Safe an article (electronic) on sustainability within the financials as

Cornell Hospitality Quarterly XX(X) 1 –12 © The Creator(s) 2013 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1938965513505700 cqx.sagepub.com

Article

Even supposing the triple base line (i.e., profits, americans, and planet) has become a in type framework for discussions of hospitality corporations’ success, the actual fact remains that the foremost factor in a agency’s stance towards socially responsible actions is the profit fragment of the triple base line, that is, eco- nomics. Whereas corporations are encouraged to invest resources in socially responsible initiatives by customers and other stakeholders, there is limited empirical proof that such investments indeed consequence in profitability or give a enhance to agency cost (Orlitzky, Schmidt, and Rynes 2003). No topic what appears to be a tenuous link between a agency’s environmental performance and its financial performance, quite quite loads of corporations are investing in initiatives that contain recycling, pollution prevention, and reduction of waste. The corporations then commu- nicate their initiatives to stakeholders, including investors, customers, media, and regulatory authorities on the expec- tation that this would possibly well presumably also attend keep loyalty, maintain reputa- tion, and proactively cease laborious law (Chicken et al. 2007; Miles, Covin, and Heeley 2000).

Stories of the interaction of economic prerequisites and social and environmental programs possess indicated that corporations on the total cut abet on company social accountability (CSR)1 programs when economic prerequisites are unfavor- able. Lee, Singal, and Kim (2013) stumbled on this to be moral of hospitality corporations that, to illustrate, curtail their nonopera- tional CSR initiatives (e.g., atmosphere and community

programs), though they proceed to invest in operations- related programs, honest like product quality and employee household. On the other hand, I indubitably possess viewed minute research that explains the connection between a person agency’s financial per- formance and its funding in sustainable initiatives (Myung, McClaren, and Li 2012). This gap is essential to fill attributable to corporations on the total face sharp prerequisites which will tempt them to focal point on short-timeframe tactics whereas cutting down on lengthy-timeframe sustainability initiatives, that would possibly well presumably also at last consequence in lack of customer and employee loyalty, and standing, thus eroding sustained competitive advan- tage. Subsequently, listed here, I spy to reply to the notice- ing question: Does agency financial performance influence funding in sustainability initiatives? To handle this mat- ter, I examine the stage of environmental investments made by corporations within the hospitality commerce with that of corporations in other industries. More critically, I take a look at the influence of envi- ronmental funding on agency financial performance to

505700 CQXXXX10.1177/1938965513505700Cornell Hospitality QuarterlySingal research-article2013

1Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, USA

Corresponding Creator: Manisha Singal, Pamplin College of Enterprise, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 362 Wallace Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0489, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

The Link between Firm Monetary Performance and Investment in Sustainability Initiatives

Manisha Singal1

Summary Whereas sustainability initiatives by corporations are more and more encouraged by customers, investors, and the manager, the economics of sustainable decisions remains in question. The watch described on this paper examines the link between sustainability and economic performance for the hospitality commerce, as when put next with other agencies. The usage of files spanning 1991 through 2011 from MSCI’s Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Indices and credit rankings from Long-established and Depressed’s representing 16,325 agency-years, the diagnosis finds that hospitality corporations on life like invest more in environmental programs than produce agencies in other industries; that hospitality corporations possess tremendously fewer environmental considerations; that sturdy financial performance outcomes in elevated investments; and that going inexperienced, in turn, pays off in future periods, making a virtuous cycle. One implication is that hospitality corporations must scramble forward confidently in organising their sustainability programs, because it appears that customers make stronger the recount financially.

Key phrases environmental considerations, company finance, hospitality and tourism commerce, competitive approach, approach system and approach implementation.

at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV on June 12, 2016cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

2 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly XX(X)

overview whether or no longer socially responsible behavior towards the atmosphere pays off financially.

To summarize the findings, constant with an files keep of 16,325 agency-years overlaying the duration from 1991 through 2011, I salvage that hospitality and tourism corporations rating bigger on environmental performance than their nonhospitality and tourism chums, and that funding in environmental mea- sures varies straight with financial performance. Most essential, I salvage that superior environmental performance improves future financial performance on this sample, sup- porting the associated fee of greening initiatives.

This paper contributes to the literature in 3 ideas. First, it compares investments made by corporations within the hospi- tality commerce with those of different corporations, thus adding to the sustainability literature both within the services sector on the total and the hospitality sector specifically (Singal 2012). Second, the watch applies a hitherto unexamined variable, financial performance as measured by credit rankings, in explaining differential funding in sustainability initia- tives, whereas most experiences possess examined managerial motives and personal proclivities as explanations of corpo- fee greening programs (Ayuso 2006; Tzschentke, Kirk, and Lynch 2008). Eventually, this watch establishes a principal link between CSR and financial performance by demon- strating that funding in atmosphere management (which consists of loads of measures) affects agency financial performance—a link that has previously shown mixed outcomes.

Idea Pattern

Hospitality and Tourism Enterprise and Investment in Environmental Initiatives

The involvement of stakeholders is in particular essential to the success of hospitality and tourism commerce sustainabil- ity initiatives for no less than two causes. First, the hospitality sector has a noteworthy environmental footprint, and it furthermore sees opportunities for lowering this footprint through sus- tainability programs, that are encouraged by commerce associations honest just like the American Hotel and Lodging Affiliation’s Green Resource Heart, the National Restaurant Affiliation’s Conserve initiative, and the World Sustainable Tourism Council. Moreover, lowering environmental influence offers corporations a competitive advantage, given customers’ demands for sustainability. Research has established the willingness of some customers to pay more to cease at inexperienced hotels or eat at inexperienced eating locations. Choi et al. (2009), to illustrate, reported that customers in Greece and the USA were attractive to pay bigger prices to patronize hotels with environmentally pleasant insurance policies and some hotels possess tested bigger prices for inexperienced initiatives (Choi and Parsa 2007). In other experiences, inexperienced hotels with sustainable practices attracted sure phrase-of-mouth

intentions, bigger willingness to pay, and bigger return intentions (Kang et al. 2012; Millar and Baloglu 2011). Identical outcomes were stumbled on by Hu, Parsa, and Self (2010), Schubert et al. (2010), and Namkung and Jang (2013) for inexperienced eating locations. In a stare by the National Restaurant Affiliation, it used to be stumbled on that 60 percent of customers would need to patronize a inexperienced restaurant, and 51 percent would pay a median of 10 percent more at a cafe that adopts inexperienced practices.

Whereas sustainability initiatives would possibly well presumably also seem more neces- sary in industries the build pollution is once in a while visible, worship oil refining, mining, or chemical manufacturing, hospitality operations on the total contain the make stronger of a gigantic spectrum of physical parts and reliance on pure resources (Sloan, Legrand, and Chen 2013). Sloan, Legrand, and Chen (2013) mentioned, to illustrate, that the U.S. Environmental Safety Company calculates that a one-evening cease in a hotel room generates a median of 29.fifty three kg of CO

2 . Moreover, a

stare of twenty-eight InterContinental Hotel properties in 2007 ended in an extrapolated estimate that, at 59 kg per evening, the typical hotel room’s carbon footprint is roughly equal to that of the typical U.S. dwelling.

Since the hospitality and tourism commerce requires shut contact with customers who abilities the provider, the commerce’s corporations wishes to be more responsive to demands of more than one stakeholders worship shareholders, regulators, home and global travelers, and company possibilities. As services in hospitality are coproduced and on the same time as consumed, and quality of provider is perceived constant with the spillover cease of company standing and funding in customer salient considerations, I posit that hospitality corporations will invest more in sustainability initiatives than nonhospitality corporations. Thus,

Hypothesis 1: Companies within the hospitality sector will invest more in sustainability initiatives than corporations within the non- hospitality sectors.

Monetary Performance and Investment in Sustainable Initiatives

Among the motives for organizational funding in sus- tainable initiatives are standing, customer and employee loyalty, and self-law (Hart 1995; Turban and Greening 1997). On the other hand, the forces governing the timing of such investments are undecided. Macroeconomic condi- tions clearly possess an cease (Lee, Singal and Kang 2013), and a agency’s obtain financial situation and organizational slack can furthermore possess a particular correlation with sustainability investments (Bowen 2002; Tuzzolino and Armanndi 1981). Monetary performance, resource ranges, and managerial interpretations of munificence possess ended in elevated invest- ment in environmental initiatives (McGuire, Sundgren, and Schneeweis 1988; Seifert, Morris, and Bartkus 2004; Sharma 2000).

at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV on June 12, 2016cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Singal 3

All over the hospitality commerce, organizational perfor- mance, which contributes to slack resources and obtain financial situation, is furthermore more seemingly to influence agency invest- ment in environmental initiatives. Green initiatives require upfront funding that corporations with honest financial perfor- mance are more more seemingly to possess in mind adopting than corporations in financial damage. Garay and Font (2012), to illustrate, stumbled on that for corporations within the hospitality and tourism commerce, financial slack is a principal determinant of funding in CSR. Subsequently, I inquire of that hospitality corporations with bigger financial performance will seemingly invest more in sustainabil- ity programs.

Shopper attitudes are furthermore a driver of the hospitality and tourism commerce’s environmental funding. In a Deloitte stare of more than 1,000 commercial travelers (Weissenberg, Redington, and Kutyla 2008), 95 percent of respondents thought that lodging corporations wishes to be enterprise inexperienced initiatives. Similarly, the 2012 Canadian Shuttle Intentions Glimpse stumbled on that 42 percent of industrial travelers surveyed mentioned that practices worship recycling and energy effectivity topic to them when deciding on the build to cease, a settle that had elevated by 5 percentage aspects from the prior year.

Thus, I inquire of that given a identical stage of economic per- formance, corporations within the hospitality and tourism sector will invest more in sustainability measures than their nonhospi- tality chums, as summarized within the next hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2a: Monetary performance will influence invest- ment in sustainability initiatives in all corporations. Hypothesis 2b: Bigger financial performance will consequence in bigger funding in sustainability initiatives within the hos- pitality sector. Hypothesis 2c: Managed for financial performance, corporations within the hospitality sector will invest more in sustainability initiatives than corporations within the nonhospitality sector.

Impact of Environmental Sustainability Initiatives on Monetary Performance

Scholars in both strategic management and hospitality lit- erature possess examined the influence of environmental initia- tives on agency performance and financial performance, but the consequences are mixed. As an illustration, utilizing a tall sample of corporations, Berman et al. (1999) failed to salvage any principal cease of environmental components on agency performance, though they did salvage a particular correlation between employee and product safety components with agency performance. Also relying on a notorious-commerce sample of corporations, Chicken et al. (2007) stumbled on that there is a battle between environmental strengths and stock trace performance though the market seems to be to cost corporations that meet minimal environmental stan- dards. Similarly, a meta-diagnosis of company social respon- sibility and company social performance performed by

Orlitzky, Schmidt, and Rynes (2003) stumbled on that environ- psychological accountability pays off only weakly in agency perfor- mance, and Hillman and Keim (2001) reported that stakeholder management ended in improved shareholder cost, whereas social danger participation used to be negatively asso- ciated with shareholder cost.

In incompatibility, other experiences possess stumbled on a particular link between environmental performance and economic perfor- mance, with commerce enhance moderating the connection (Russo and Fouts 1997); havesuggested that the market rewards ecoefficiency, though environmental files is integrated with a scramble, and valuation will enhance over time (Guenster et al. 2011); and possess concluded that pollu- tion prevention, in preference to pollution medication, helps per- formance (King and Lenox 2002). An difficult meta-diagnosis of the moderators that outline the company atmosphere–financial performance relationship stumbled on that smaller corporations merit more than bigger corporations, U.S.-primarily based corporations merit more than global corporations, and that market measures of performance react most to environmental investments (Dixon-Fowler et al. 2013).

Hospitality commerce outcomes are likewise diversified. Stories of Spain’s hotels possess shown a particular link between socioenvironmental accountability and agency performance (Rodriguez and Cruz 2007) and between income genera- tion and environmental certification (Segarra-Oña et al. 2012). Whereas studying the dedication to ranges of quality jointly with atmosphere management, Tari et al. (2010) stumbled on that both initiatives influenced hotel performance. On the other hand, Claver-Cortes et al. (2007) failed to salvage a link between environmental proactivity and organizational per- formance. Similarly, Park and Lee (2009) and Lee and Park (2009) reported that financial rewards for social accountability benefitted U.S. hotels, whereas casinos and res- taurants failed to abilities a sure merit.

Even supposing some students possess attributed the mixed findings within the hospitality sector to utilizing diverse measures (Zhang, Joglekar, and Verma 2012), a literature overview of thirty-two quantitative experiences on the link between environmental perfor- mance and financial performance (Molina-Azorín et al. 2009) and the meta-diagnosis by Dixon-Fowler et al. (2013) con- cluded that experiences reporting a particular link dominate.

For these causes, I propose the next:

Hypothesis 3: There will be a particular link between funding in environmental initiatives and financial performance, especially within the hospitality sector.

Means

Sample and Sources of Data

Data approach from three foremost sources. The first files keep, MSCI’s Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG)

at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV on June 12, 2016cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

4 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly XX(X)

Indices (furthermore acknowledged as the KLD database), is an annual files keep originated in 1991 with ESG performance infor- mation, which is passe to overview funding in environ- psychological company social accountability.2 The ESG database has been widely passe and validated for studying cor- porate social performance (Agle, Mitchell and Sonnenfeld 1999; Hillman and Keim 2001; Mattingly and Berman 2006; Waddock and Graves 1997). The other two files sets are licensed within the finance and accounting literatures: his- torical and most in type credit rankings of corporations from Long-established and Depressed’s (S&P) Compustat and stock returns and market capitalization from Heart for Research in Security Costs (CRSP) on the University of Chicago.

The intersection of ESG files and S&P credit rankings files generates a total sample of 16,325 agency-years of which 624 agency-years expose to the hospitality and tourism sector. To establish hospitality and tourism corporations, we match the corporations within the ESG rankings sample with a sample of hospitality and tourism corporations that traded on any U.S. commerce between 1980 and 2011.3 Within the regression diagnosis, hospitality and tourism corporations are identified with a hospitality and tourism dummy keep to 1.

Variables and Methods

Environmental CSR variables are constructed from 1991 through 2011 utilizing two forms of indicators: energy indica- tors honest like pollution prevention, recycling, and waste man- agement programs, and considerations indicators honest like gaps in regulatory compliance, severity of controversies related to land yell, and biodiversity. Every ESG indicator is a binary variable, which is determined to 1 if the agency meets the components for that indicator, and nil otherwise. Subsequently, bigger rankings on energy environmental indicators imply stronger environ- psychological performance, whereas bigger rankings on danger indicators denote poorer performance. Following estab- lished notice, I sum every category of indicators to approach at composite review of strengths (EnvStr) and considerations (EnvCon; Bartkus and Glassman 2008; Berrone, Surroca, and Tribó 2007; Hillman and Keim 2001; Ruf, Muralidhar, and Paul 1998). Such composites were successfully passe in other experiences (Chicken et al. 2007; Dyer and Whetten 2006). As well to, I compute an overall environmental CSR composite (EnvAll) as the ratio of the 2 composites:

EnvAll = ( )

( )

1

1

+ + EnvStr

EnvCon .4

Monetary performance is measured by historical lengthy- timeframe issuer rankings assigned to a agency by S&P.5 Waft vari- ables honest like stock returns, return on resources, sales enhance, and return on equity suffer from their transitory nature in measuring the influence of CSR on financial performance except there is a foremost commerce in CSR all over the duration below observation (Gregory and Whittaker 2013). If corporations continuously possess excessive CSR, to illustrate, scramble variables would screen no commerce, and it’d be sharp to expose

CSR to financial performance. Most stock variables (mea- sured at a degree in time) rely drastically on accounting num- bers honest like Tobin’s Q, which is self-discipline to accounting coverage decisions, or must be benchmarked to an accounting amount honest like market-to-book cost in preference to only market capitalization. I which capability that reality selected credit standing because it’s an even bigger measure of agency performance than other measures. Kisgen (2006, 1038-39) states, to illustrate: “Credit rating rankings would possibly well presumably also present files on the everyday of a agency previous other publicly on hand files. Rating companies would possibly well presumably also receive principal firm files that is no longer public . . . and thereby present more legit measures of a agency’s credit- worthiness.” The connection between equity performance measures and credit rankings is evidenced by the reaction of stock prices to rating changes, which Hand, Holthausen, and Leftwich (1992) and Holthausen and Leftwich (1986) stumbled on to straight influence both bond and stock prices. Credit rating rankings are furthermore without considerations similar across rather a few corporations and present remark files about financial slack on hand for discretionary investments.

The sample’s S&P rating ranges from AAA, which I give a numerical cost of 25, to D, which I establish a price of 1. Following licensed commerce notice, rankings are further partitioned into funding grade (InvGrade), which has a dummy cost of 1 for rankings at or above BBB− and nonin- vestment grade, constant with rankings at or below BB+.

Management and other variables. With credit standing as the measure of a agency’s financial situation, this diagnosis does no longer need variables controlling for leverage, threat, and other components supposed to measure the financial situation of a agency. In addition, attributable to the foremost diagnosis is anxious with corporations within the hospitality and tourism commerce, commerce-explicit control variables are redundant. Within the tip, the 2 most relevant control variables are size of the agency, that would possibly well presumably also influence credit standing and funding in environmental initia- tives, and stock performance, a scramble measure of agency per- formance. In consequence, size and stock performance are included in regressions as control variables. Size is mea- sured utilizing the log of market capitalization (LogSize) on the cease of the old year following Graves and Waddock (1999),6 and performance is measured by stock return.

As well to, to isolate the cease of economic performance on environmental initiatives within the hospitality commerce, I yell an interaction timeframe Hospitality and tourism agency dummy with the funding grade dummy. The usage of unbalanced panel files from the sources described earlier, I performed t assessments and multivariate regression diagnosis to overview the three hypotheses proposed here.

Results

The abstract statistics and correlation matrix reported in Present off 1 are on the total constant with the hypotheses. The excessive sure correlation between environmental CSR and

at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV on June 12, 2016cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Singal 5

Present off 1: Summary Statistics and Correlations.

Variable N M Median SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Hospitality and tourism dummy (1) 16,325 0.04 0.00 0.19 1.00** EnvAll (2) 16,325 1.07 1.00 0.63 0.04** 1.00** EnvStr (3) 16,325 0.33 0.00 0.75 −0.02 0.69** 1.00** EnvCon (4) 16,325 0.Forty five 0.00 0.91 −0.08** −0.40** 0.26** 1.00** LogSize (5) 16,089 8.12 8.04 1.46 −0.05** 0.10** 0.28** 0.25** 1.00** StockReturn (6) 16,058 0.16 0.11 0.63 0.01 −0.02* −0.03* −0.01* −0.18** 1.00** InvGrade (7) 16,171 0.66 1.00 0.47 −0.12** 0.05** 0.15** 0.13** 0.52** −0.06** 1.00** Rating (8) 16,171 15.75 16.00 3.fifty three −0.13** 0.06** 0.16** 0.13** 0.64** −0.06** 0.81** 1.00**

Present off: N is reported in agency-years; size is the log of market capitalization in millions of bucks. *p < .05. **p < .01.

credit rankings shows that CSR is more seemingly to be more prevalent in corporations which possess bigger financial performance. The corre- lations furthermore screen that the hospitality and tourism corporations in this sample are smaller and possess lower credit rankings and lower funding grades than the corporations in other industries. In spite of their smaller size, I look from Column 1 within the screen that hospitality and tourism corporations are positively cor- related with the total environmental CSR, EnvAll. This discovering is in accordance with Hypothesis 1 and suggests that hospitality and tourism corporations possess bigger funding in the atmosphere than corporations in other industries. Hospitality and tourism corporations possess a minute bit lower strengths (EnvStr) than other corporations but tremendously lower environmental con- cerns (EnvCon) than the other corporations.

Hospitality and tourism corporations’ comparative effective- ness at environmental CSR is underscored by the files in Present off 2, which contains outcomes related to Hypotheses 1 and a pair of.7 Again constant with Hypothesis 1, Panel A1 shows that EnvAll is bigger for hospitality and tourism corporations than for the other corporations by a statistically principal 0.126. No topic the incontrovertible reality that hospitality and tourism corporations possess fewer strengths and fewer considerations, the magnitude of the variation in considerations (EnvCon) is remarkable bigger at −0.393 than the magnitude of distinction in strengths (EnvStr) at −0.077.

Consistent with Hypothesis 2a, funding grade corporations possess an even bigger yarn of environmental CSR than noninvest- ment grade corporations (Panel A2), such that the total environ- psychological rating, EnvAll, is bigger by a statistically principal 0.067 for funding grade corporations. The implications become clearer in Panels A3 and A4, the build corporations are evaluated by financial performance. In both conditions, constant with Hypothesis 2b, we discover that funding grade corporations gener- ally possess an even bigger yarn of overall environmental CSR than noninvestment grade corporations, both for hospitality and tourism corporations and nonhospitality and tourism corporations. For hospitality and tourism corporations, funding grade corporations outperform noninvestment grade corporations by a statistically principal 0.214, whereas in other industries the outperformance of funding grade corporations is a statistically principal 0.069.

Each and each strengths and considerations are bigger for funding grade corporations, though the variation in strengths is rather remarkable bigger than for considerations.

The rather bigger environmental effort of the hospi- tality and tourism commerce is summarized in Panel A5, which compares corporations with identical financial performance. In that regard, EnvAll is tremendously bigger for funding grade hospitality and tourism corporations than for similar corporations in other industries (0.236), and the same is moral for noninvestment grade corporations, in which hospitality and tour- ism corporations are furthermore rather bigger (0.091). Whereas there is no statistically principal distinction in strengths in both sets of corporations, I salvage that hospitality and tourism corporations possess tremendously fewer considerations than similar corporations in other industries. For funding grade corporations, the variation is −0.412, and for noninvestment grade corporations, the variation is −0.274. Thus, the consequences for overall CSR and environmen- tal considerations are constant with Hypothesis 2c attributable to, managed for financial performance, hospitality and tour- ism corporations possess tremendously superior environmental CSR performance than nonhospitality and tourism corporations. An diagnosis of variance inflation components (VIFs) for Panel B of Present off 2, and Present off 3 indicated no conditions of multicol- linearity. As well to, statistical significance is constant with heteroskedasticity-constant licensed errors.8

The objects equipped here further make stronger the hypothe- ses and tabular self-discipline fabric. The first keep of three objects, 1 to 3, expose to Hypothesis 1 and Panel A1 (ogle Present off 2). Model 1 unearths that hospitality and tourism corporations possess a statistically tremendously bigger EnvAll rating (0.127) when when put next with other corporations, primarily attributable to hospitality and tourism corporations possess a long way fewer considerations than other corporations (−0.404 in Model 3) and the hospitality and tourism corporations possess marginally fewer strengths (−0.082 in Model 2). Consistent with Hypothesis 1, the consequences screen that hospi- tality and tourism corporations possess tremendously bigger invest- ment in environmental initiatives than produce corporations in other industries.

Objects 4 to 6, equivalent to Hypothesis 2a and Panel A2, ogle the connection between environmental

at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV on June 12, 2016cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

6 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly XX(X)

Present off 2: Environmental CSR and Monetary Performance.

Panel A: Indicators of Environmental CSR

Panel A1 All Hospitality and Tourism Companies All Nonhospitality and Tourism Companies Incompatibility

EnvAll 1.196 1.070 0.126** EnvStr 0.260 0.337 −0.077** EnvCon 0.074 0.467 −0.393**

Panel A2 All Companies, Investment Grade All Companies, Noninvestment Grade Incompatibility

EnvAll 1.097 1.030 0.067** EnvStr 0.413 0.181 0.231** EnvCon 0.537 0.291 0.245**

Panel A3 Hospitality and Tourism,

Investment Grade Hospitality and Tourism, Noninvestment Grade Incompatibility

EnvAll 1.328 1.114 0.214** EnvStr 0.437 0.150 0.287** EnvCon 0.134 0.036 0.098**

Panel A4 Nonhospitality and Tourism,

Investment Grade Nonhospitality and Tourism,

Noninvestment Grade Incompatibility

EnvAll 1.092 1.023 0.069** EnvStr 0.412 0.184 0.228** EnvCon 0.546 0.311 0.235**

Panel A5 Incompatibility between Hospitality and Tourism and Nonhospitality and Tourism Companies, by Monetary Performance

EnvAll 0.236** 0.091** EnvStr 0.025 −0.033 EnvCon −0.412** −0.274**

Panel B: Regression Results For Environmental CSR in Hospitality and Tourism Companies and Nonhospitality and Tourism Companies

Dependent Variable

EnvAll EnvStr EnvCon

Honest Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Intercept 1.073** 0.338 0.464** Hospitality and tourism dummy 0.127** −0.082** −0.404** Stock return −0.007 0.013† 0.035** LogSizea 0.041** 0.151** 0.159** N 15,907 15,907 15,907 Adjusted R2 (%) 0.8 6.2 5.4

Honest Variables

Dependent Variable

EnvAll (All Companies) EnvStr (All Companies) EnvCon (All Companies)

Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Intercept 1.032** 0.179** 0.