Shen, W., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2006). The role of formative mea-surement models in strategic management research: review, critique, and im-plications for future research. Research Methodology in Strategy andManagement, 3, 197e252.

Poksinska, B., Dahlgaard, J., & Eklund, J. (2003). Implementing ISO 14000 in Swe-den: motives, benefits and comparisons with ISO 9000. International Journal ofQuality & Reliability Management, 20(5), 585e606.

Porter, M., & Van der Linde, C. (1995). Green and competitive: ending the stalemate.Harvard Business Review, 73, 120e134.






























































































































































































































































Powell, T. C. (1995). Total quality management as competitive advantage: a reviewand empirical study. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 15e37.

Prajogo, D. I. (2007). The relationship between competitive strategies and productquality. Industrial Management & Data System, 107(1), 69e83.

Prajogo, D. I., & Sohal, A. S. (2006). The relationship between organization strategy,total quality management (TQM), and organization performance e the medi-ating role of TQM. European Journal of Operational Research, 168, 35e50.

Rahman, S. (2001). A comparative study of TQM practice and organisational per-formance of SMEs with and without ISO 9000 certification. International Journalof Quality & Reliability Management, 18, 35e49.

Roberts, N., & Thatcher, J. B. (2009). Conceptualizing and testing formative con-structs: tutorial and annotated example. The DATA BASE for Advances in Infor-mation Systems, 40, 9e39.

Rold�an, J. L., & S�anchez-Franco, M. J. (2010). Variance-based structural equationmodeling: guidelines for using partial least squares in information systemsresearch. In M. Mora, O. Gelman, A. Steenkamp, & M. S. Raisinghani (Eds.),Research methodologies, innovations and philosophies in software systems engi-neering and information systems. Hersey (PA): Information Science Reference(Chapter 10).

Rubio-Andrada, L., Alonso-Almeida, M. M., & Rodríguez-Ant�on, J. (2011). Motiva-tions and impacts in the firm and stakeholders of quality certification: evidencefrom small- and medium-sized service enterprises. Total Quality Managementand Business Excellence, 22, 833e852.

Sarkis, J., Gonz�alez-Torre, P., & Alonso-Díaz, B. (2010). Stakeholder pressure and theadoption of environmental practices: the mediating effect of training. Journal ofOperations Management, 28, 163e176.

Segarra-O~na, M. V., Peir�o-Signes, A., Verma, R., & Miret-Pastor, L. (2012). Doesenvironmental certification help the economic performance of hotels? Evidencefrom the Spanish hotel industry. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 53(3), 242e256.

Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability.Academy of Management Review, 20, 936e960.

Sila, I. (2007). Examining the effects of contextual factors on TQM and performancethrough the lens of organizational theories: an empirical study. Journal of Op-erations Management, 25(1), 83e109.

Singels, J., Ru€el, G., & van de Water, H. (2001). ISO 9000 series certification andperformance. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 18(1),62e75.

Soriano, D. (1999). Total quality management: applying the European model toSpain's urban hotels. Cornell and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 40, 54e59.

Starik, M., & Marcus, A. (2000). Introduction to the special research forum on themanagement of organizations in the natural environment: a field emergingfrom multiple paths, with many challenges ahead. Academy of ManagementJournal, 43, 539e546.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behav-ioral research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Taylor, W., & Wright, G. (2003). A longitudinal study of TQM implementation:factors influencing success and failure. Omega, 31, 97e111.

Tsekouras, K., Dimara, E., & Skuras, D. (2002). Adoption of a quality assurancescheme and its effect on firm performance: a study of Greek firms imple-menting ISO 9000. Total Quality Management, 13, 827e841.

Tzelepis, D., Tsekouras, K., Skuras, D., & Dimara, E. (2006). The effects of ISO 9001 onfirms' productive efficiency. International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, 26(10), 1146e1165.

UNWTO (United Nations e World Tourism Organization). (2013). Tourism highlights(2013 ed.) http://dtxtq4w60xqpw.cloudfront.net/sites/all/files/pdf/unwto_highlights13_en_hr_0.pdf Retrieved, October, 1, 2013.

Very, P., Lubatkin, M., Calori, R., & Veiga, J. (1997). Relative standing and perfor-mance of recently acquired European firms. Strategic Management Journal, 18,593e614.

Viada-Stenger, M. C., Balbastre-Benavent, F., & Redondo-Cano, A. M. (2010). Theimplementation of a quality management system based on the Q tourist qualitystandard. The case of hotel sector. Service Business, 4, 177e196.

Wagner, M. (2009). Innovation and competitive advantages from the integration ofstrategic aspects with social and environmental management in Europeanfirms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18, 291e306.

Wagner, M., Van Phu, N., Azomahou, T., & Wehrmeyer, W. (2002). The relationshipbetween the environmental and economic performance of firms: an empiricalanalysis of the European paper industry. Corporate Social-Responsibility andEnvironmental Management, 9, 133e146.

Wahba, H. (2008). Does the market value corporate environmental responsibility?An empirical examination. Corporate Social Responsibility and EnvironmentalManagement, 15, 89e99.

Walley, N., & Whitehead, B. (1994). It's not easy being green. Harvard Business Re-view, 72, 46e52.

Wang, C.-H., Chen, K.-Y., & Chen, S.-C. (2012). Total quality management, marketorientation and hotel performance: the moderating effects of external envi-ronmental factors. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31, 119e129.

Werts, C. E., Linn, R. L., & J€oreskog, K. G. (1974). Interclass reliability estimates:testing structural assumptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34,25e33.

Wilkinson, G., & Dale, B. (1999). Integrated management systems: an examinationof the concept and theory. The TQM Magazine, 11, 95e104.

Zhang, D., Linderman, K., & Schroeder, R. G. (2012). The moderating role ofcontextual factors on quality management practices. Journal of OperationsManagement, 30, 12e23.

Zutshi, A., & Sohal, A. (2005). Stakeholder involvement in the EMS adoption process.Business Process Management Journal, 9(2), 133e148.

Dr. Jose F. Molina-Azorín, Associate Professor in BusinessManagement at the University of Alicante, Spain. Hisresearch focuses on strategic management and environ-mental management, specifically the determinants of firmperformance, the competitive effects of environmentalmanagement and the relationship between competitivestrategy and organizational design. His current researchinterests are also focused on mixed methods research.

Dr. Juan Jos�e Tarí, Associate Professor in Business Man-agement at the University of Alicante, Spain. His Ph. D.dissertation was an analysis of quality management. Hiscurrent research includes Total Quality Management andits relationship with social responsibility, environmentalmanagement and organization design.

Dr. Jorge Pereira-Moliner, Associate Professor in BusinessManagement at the University of Alicante, Spain. His Ph. D.dissertation was an analysis of strategic groups in the hotelindustry. His current research includes strategic manage-ment and strategic groups of the hotel industry, andquality and environmental management.

Dr. María D. L�opez-Gamero, Associate Professor in Busi-ness Management at the University of Alicante, Spain. HerPh. D. dissertation was an analysis of the relationship be-tween environmental management and firm performance.Her current research includes sustainable tourism, envi-ronmental management and its relationship with qualitymanagement and organizational design.

Dr. Eva Mª Pertusa-Ortega, Associate Professor in BusinessManagement at the University of Alicante, Spain. Her Ph.D. dissertation was an analysis of the relationship betweenorganizational design and competitiveness. His currentresearch includes organizational design and its relation-ship with environmental and quality management.



















































































http://dtxtq4w60xqpw.cloudfront.net/sites/all/files/pdf/unwto_highlights13_en_hr_0.pdf

http://dtxtq4w60xqpw.cloudfront.net/sites/all/files/pdf/unwto_highlights13_en_hr_0.pdf












































the effects of quality and environmental management

Documents