Factors of adoption of eco-labelling in hotel industry

Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techfore

Factors of adoption of eco-labelling in hotel industry Erick Lerouxa, Pierre-Charles Pupionb,⁎ a b

University of Paris 13, France University of Poitiers, France

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Choice Green innovation Intention Entrepreneurial orientation

The article aims to understand the reasons why hoteliers adopt an eco-label, but also to identify the factors that may call into question this choice in a context where the environmental pressures are multiple and strong. The article analyzes the whole process of adopting an eco-label from the knowledge phase to the confirmation phase a posteriori. By integrating different diffusion, neo-institutional and entrepreneurial approaches, the model makes it possible to identify all the motives, attitudes, norms and mechanisms of adoption and factors that can reverse this choice. Using a non-parametric quantitative methodology on a sample of 182 French hotels, we can explain the probability of adopting an eco-label and reversing its decision. The choice of adoption is explained by attitude towards risk, and ability to enact eco-label, two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation, but also by mimetic institutional pressure. For institutions that have not yet adopted the certification, the intention to change its choice depends on normative and mimetic pressures, and entrepreneurial characteristics (like risktaking, fear of bureaucracy). For certificated hotels, the complexity of the certification system is decisive in the choice of abandoning the certification while positive attitude towards environmental logic and pressures of the reference group help maintain the previous adoption.

1. Introduction Since the early 1990s and the Rio conference it has been recognized that the production and consumption patterns of so-called developed countries are responsible for pollution and depletion of natural resources. This mode of development is unsustainable. As a result, environmental policies have gradually shifted towards product and consumption-oriented policies, primarily targeting the use and garbage phases towards preventive solutions. The policies should more aim to modify the consumption choices. Within this framework, information to consumers is very important and eco-labels are a type of information that can influence consumer choices. Established in 1992 by the European Commission, the European Ecolabel or Ecolabel aims to encourage producers to market products that are more environmentally friendly. Tourism, more than any other activity, demands a preserved environment. Consumers, in search of ecological holidays, are increasingly demanding. In December 2015, the United Nations General Assembly declared 2017 the International Year for Sustainable Tourism for Development and UNWTO was designated to lead its implementation. According to UNWTO, sustainable tourism is: “Tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts, responding to the needs of visitors, professionals, the

⁎

environment and host communities.”. Taking the opportunity of the International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development 2017, the Government of the Philippines and the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) organized the 6th International Conference on Tourism Statistics in Manila from 21 to 24 June 2017 with the issue of measuring sustainable tourism. Sustainable tourism is becoming increasingly relevant in national agendas for promoting economic growth, social inclusion and the protection of natural and cultural heritage. Indeed, the United Nations General Assembly has adopted several resolutions recognizing the role of tourism in sustainable development, including the Agenda 2030 and its sustainable development goals (SDGs). The question of sustainable tourism is fundamental; this sector is in full growth and attractive. There are different forms of sustainable tourism: ecotourism, fair tourism, solidarity tourism, responsible tourism and solidarity tourism. This development is in line with the changes in the attitudes and behaviors of the various players in the tourism sector and, in the first place, of tourists (Diallo et al., 2015). The principle of labeling, promoted in Europe by the public authorities in order to structure and promote an environmentally friendly offer is spreading in the tourism sector. In Europe, hotels, campsites, bed & breakfasts, guesthouses, holiday villages are increasingly adopting an Ecolabel; Over the last ten years, the number of members

Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (P.-C. Pupion).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.018 Received 12 December 2016; Received in revised form 6 August 2017; Accepted 5 September 2017 0040-1625/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Leroux, E., Technological Forecasting & Social Change (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.018

Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

E. Leroux, P.-C. Pupion

Why institutions that have not yet adopted the certification, will intend to adopt this innovation? Why certificated hotels want to abandon? This intention will depend of norms, attitudes and entrepreneurial orientation. It is a real improvement to identify motives for adoption of an environmental certification and the factors explaining the intention to change of mind. Previous studies often focus only on advantages and disadvantages associated with ecolabels but do not explain individual choices that are also largely shaped by attitudes and norms facing the environmental issue. This study will make possible to understand the reasons for such a choice and the weight of environmentalist attitudes and norms in this choice. This study will also analyze the confirmation phase of the choice, which is never studied. Why does a firm maintain or question its choices. We use a sample of French firms to test our model, because France is one of the most important tourist destination. It is indeed one of the first destinations in the world. France was visited by 83 million foreign tourists in 2016, making it the most popular tourist destination in the world. France ranks fourth in tourist spending behind the United States, China and Spain. Paris is one of the largest hotel complexes in the world, with 116,000 rooms, all of them standardized. For example 5 new luxury hotels were built in 2016 Roch Hotel, Renaissance Paris République. Adèle & Jules, Square Louvois et la Comtesse Tour Eiffel. This model allows us to understand why and how fast hotels in France decide to adopt an eco-label. The entrepreneurial attitude is an important factor because French accommodation establishments are often managed by owners-directors. This study was conducted by questionnaires sent to 7,000 French hoteliers. Using a non-parametric quantitative methodology, we can explain the likelihood of adopting an eco-label and changing its mind. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In the first part, we discuss individual and organizational determinants of eco-label certification adoption and propose a synthetic model of adoption and intent. The second part is dedicated to the analysis of adoption patterns in the case of French Hotels with the presentation of results followed by a discussion.

has increased by more than 15% per year for the green keys label and by more than 25% for the European Ecolabel of tourist accommodation and camping services created in 2003. These labels take into account the environmental impacts of the establishments and aim at reducing energy and water consumption and waste. Many researchers define a tourism eco-label as “any form of certification giving assurance that the transaction or tourist activity is conducted according to a known standard that improves the environment or at least minimizes environmental impacts”. Font (2005) defines eco-labels as “methods to standardize the promotion of environmental claims by following compliance to set criteria generally based on third party, impartial verification usually by governments or non-profit organizations”. The OECD (1991, p. 12) defined ‘environmental labelling as “the voluntary granting of labels by a private or public body in order to inform consumers and thereby promote consumer products which are determined to be environmentally more friendly than other functionally and competitively similar products.” This definition positions the tourism eco-labels such as environmental management tools and quality control. They offer marketing benefits to certified firms by helping consumers distinguish between sustainable tourism businesses and non-sustainable businesses through the ecolabel. A wide range of tourism producers or destinations can adopt Ecolabels if they want to deliver friendly environmental products and services, are committed to adopting sustainable practices and are able to mobilize resources needed to obtain eco-label certification. This choice is strategic for tourism providers. It can even be a key factor for success, by enhancing the image of the service provider (Gountas et al., 2007; Khan and Khan, 2009), but also by improving these internal processes in terms of quality and efficiency (De Jorge and Suárez, 2014; Molina Azorín et al., 2014). It is a way to signal its responsible commitment and to induce virtuous behaviors among actors, customers or suppliers. Eco-labelling is an instrument to increasing demand for environmentally preferable goods, which leads to a reduction of the environmental impacts of tourism. Eco-labels, is a type of eco-innovation marketing, are complementary to eco-innovative products, since they offer information on products’ quality and performance with respect to their environmental impacts. It is important to analyse the motives of adoption or abandon of eco label. Kijek (2015) citing Popp et al. 2010, pp. 899–910 noted that “the diffusion of eco-labelling programs has received much less attention compared to the diffusion of environmental technologies” and he also noted “if it exists a few papers that concerns the adoption of ecolabelling schemes by countries (Horne, 2009, pp. 175–182), the firm level analyses is forgotten”. We want to reduce this gap by explaining why a firm will adopt but also will abandon ecolabel certification. This paper attempts to address this gap in the literature by providing a theoretical and empirical analysis of the process of eco-labels' adoption by accommodation establishments. In this context, where the question of the safeguard of environment is crucial for the development of tourism activity, it is imperative to understand why tourism actors adopt these new practices or not. We examine the adoption of ecolabel as eco-innovation. Rogers (2003) defines an innovation as “an idea, practice or objective that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption” and diffusion as “the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system”. The article analyzes completely the process of adopting an eco-label from the knowledge phase of this certification to the confirmation phase a posteriori. By integrating diffusionist and neo-institutional and entrepreneurial approaches, we propose a model that makes possible to identify all the motives, attitudes, norms and mechanisms of adoption. Using, the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985, 1991) we are able to explain why firms can change of mind on this question of adoption.

2. Individual and organizational determinants for the adoption of eco-label certification We present individual and organizational determinants of eco-label certification adoption and we build a synthetic model of adoption and intent to adopt. This section recalls the different theoretical approaches used to explain the phenomenon of adoption of an eco-label, both from an individual (2.1) and organizational (2.2) perspective. 2.1. Attitude and individual determinants for the adoption with the innovation diffusion model The diffusion innovation model (DI) Rogers (1983, 1995) can explain the phenomena of the adoption and dissemination of various innovations. This model includes five phases: (1) the increasing knowledge about the innovation (its existence, how and why it is used), (2) the formation of an attitude towards innovation, (3) the choice to adopt it or not, (4) the implementation of innovation (5) confirmation of the adoption decision (particularly by seeking information confirming the position). Norms and values that promote innovation as well as the cohesion of the social group will also have a positive influence on the innovation's adoption. Le et al. (2006) use this model to explain the adoption of tourism ecolabels by tourism businesses (Fig. 1). We will retain our study phases (1), becoming aware of that newness and (2) the formation of an attitude towards innovation, especially from its perceived technological features.

2

Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

E. Leroux, P.-C. Pupion

Fig. 1. Rogers' sequential process of innovation adoption. (Source Rogers, 1995).

In the first phase, the individual seeks to take note of novelty and functionality. According to this model, the means of mass communication allow us to reach a wider group of people than it is possible in interpersonal networks. However, they turn out to be channels of communication that have less influence on the innovation's adoption. The hoteliers' professional networks and public networks are used to support the exchange of information from monitoring. This monitoring prior to becoming aware of the existence of the certification affects the decision of adoption by facilitating the anticipatory and creativity process. Therefore, it determines the more or less rapid adoption. Involvement in professional networks should facilitate the adoption of the eco-label. In this logic, in which innovation takes precedence over adoption, the existence of quality monitoring increases the chances of having a knowledge of this innovation and therefore of its adoption, knowledge being a prerequisite for ‘Adoption’

The advantages highlighted by the certification bodies are the reduction of energy expenditure, the possibility of collaborating with associations and firms committed to sustainable development and the possibility to have a favorable position in concordance with the increasing customer expectations. By choosing an eco-labeled hotel, the consumer takes part in environmental protection and becomes “ecoresponsible”. The eco-label makes it possible to enhance oneself with customers and interest groups such as consumer and environmental protection associations. Buckley (2002: 185) points out that ecolabel “becomes one of many characteristics a consumer may weigh, according to individual priorities and preferences, when comparing price and features for alternative tourism products”. Duglio et al. (2017) show that energy efficiency and water saving are major benefits related to ecolabelling for accommodation establishments. Specifically, research has identified the factors that prevent adoption of certifications. They correspond to the price to be paid, and the cost of entry to obtain certification. The capacity to utilize innovative and existing knowledge, is associated with pre-adoption and adoption (Aarons et al., 2011; Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Frambach and Schillewaert, 2002; Greenhalgh et al., 2004). For example, organizations with pre-existing good knowledge and skills, have the capacity and mechanisms in place to incorporate new knowledge or innovations, are more likely to first explore followed by eventual adoption (Aarons et al. 2011).

H1. The greater the monitoring efforts, the more likely the organization is to adopt an eco-label innovation. Conversely, one might think that managers who are well informed about the characteristics of innovation consider that they are not interesting and do not adopt it. The innovation's attributes are the individual perceptions about the benefits related to the adoption, the compatibility, the complexity, the testability and the observability of an innovation (cf. Hughes et al., 2015 for perceived attributes associated with ecolabel certification). Moore and Benbasat (1991) added the image attribute and they distinguished two radiation dimensions: the innovation's visibility and the ability to demonstrate results (demonstrability). Focusing on a single population and a single innovation, we retain as determining factors of the choice to adopt (behavior): the perception of the associated benefit, its compatibility with the objectives of the organization and its mode of operation, the perception of the complexity of the certification process and the image associated with it. The possibility of trial and outreach are not taking account in this study because this perception is quite similar between the hotel actors who adopt it or not the certification.

H2a. Higher level of perceived relative advantages for eco-labeling will increase the probability of its adoption. However, Font and Wood (2007) argue that certification of sustainable tourism has insufficient evidence to prove their guaranteed benefits; the marketing benefits of eco-labels remain unknown. The perceived complexity is often decisive in the choice. The complexity of the adoption is related to the project's implementation, the difficulty to meet the different requirements of the certifying body and to implement each of the recommendations. It also results from the difficulty of educating tourists and making them respect the environmental criteria. This type of environmental project creates a little resistance to change from the staff. This resistance is defined as an individual or collective attitude, conscious or unconscious, which

3

Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

E. Leroux, P.-C. Pupion

additional dimensions were added by Lumpkin and Dess (1996): autonomy characteristic of an individual or a team and the aggressiveness towards the competition, which means taking initiative, responsiveness and a willingness to think outside the box to overcome the competition. For these authors, it is less important to know who is behind the initiative than to know the processes precisely and organizational factors that inhibit or stimulate it. The OE mainly refers to a process of seeking opportunities, either through personal initiative or within a formal organization (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990). We assume that more a firm shares the traits of entrepreneurial orientation through its five dimensions (innovation, pro-activity, and propensity to take risks, autonomy and competitive aggressiveness) and the more likely it is to adopt an eco-label type innovation. The attraction for innovation and the acceptance of risk-taking are all characteristics that favor the adoption of a marketing innovation. Indeed the result associated with an adoption is uncertain. Receptivity to innovation favors the more or less rapid adoption of innovation. From an adoption study perspective, the analysis of potential users according to their “innovativeness” or their individual propensity for change explains their adoption behavior. According to Midgley and Dowling (1978), analyzing the decision-maker's “receptivity to innovation”, or his/her individual reluctance to change and innovate is crucial. The proactive search for a competitive advantage can lead to the adoption of an ecolabel. According to Perlines and Araque (2015), “proactiveness reflects the firm's will to dominate its competitors by means of aggressive moves such as the introduction of new or innovative products or services”. This proactive posture allows acting on the market's future shortcomings and potential needs, which creates a competitive advantage (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). In other contexts, various authors (Aarons et al., 2011; Gallivan, 2001; Greenhalgh et al., 2004; Oldenburg and Glanz, 2008) show that, innovativeness, tolerance of ambiguity, and propensity towards risk-taking are positively associated with adoption.

expresses itself when the idea of transformation is discussed. Indeed, the defense of the environment is a value widely shared by the employees. Research has shown a negative relationship between the complexity of an innovation and its rate of adoption (Hobday, 1998). The more complex an innovation appears, and the greater the effort required implementing it, the less likely it is to be adopted. Smerecnik and Andersen (2011) consider that implementing environmentally sustainable innovations can be a challenging task and they observe that simplicity is the most predictive variable for the adoption of sustainability innovations. H2b. Higher levels of perceived complexity of implementing ecolabeling decrease the probability that an eco-label will be adopted. Compatibility with the needs, values, objectives and the organization's processes are major attributes of innovation. The “eco-labels” certification of products or services is part of a more global approach of environmental management and sustainable development undertaken by the company. The adoption of the eco-label is easier when it aligns with the environmental strategy, and ecological values of the firm and its stakeholders. Many studies have shown that compatibility with existing practices and values is a decisive factor in the adoption of innovation. According to the study, Duglio et al. (2017) on accommodation establishment in Italy, the personal awareness of the sustainability issue is one of the main motivations for eco-certification. There are numerous cases where companies will go beyond regulation demands and competitors, in their adoption of sustainability innovations, because they are deeply embedded environmental values (Chouinard, 2005; Freeman et al., 2000; Sutton, 2000). H2c. Higher levels of perceived compatibility with values of the organization increase the probability that an eco-labelling will be adopted. Moore and Benbasat (1991) include the associated image to the innovation as attribute of the innovation. We consider that positive image associated with environmental certification can facilitate its adoption. The higher is the positive impact of the adoption on the decision-maker in the social system, the higher the probability that the innovation will be adopted. According to Duglio et al. (2017), improving the corporate image is one of the main motivations of accommodation establishments for eco-certification.

H3. The more the firm has an entrepreneurial orientation and the more likely it is to adopt an eco-label. Concerning organizational factors for the adoption of innovation, different authors have identified a number of important dimensions. 2.3. Organizational and environmental determinants of the adoption

H2d. The perception of a positive image associated with environmental certification facilitates its adoption.

We are expanding our analysis taking into account all organizational and environmental factors that may influence the adoption of eco-label innovation as they do in the Technology-OrganizationEnvironment model (TOE) (Tornatzky and Fleischer, 1990). Previous studies have shown that the dimensions of the TOE are useful in detecting factors that facilitate or inhibit the adoption of innovation in a given organization. Tornatzky and Fleischer (1990) identified three main elements in the TOE process that affect the process of adopting innovation technology: organization, technology and environment (Tornatzky and Fleischer, 1990). The technological context includes both internal and external technologies that are relevant to the company. The organizational context refers to the characteristics and resources of the company, namely its size, degrees of centralization and formalization, management structure, human resources and slack. The environmental context includes the size and structure of the industry, the number of competitors, the macroeconomic environment and the regulatory environment. Technological factors are related to perceived attributes, i.e. advantages and complexity. Thus, we have the hypotheses H2a, H2b, expressed within the first diffusion model. The adoption of innovation is due to its alignment with the environment and the organization. The environmental context is the arena surrounding a company, made up of multiple stakeholders such as industry members,

Originally developed to explain the adoption of an innovation within a social group, this model can also be applied to analyze the adoption behavior at the individual level (Moore and Benbasat, 1991). As the certification strategy corresponds to a proactive competitive strategy, we have included in our literature review, the theory of entrepreneurial orientation. We analyze to what extent entrepreneurial orientation facilitate or inhibit the adoption of such an innovation.

2.2. Entrepreneurial orientation, risk taking and adoption Miller and Friesen (1982) observed that, in some firms, product innovations are developed on regular basis without any particular incentives from market or environment. They therefore propose the entrepreneurial enterprise model in which innovation is the strategy's central element and is the result of the entrepreneurial model and not one of independent variables. The concept of entrepreneurial orientation (OE) is based Miller's article (1983) entitled “The Correlates of Entrepreneurship in Three Types of Firms”. He proposes a scale of measurement that includes innovation, pro-activity, and the propensity to take risks, a measure taken up by Covin and Slevin (1989). Two

4

Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

E. Leroux, P.-C. Pupion

H5. The more the firm perceives that adoption leads it to abandon a simple structure, the more likely it refuses to adopt the certification.

competitors, suppliers, customers, government, the community, and so on. They can influence how a company interprets the need for innovation, its ability to acquire the resources to pursue innovation and its ability to deploy it effectively. Environmental factors such as the size and structure of the industry, competitors and the macroeconomic environment can facilitate or constrain the innovation's adoption. Competitive pressure is an explanatory factor in a context where executives have to respond to market law. The evolution of market conditions and competition encourages companies to use various forms of innovation. In the field of certification, poor ratings in environmental rankings can drive to loss of competitiveness. For 58.2% of French people, the environmental criterion appears as a predominant factor of choice for their holiday accommodation (source responsible tourism, statistics, 2016 BVA studies). In response to the growing involvement of tourists in environmental approaches, companies in the tourism sector have to adapt and propose management models, which fit tourists' ecological expectations. The quest for legitimacy and the improvement of reputation capital are the main reasons for companies' commitments. The search for a real competitive advantage and the prospecting of a new market are also factors, which drives to adopt ecolabel. Kijek (2015) shows that customers' attitudes towards environmental issues had a positive and significant impact on eco-labels' diffusion in tourism sector services. According to Iraldo and Barberio (2017), competitive factors and market pressure as the main drivers for applying ecolabels, and specifically the EU Ecolabel.

2.4. Neo-institutional theory, norms and adoption Organizations are “embedded” in a social context and influenced by the practices and symbols of their environment (March and Simon, 1958). The organizational field consists of actors who are “aggregated, and make together a recognized institutional life area: suppliers, consumers of resources and products (customers), regulatory institutions (legislators), other organizations producing similar services (other hotels …), professional associations (professional associations of hoteliers), professional press …”. These different actors participate individually and collectively in the development of coercive pressures (laws and regulations), normative norms (professional standards defining appropriate behaviors) and mimetic pressures (imitation of behavior adopted by other hotel establishments) that constrain organizational behavior and lead to a convergence of choice called isomorphism. Coercive isomorphism is the result of formal pressure exerted mainly by the state. In this case, state pressure is exerted and felt in the field of waste management and energy consumption. We include the concept of regulatory risk as a determinant of choice. Ecolabels must at least comply with regulations. However, the goal of adopters is to display products that perform well in the environment. Therefore, environmental criteria may include requirements that are more severe than those which are imposed by regulation. In fact, Wysokińska (2013), suggested that environmental regulations have a direct positive impact on environmentally-innovative products. They are regarded as being complementary to ecolabel certification (Mehamli, 2013, pp. 51–63).

H4. Higher levels of perceived competitive environment increase the probability that an eco-label will be adopted. The organizational context refers to characteristics and resources of the company: size, degree of centralization and formalization, degree of formalization inside and outside the company, more or less organic nature of the organizational structure…. The main characteristics attached to this type of enterprise are a simple structure, the central role of the manager(s) and local market, and the undeveloped planning and control system. The adoption of a certification would play a distorting role and would erase the SME's specificities. It would favor a mode of operation characterized by an increasing formalization, standardization and bureaucratization (Messenghem, 2001). The more is appeared to be linked with the adoption of procedures, rules and the division of labor and responsibilities within the organization the more it appears incompatible with the organization and the more the firm decides not to adopt an eco-label. Certification requires the development of procedures and rules that make it possible to account for compliance with the criteria, and noncompliance translates into non-labeling. For example, more than 29 mandatory criteria and 69 optional criteria must be met for the European label. For example, to prove that any disposable products are removed from the rooms and are replaced by distributors to respect a waste management criterion, the hotel must present an invoice attesting the placing of distributors. The managers must also realize a declaration of conformity to this criterion, and produce consistent documentation on rechargeable products. Many studies have shown that compatibility with existing practices is an important factor in the adoption of an innovation (Lin et al., 2012). The adoption of an ecolabel is part of a bureaucratic logic that can oppose the informal way of operating small businesses. It calls into question both the form of organization and the functioning of information systems. The bureaucracy, complexity, rigidity are some of the reasons given for the low uptake of the ecolabels (Pereira and Soares, 2016). More generally, the bureaucracy associated with complying with criteria is considered excessive (Conway, 2016; L. Ranacher and Pröbstl-Haider, 2014) and prevents the adoption of ecolabel.

H6a. The willingness to fit with legal obligations in terms of environment increases the likelihood of adoption. Normative isomorphism results from the collective efforts of members of a profession to define common practices and to give a legitimate basis for their activities. The Green Key is an example of a voluntary environmental label awarded each year by an independent jury from the ecological tourist accommodation sector. The criteria established internationally and common to all countries are reviewed annually to maintain the avant-garde and meet the Foundation for Environmental Education's environmental requirements (FEE). This revaluation is carried out jointly with all the national co-ordinations of the label. The perception of strong professional pressure for the adoption of an ecolabel should encourage its adoption. In a situation of uncertainty, the person adopts the behaviors and opinions of the professional reference group because the fear of sanctions resulting from deviant actions. These sanctions may be real (suppression of financial means, contraventions) or symbolic (disapproval). The development of communications on the theme of ecolabel between managers of hotel within associations can facilitate its adoption. H6b. A positive pressure from the hotel profession, leads to ecolabel adoption. Mimetic isomorphism corresponds to the phenomenon of imitation of organizations recognized as legitimate. Mimicry is informational when one person imitates others because it supposes they are more informed (Deutsch and Gerard, 1955). An organization will seek to imitate the actions of other organizations. In uncertainty, choice is not only the result of rational and objective criteria. Decision-makers communicate with others professionals through professional meetings and specialized journals, they find in imitation a way to reduce uncertainty. When he doubts of the validity of his judgment, he evaluates it by comparison and imitates the

5

Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

E. Leroux, P.-C. Pupion

will intend to adopt an eco-label.

practices perceived as dominant (authors 2016), Adoption frequency is a crucial factor. If a high number of hotels have made the choice to adopt an ecolabel, then this choice is legitimate and there is less resistance to adopt it.

Corollaries hypothesis H7a. The more the leader of certified firm perceives the eco-label favorably, the more he will intend to renew the firm's eco-label.

H6c. Mimetic pressures lead to ecolabel adoption.

H7b. The more the leader of non-certified firm perceives the eco-label favorably, the more he will intend to reverse his decision.

As organizations themselves contribute to the definition of the rules of the game at the institutional level, we must identify the institutionalization process in advance, the dominant interactions and the role of various actors in the definition of what is legitimate (Delmas and Toffel, 2008). This model forgets in the analysis of the decision-making, the intention to maintain or not the choice in the future, to ask again or not the certification for the certified hotels and to ask a certification for not certified hotel. This model forgets in the analysis of decision-making process whether the actors who intend to adopt or not precedes the decision. Ajzen and Fishbein (1975) proposed the Theory of Reasoned Action, which seeks to explain and predict the adoption of individual behavior by the intention of making this behavior. Work on innovation shows this main aspect of the intention underlying of Rogers' confirmation phase.

H7c. The more the leader of certified firm perceives the complexity of eco-label, the more he will intend to abandon the firm's eco-label. H7d. Probability that leader of non-certified firm will intend to reverse his decision increases when the previous choice is incompatible with his environmental values.

2.5.2. Norms The subjective norms correspond to the beliefs of an individual about the opinion of his reference group. In other words, the behavior will be adopted if individual is sure that his relatives or people important for him will understand and accept this behavior and will agree with his action. The more the choice of adoption is in line with the thinking of people who have influence over the manager and the thoughts of important people, the more likely it is to adopt an eco-label. The intention to confirm his choice to adopt this innovation is linked to the influence of the reference group. The pressure of the society is made up of coercive pressures (laws and regulations), normative (professional standards defining appropriate behaviors) mimetic pressures (imitation of behavior adopted by other hotel establishments) and in general judgments of the reference group. They lead to a convergence of choice, thus they drive to change of choice if this is not compatible with the choice expected by the members of the reference group.

2.5. Theory of Reasoned Action and intention to confirm or not the previous choice Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) proposed the model the Theory of Reasoned Action, which seeks to explain and predict the adoption of individual behavior by the intention of making this behavior. Behavioral intent depends on the attitude of the individual towards the choice to adopt this behavior and the subjective norm associated with that choice. Karahanna et al. (1999) interested in the post-adoption of innovations show that, the intention to adopt new technology among nonusers is only influenced by social norms, and not by the attributes of the technology (attitude). On the other hand, among individuals who have already used the technology, the intention to continue using it would be determined by the attitude and particularly by the image and perceived relative advantage.

H8. The manager has all the more intention to reverse his decision as his previous choice is socially badly received by his reference group. Corollary, (H8 a) b) and c)) The manager has all the more intention to reverse his choice on adoption of ecolabel as his previous choice is low compatible with coercive (H8a), normative (H8b) or mimetic pressures (H8c).

2.5.1. Attitudes The attitude is made up of all beliefs on the consequences of the behavior's implementation. The more individual considers that it is a good thing and a positive choice for the future, the more likely he is going to adopt an eco-label. It will be necessary to verify this hypothesis among those who intend to adopt a certification or on the contrary intend to abandon it after having accepted it. We find here the four first Rogers assumptions that reflect the construction of an attitude towards an innovation. The attributes also explain the intention to confirm the adoption of the innovation. Individual who adopted the innovation intends to maintain his choice or, on the contrary, to reverse his decision according to his attitude towards innovation. The attitude is made up of the perceived advantages, the compatibility with the objectives of the organization and its mode of operation, the perception of the complexity of the certification process and the image associated with it. We consider that these attributes may explain the eco-label adoption's intention of firms that have not yet adopted it or intend to abandon it. In other words, perception of numerous advantages attached to this certification (hypothesis H2a, compatibility with the environmental objectives of the organization (hypothesis H2b) and low complexity observed (characteristic quoted for H2c) lead the firm to intent to confirm its adoption or to adopt if it has not already done so.

2.5.3. Perceived behavior control The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985, 1991) extends this theory by taking account the behaviors that are not only under individual voluntary control, that is, when constraints or barriers exist for the behavior's adoption. The perception of control over behavior corresponds to the degree of ease or difficulty in achieving the behavior for the individual. This construct can act, in the same way as attitude and subjective norm, on intention or can directly predict behavior when it is not under the individual's voluntary control (Ajzen, 1985). This variable reflects the presence of external factors facilitating or constraining the realization of a given behavior as well as the individual's perception of his or her personal effectiveness in order to achieve that behavior (Taylor and Todd, 1995). The difficulty to meet the different requirements of the certifying body and to implement each of the recommendations could afraid the managers. High levels of perceived complexity of implementing eco-labeling reduce the intention to adopt it because of the risk associated to the implementation of this innovation. The attraction for innovation and the acceptance of risk-taking are probably the main characteristics of entrepreneurial orientation that favor the adoption of a marketing innovation. The fear of the bureaucracy with the development of procedures, rules and the division of labor and responsibilities within the organization can also reduce the intention to adopt an eco-label.

H7. The more the leader perceives the eco-label favorably, the more he

H9. The more the entrepreneur leader of a non-certified hotel perceives

6

Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

E. Leroux, P.-C. Pupion

green innovation-decisions in the tourism sector. They group influential factors concerning green innovation-decisions into three major categories: organizational characteristics (firm size, greenness' at firm level), perceived innovation characteristics and perceived external environmental characteristics (with level of competition, customer demand, government/regulation). Our model is going beyond because it includes in the analysis of the choice the effects of entrepreneurial orientation and fear of not being able to succeed behavior. It also explains the choice evolution and particularly the intention of adopting this certification for those who do not have it and on the contrary, to abandon the environmental certification for those who already benefit from this certification. The reference group's opinion on the behavior to adopt and the attitude towards this behavior could affect these intentions and therefore the evolution of their choice. The normative and mimetic institutional pressures, the perceived control on the behavior, the fear of bureaucratization and some entrepreneurial traits (like risk taking, independence…) affect also these intentions.

that he is able to implement this eco-label the more he will intend to adopt it. Feldstein and Glasgow (2008), Mendel et al. (2008), Mitchell et al. (2010) and Stetler (2001) show that cost efficacy, feasibility, evaluation of cost efficacy and feasibility, are positively associated with preadoption. H9a. Non-certified firm will tend to maintain its choice when the perceived complexity of implementing eco-labeling and costs associated are high. H9b. Certified firm will tend to reverse its decision when the perceived complexity of implementing eco-labeling and costs associated are high. H9c. The probability that non-certified firm will intend to adopt its certification increases when the firm has high levels of risk taking and attraction for innovation. H9d. The more the non-certified firm perceives that adoption leads it to abandon a simple structure, the more likely it doesn't intend to adopt the certification.

3. Empirical analysis of the adoption of environmental certification by hotels

We assume that perceived behavior control affects directly the adoption of ecolabel. Taylor and Todd (1995) considered that effects of perceived attributes (i.e., relative advantage, compatibility, and complexity) on adoption decisions are mediated by perceived behavioral control. According to Vagnani and Gatti (2016), the perception of the inadequacy of available resources as well as the obstacles associated to the adoption of an innovation may reduce the perceived control upon the implementation of the innovation (Taylor and Todd, 1995).

In this second part we describe the empirical methodology of the study and then examine the influence of the different factors on the decision to adopt the environmental certification and the intention to use it. 3.1. The development and administration of the questionnaire

H10. The more the leader of a non-certified hotel perceives that he is able to implement this eco-label the more he will adopt it.

This research focuses on the population of independent hotel managers who do not belong to a group and pilot small hotels. We aim to describe and identify the reasons for their choice in terms of the adoption of environmental certification. We choose to exclude group hotels because managers are not autonomous and must follow the position of the group leaders. After pre-testing questionnaire and purification of some scales, we sent the questionnaire by mail to 7000 hotels randomly drawn from a list of hotels. We collected 182 usable responses, which corresponds to a return rate of almost 2.5%. Our questionnaire is built on variables and dimensions defined in the theoretical part regarding the reasons for, brakes on and conditions of the adoption of an environmental certification. The questionnaire included closed-ended questions in dichotomous or scalable form (from Likert to 7 points) and open-ended questions. The objective is to inform us about the reasons for adopting an environmental certification: the effects of different types and forms of monitoring, the perceived attributes of innovation (advantages, complexity, compatibility, image), the attitude towards behavior, the weight of the opinion of the reference group, the feasibility of the choice, the traits of the entrepreneurial orientation, the institutional pressures.

We distinguish the intention to adopt or continuing to adopt behavior, i.e. to use the certification through this model. 2.6. A synthetic model At the end of these analyzes an explanatory model of adoption and intention to adopt is proposed with three sets of explanatory dimensions: - ATTITUDE- attitude and notably perceived attribute dimensions of innovation including the perceived benefits, the complexity associated with its adoption, its compatibility with the organization's values which can explain the adoption of ecolabel or the intention to change of choice. - NORM- norm and institutional dimension. The institutional environment and the quest for legitimacy may lead to the adoption of an environmental certification, by alignment with the standards of the profession, by imitation or by responding to environmental regulatory pressure. Adoption could respond to institutional pressure known as mimetic, normative or coercive. Competitive pressure dimension, including changing market conditions and competition can also encourages companies to use various forms of innovation The intention to reverse its decision could also be explained by mimetic, normative or coercive pressures. - PERCEIVED BEHAVIORAL CONTROL (PBC) entrepreneurial dimensions influence perceived behavioral control that corresponds to the feasibility of the behavior and the perception of obstacles to adopt the innovation. The more a company has an entrepreneurial orientation (creativity, proactivity, propensity to take risks, autonomy and competitive aggressiveness) the more chance it adopts or it intends to adopt an innovation such as an eco-label. Conversely, we can assume that this type of innovation, which requires formalization, standardization cans scare small organizations.

3.2. Operationalizing concepts and perception of the four dimensions The choice of a measurement scale is an essential and important step in management science, because it determines the scientific validity and reliability of research results. The objective assigned to a measuring instrument is to obtain a reliable measure of the phenomenon (true value). However, it may be difficult to measure attitudes and subjective perceptions. Thus, in building the questionnaire, we take into account the already existing and validated scales in the relevant literature. We interviewed hotel experts and managers to adapt the different scales to the object of the study. We have also used the numerous reports on the adoption of ecolabels. Actually, in order to improve psychometric properties (reliability and validity) of the measuring instruments and to construct rigorously measurement scales, Churchill (1979) proposes a ‘purification procedure’. It is a two steps' approach

Le et al. (2006) and Wejnert (2002) had proposed a framework for 7

Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

E. Leroux, P.-C. Pupion

the proposed multiple scales were unidimensional or not and re-measured the reliability of the scale with the Cronbach's alpha. We present below the scales of the various constructs (Fig. 3). 3.2.1. Information and knowledge of eco-label devices Access to information could be decisive in the adoption decision. Concerning the quality of the survey, we asked the respondents to judge on a scale of 1 to 7, to evaluate internal effort to learn about environment and to assess the importance of different information sources about this question. To build this scale, we first ask a few hotels managers to know how they were informed about ecolabel. The effort to find information is judged on average satisfactory with an average value of 4.43, the main source of information is the specialized press and to a lesser extent the departmental and regional tourist offices. Fig. 2. Planned Behavior (PB). (Source: Ajzen, 1991)

3.2.2. The perceived attributes (attitude) - The perceived benefits are measured by a multiple scale comprised of 5 items. To build this scale we were inspired by the study of Hitchcock and Willard (2006) who show that many sustainability innovations, improve efficiency, and reduce waste. Our measure is also inspired from the work of Jarvis et al. (2010) on benefits and challenges of sustainable tourism certification. We also use the rapport of “ever” (2006) that is to say, EVER (2006) realized for the Directorate General for the Environment of the European by researchers of the University of Bocconi. Our scale is also inspired from the survey used by Smerecnik et al. (2009).The reliability of this scale is verified since Chronbach's alpha of 0.77 is above the generally accepted value of 0.7. The most noticeable benefits are in Table 1, the savings in terms of water and energy consumption. The average responses are greater than 5 on a scale of 1 to 7. The benefits in terms of responses to the actors (customer, suppliers) and to the market seem less important. - Complexity is measured by a multiple scale comprising 4 items. To build this scale, we have adapted the measure proposed by Smerecnik and Andersen (2011). We have transposed this measure by using a study case of ecolabel adoption by an Hotel (Londiveau, 2012). That scale is considered reliable since its Cronbach's alpha is 0.74. It is generically important because the average of the responses is 4.70 and is significantly higher than the central value 4 (a 7-point scale from 1 to 7) important (Table 2).

with two phases: exploratory phase and validation one (see the Fig. 2):

Main steps 1. Definition of the conceptual domain 2. Exploratory phase

3. Validation phase

Procedures

Technics Literature research

1 Specifying domain of construct 2. Generating sample of items 3. Data collection 4. Purifying measures 5. Data collection 6. Assessing reliability 7. Estimating validity

Elaboration of questionnaire Exploratory survey Cronbach's alpha Factor analysis Confirmatory analysis Factor analysis Cronbach's alpha

Multi-trait -multi-methods Matrix Average and other statistics summarizing the distribution of scores

The measure of compatibility was inspired from several previous studies (Calantone et al., 2006; Moore and Benbasat, 1991; Vishwanath and Goldhaber, 2003; Zhu and He, 2002). Concerning compatibility, the chosen scale is reliable. The alignment of the project with the organization's environmental values and strategies appears strong, since the values collected are greater than 5. The alignment with stakeholder expectations is less emphasized. The adopted innovation clearly appears to improve the status or the image of the adopter in the social system, the answers' average is 5.19.

- Exploratory phase: This step involves the formulation of a set of items, which can capture the concept studied. To retain only valid and reliable items, we firstly need to launch pre-survey, which allows us to collect first data. For each dimension of the scale, Cronbach's alpha (1951) is calculated in order to measure the reliability of different items believed to contribute to measure a phenomenon. We eliminate items with few contributions to measure the concept and we retain others. To do this, the scales with a coefficient above 0.7 are considered as reliable and retained; the scales with a coefficient between 0.7 and 0.5 are considered acceptable; the scales with a coefficient below 0.5 are retreated or eliminated. - Validation phase: This step is confirmatory. We verify the stability and validity of the previously purified instruments by using statistical methods.

3.2.3. Beliefs about the adoption of the eco-label and the feasibility of choice The attitude is the beliefs of the director about the consequences of the implementation of the behavior. The analysis of “receptivity to innovation” of the decision maker is measured by a three-items scale. This scale adapted from Sahli and Legohérel (2016) measures is reliable. It appreciates the extent to which, individual considers it as a good thing, whether it is a positive choice for the future or on the contrary, it is a crazy idea. Measurements show that managers have a favorable attitude to this innovation, values are greater than 6 (Tables 3a and 3b). The subjective norm corresponds to individual beliefs about the

In accordance with the praxis proposed by Churchill (1979), measures were built from the sample of 30 respondents. We carried out measurements of reliability of multiple scales with Cronbach's alpha. We then proceeded with a CPA on the definitive sample to test whether

8

Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

E. Leroux, P.-C. Pupion

Fig. 3. Synthetic model of adoption.

Attitudes towards behavior and Perceived attributes -Relative

advantage -Compatibility -Complexity -Image

Behavioral intent

Behavior

Perception of environmental demand: social norms and institutional -Coercive

pressures

Perceived behavioral control PBC Entrepreneurial Orientation Fear of bureaucracy

pressure

-Normative pressure -Mimetic pressure Competitive pressure

3.2.4. The entrepreneurial orientation and the organizational structure (PBC perceived behavioral control) Using the analysis of Lumpkin and Dess (1996), we measure entrepreneurial orientation through five dimensions: innovation, pro-activity, risk propensity, autonomy and competitive aggressiveness. These factors may influence the intention to adopt an eco-label innovation. The realization of a CFA with rotation varimax shows that entrepreneurial orientation is actually constituted of five independent dimensions (Tables 4a and 4b). We retain for each dimensions of the entrepreneurial orientation, a multiple scale with 3 items. The five selected multiple scales are reliable since Cronbach's alpha is systematically above 0.7. Creativity, autonomy and competitive aggressiveness are characteristics shared on average by the members of our sample; the corresponding measures are systematically greater than 4. It is quite another to risk taking dimensions and proactivity as the means of these variables are less than 4. A large percentage of firms have a strong entrepreneurial orientation in the sense that on the different dimensions, they have a score greater than 4. The adoption of a certification may favor a mode of operation characterized by increasing in formalization and standardization, which is perceived as incompatible with a simple structure. The measure of this incompatibility is moderately important (Table 5).

opinion of his reference group or of persons important to him about the behavior. The scale adapted from Ajzen and Madden (1986) is reliable. This pressure in fact appears to be small, the mean of the variable equals to 3.72, which is below the central value 4. To have a measure of the perceived control behavior and of the feasibility of the behavior, we use the work of Sasidharan et al. (2002) who noted that large expenses for environmentally friendly technology are not within the budgets of small companies. The costs associated with applying for the eco-labelling may be too high for small hotels. To build the scale of the perception of feasibility of the behavior we use, as Duglio et al. (2017), the EVER (2006) studies which found that the main obstacles to adopt EU Ecolabel were the “costs of complying with criteria”. The perception of control over the behavior or feasibility of the behavior corresponds to the main barriers against adoption, namely the costs of upgrading work, the cost of providing certification bodies, the cost of obtaining certificates (green certificates). Thus, among the main barriers, there is the costs of working to upgrade to the standards, creating a training guide, implementing procedures, operating (selective sorting, etc.), buying the services delivered by certification organizations, obtaining certificates (green certificate) and the costs of switching suppliers. These barriers to entry appear important since the mean of the variable exceeds 4.77.

Table 1 Descriptive and inferential statistics of environmental monitoring. Factors

Unit of measurement

Mean

1st quartile

Median

3rd quartile

90% Confidence interval for mean

Efforts made to get information (Measure inspired from Reix, 2004) Importance of the source of informationa

The internal efforts made to get information about environmental field (Evaluate on a scale of 1 to 7; 1 for not at all important and 7 for very important)

4.43

3

4

5

4.24–4.63

Departmental council of tourism, regional or tourist office Other director Trade shows Professional association, union Specialized press, internet

3.51 2.68 2.46 3.32 4.05

1 1 1 1 2

3 2 2 4 4

5 4 4 5 5

3.19–3.82 2.44–2.92 2,22–2,70 3.04–3.61 3.79–4.32

a

Rate on a scale of 1 to 7 (1 for not at all important and 7 is very important) the importance of the information source in making more or less accurate knowledge of eco-labels.

9

Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

E. Leroux, P.-C. Pupion

Table 2 Descriptive and inferential statistics of perceived attributes (variables: advantages, complexity, compatibility image). Factors

Unit of measurementb

Mean of item

Cronbach's alpha

Mean of the variable

90% Confidence interval for mean

Advantages Measure adapted from the work of Hitchcock and Willard (2006) and Jarvis, Weeden and Simcock (2010)

Energy consumption reduction Reducing water consumption New environmental market opportunity Meeting customer demand Collaborate with organizations committed to the environment Meeting the different requirements Implementing the approach Difficulty to educate the tourists and to make them respect the environmental criteria Implementing each of the recommendations With your environmental strategy With your company's values With the stakeholders' environmental objectives (suppliers, customers …) Positive image associated with the adoption of the eco-label

5.63 5.67 4.41 3.85 4.38

0.77

4.6

4.43–4.77

4.73 4.32 4.99

0.74

4.70

4.56–4.84

0.84

5.19

5,03–5,35

5.09

5.03–5.35

Source of complexity Measure inspired from Smerecnik and Andersen (2011).

Compatibility Measure inspired from Smerecnik and Andersen (2011). Image Measure inspired from Moore and Benbasat (1991) b

4.84 5.27 5.73 4.51 5.09

Evaluate on a scale of 1 to 7 the importance of attributes associated with the adoption of the eco-label (1 very low, …, 7 very strong).

Table 3a Descriptive and inferential statistics of beliefs and attitudes (variables: general attitude, subjective norms, feasibility). Factors

Unit of measurementc

Mean of item

Cronbach's alpha

Mean of the variable

90% Confidence interval for mean

General attitude Measure adapted from (Moon and Kim, 2001; Sahli and Legohérel, 2016)

That it is a thing bad/good thing That it's a crazy idea/wise (item reversed for scale) That it is for the future a positive choice/negative choice That it is consistent with the thinking of people who have an influence on me That it is consistent with the thinking of people who are important to me who think I should use an ecolabel

6.19 6.18 6.14

0.71

6.14

6.02–6.27

3.76 3.61

0.86

3.72

3,50–3,93

Subjective norms Measure adapted from Ajzen and Madden (1986)

c

You would say the adoption of an eco-label (1 for not at all …, 7 for strongly agree) *.

Table 3b Descriptive and inferential statistics of the factor feasibility. Factors

Unit of measurementd

Mean of item

Cronbach's alpha

Mean of the variable

90% Confidence interval for mean

Feasibility in terms of cost Measure inspired from EVER (2006) PBC

The costs of upgrading work The cost of providing body The cost of creating a training guide The cost of operation (selective sorting …) The cost of obtaining certificates (green certificates) The cost of switching suppliers The cost of implementing the procedures

5.15 5.39 4.51 3.91 4.82

0.81

4.77

4,61–4,92

d

4.37 4.57

Evaluate on a scale of 1 to 7 the advantages associated with the adoption of the eco-label (1 very low, …, 7 very strong).

other hand, to align with the standards of the hotel profession which would define a policy in terms of labeling. The effects of these institutional factors are assessed using simple scales. For measuring the normative and mimetic pressures, we ask them to the extent to which they agree or disagree with the two statements: the adoption of an ecolabel makes it possible to align itself with the choice of other institutions; the adoption of an eco-label meets the new standards of the hotel profession (Table 7). The widespread phenomenon of imitation favoring adoption appears to be not very significant, on the other hand there is a phenomenon of normative pressure within the profession.

3.2.5. Environmental pressure (norms) We observe below the importance of competitive environmental pressure and institutional regulatory pressure (Table 6). The effect of the competitive environment is perceived by the sample as moderately important, close to the central value. The desire to meet the regulatory aspect and to align with regulation could be an important incentive for the adoption of an eco-label.

3.2.6. The normative and mimetic institutional dimension (norms and institutional pressure) The factors of the institutional dimension correspond on, the one hand, to the desire to imitate the choice made by others and, on the

10

Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

E. Leroux, P.-C. Pupion

Table 4a Descriptive and inferential statistics of dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation. (variables: innovativity, proactive, risk-taking). Factors

Unit of measuremente

Mean

Cronbach's alpha

Mean of the variable

90% Confidence interval for mean

Innovativity (Adapted from Hughes and Morgan, 2007)

Actively introduce improvements and innovations Introduce new ways of doing things Be creative in the methods of operation Take initiatives in all situations Initiate actions for which other organizations meet Excel in identifying opportunities Explore and experience opportunities Take risks with new ideas Favor risk projects with high profitability

4.28

0.945

4.29

4.13–4.44

0.871

3.73

3.57–3.90

0.74

3.47

3.31–3.63

Proactive (Adapted from Hughes and Morgan, 2007)

Risk taking (Adapted from Hughes and Morgan, 2007) and Messeghem (2005)

e

4.29 4.20 4.13 3.39 3.56 3.80 3.81 2.68

Regarding your innovativeness, your responsiveness and risk-taking, you would say that you are looking for a general way to (1 for strongly disagree …, 7 for strongly agree).

Table 4b Descriptive and inferential statistics of dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation (variables autonomy, aggressiveness). Factors

Unit of measurementf

Mean of item

Cronbach's alpha

Mean of the variable

90% Confidence interval for mean

Autonomy Measure adapted from Lumpkin, Cogliser and Schneider (2009)

Supports staff working autonomously Supports the idea that the best results are obtained when the teams decide for themselves the opportunities to follow Facilitates access to all information by staff Is highly active against the competition Has a bold or aggressive approach to competition Seeks to thwart competition

5.06 4.80

0.704

5.03

4.90–5.16

0.876

4.33

4.15–4.52

Aggressiveness Measure adapted from Lumpkin, G. T. and Dess G. G. (2001). f

5.32 4.82 4.29 3.99

Regarding your strategy you would say that your establishment (1 for not at all …, 7 for strongly agree).

are also less likely to consider that the choice to adopt is a way to align with peers. They consider that the barriers to adoption are more important. Having an entrepreneurial orientation in terms of proactivity, risktaking and autonomy promotes adoption in a significant way (with a risk of error lower than 5%). For other dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation, there are no significant differences between the institutions that have adopted and the others. However, it appears that non-adopters see the formalization and bureaucratization induced by certification as a barrier to adoption.

3.3. Determinants of the adoption choice To analyze the results, we use non-parametric methods, such as bivariate inferential statistics (Mann-Whitney comparison test, KruskalWallis test) and multivariate analysis (logit exact model, ordinal logistic regression). We observed in our sample that 5 firms have adopted an eco-label. 3.3.1. Adoption of eco-labels and factors Using the Mann-Withney test, we compare the population of those who have adopted an eco-label with those who did not adopt to find out what traits or factors explain their choice. In the table below, we observe no significant differences in perceived benefits or in terms of image associated with innovation. However, there are notable differences in terms of perceived complexity and compatibility, with the perception of complexity and incompatibility being higher among hotels who did not adopt an eco-label (Table 8). It is clear that non-adopters perceive a lower regulatory pressure favorable to the adoption of the eco-label but surprisingly perceive a higher competitive pressure. Normative pressure in the hotel industry appears less favorable to this choice among non-adopters. Non-adopters

3.3.2. Synthetic model of the adoption phenomenon We use a logit regression to explain the adoption of an environmental certification (dichotomous variable Y = 1 if adoption and Y = 0 if not) by the variables previously defined and a priori explanatory: - variables correponding to attributes hindering adoption (complexity) or facilitating (its compatibility with the objectives and values of the organization) - variables corresponding to the organizational and entrepreneurial dimension (proactivity, risk taking and autonomy)

Table 5 Descriptive and inferential statistics of the compatibility of eco-labelling with a simple structure (variable:simple structure). Factors

Unit of measurementg

Mean of item

Cronbach's alpha

Mean of the variable

90% Confidence interval for mean

Challenge simple structure Measure inspired by Messeghem (2005)

of the need to develop procedures and rules of the development of writing (rules and communication) Of the division of labor and responsibilities within the organization

4.23 4.16

0.938

4.05

3.81–4.30

g

3.89

You would say that the adoption of an eco-label is incompatible with the functioning of SMEs because (1 for not at all …, 7 for strongly agree).

11

Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

E. Leroux, P.-C. Pupion

Table 6 Descriptive and inferential statistics of the factors competitive pressures and regulatory environment (variables environmental pressure, regulatory pressure). Factors

Unit of measurementh

Mean of item

Cronbach's alpha

Mean of the variable

90% Confidence interval for mean

Competitive environmental pressure Measure inspired from EVER (2006) Regulatory pressure Measure inspired from EVER (2006)

The allocation of a poor rating in the rankings The loss of competitiveness,

3.97 3.94

0.75

3.96

3.68–4.15

Regulatory pressure and fear of sanctions The will to align with the regulations in terms of waste The will to align with the regulations in terms of energy

4.85 4.94

0.868

4.90

4.70–5.13

h

4.87

Factors that would push your business to the adoption of an eco-label (scale 1 to 7, 1 for not at all important 7 very important).

Table 7 Descriptive and inferential statistics of the influence of peers and the profession on ecolabel adoption (variables mimetic pressure and normative pressure). Factors

Mimetic pressure Normative pressure i

Unit of measurementi

Mean

That it makes it possible to align itself with the choice of other institutions That it meets the new standards of the hotel profession

1st quartile

Median

3rd quartile

90% Confidence interval for median

25

50

75

3.58

3

4

5

3–5

4.23

4

5

5.75

4–6

You would say of the adoption of an eco-label (1 for not at all …, 7 for strongly agree).

Table 8 Factors of adoption of ecolabel. Factors

Rank mean of non-adopter

Rank mean of adopter

Mann-Whitney U test

W Wilcoxon test

Exact meaning

Advantage (attitude) Complexity (attitude) Compatibility (attitude) Image (attitude) Behavior control or feasibility (PBC) Environmental pressure (norms) Regulatory pressure (norms) Normative pressure (norms) Imitation pressure (norms) Entrepreneurial orientation innovation (PBC) Entrepreneurial orientation proactivity (PBC) Entrepreneurial orientation risk taking (PBC) Entrepreneurial orientation autonomy (PBC) Entrepreneurial orientation aggressiveness (PBC) Formal structure (PBC)

88.28 97.81 77.38 88.32 106.68 98.97 83.64 83.44 87.20 87.41 81.48 81.65 85.97 88.85 96.33

98.74 77.29 123.27 98.66 57.35 74.70 109.18 109.63 101.18 100.7 114.04 113.65 103.94 97.46 80.63

3122.500 2732.500 1749.000 3127.000 1615.500 2587.000 2538.000 2513.000 2986.000 3013.000 2266.000 2287.500 2831.500 3194.500 2919.000

11123.500 4328.500 9750.000 11128.000 3211.500 4183.000 10539.000 10514.000 10987.000 11014.000 10267.000 10288.500 10832.500 11195.500 4515.000

0.215 0.015 0.000 0.210 0.000 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.092 0.111 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.307 0.039

Mann-Whitney U statistical test used.

environmental values. The H3 hypothesis is only verified through the risk-taking dimension, which facilitates the passage to the act of adopting an eco-label. The H10 hypothesis is validated, the more the manager perceives that he has the abilities to set up this eco-label the more likely it is to adopt an eco-label. The H6c hypothesis on the mimetic pressure is validated. To go further and include intent as an element prior to the act of adoption, we tried to explain the intention of adoption among firms that had not adopted environmental certification. Then we will consider the intentions of whether or not to continue this certification for those who have adopted environmental certification.

- variables corresponding to the institutional dimension (regulatory pressures, normative and mimetic pressures) - variables corresponding to the perceived behavioral control (cost of entry related to the adoption of the eco-label) The results of logistic regression were obtained using SPSS software. Only four variables (compatibility attribute, mimetic pressure, risktaking and fear of not being able to do so) explain the adoption decision (Table 9). The model correctly adjusts the data as evidenced by the model's overall significance tests. The p values show that the compatibility attribute with the environmental strategy of the establishment is decisive for the eco-label's adoption. Risk-taking is a determining factor in choice, as is the perception of costs and the inabilities to adopt innovation. Mimetic type institutional factors explain in part why establishments adopt an eco-label system. One legitimizes oneself by making the choice that seems to be the one made by the others. The H2 hypothesis regarding the attributes is partially validated through the dimension compatibility with the organization's

3.4. Intentions of non-certified establishments to reverse their decision or to confirm their choice In order to examine the intentions of the firms that did not adopt the eco-label (126 in the sample), we asked them whether they intended in to adopt an eco-label. This measure was inspired from Armstrong et al. (2000). We ask them “Do you intend to adopt ecolabel in the future that

12

Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

E. Leroux, P.-C. Pupion

Table 9 Binary logit analysis for the adoption of an eco-label. Estimated values of the exact parameter Independent factor

Parameter coefficient

Robust standard error

p-Value

Wald

ddl

sig

Exp

IC 95%

Compatibility (attitude) Imitation pressure (norms) Taking risks (PBC) Feasibility-behavior control (PBC) -2log Likelihood R-2 of Cox & Snell R-2 Nagelkerke's Overall percentage correct

0.878 0.540 0.520 − 1.448 148.466 0.342 0.483 82%

0.291 0.163 0.205 0.285

0.003 0.001 0.011 0.000

9.077 11.042 6.442 25.771

1 1 1 1

0.003 0,001 0,01 ,000

2,41 1,72 1,68 0,24

1,36 1,25 1,13 0,13

4,26 2,36 2,51 0,41

Note: i) Dependent factor is binary, 1 if ecolabel is adopted and 0 if it is not adopted. ii) 1%, 5%, and 10% level of significance considered. Table 10 Factors of intention to reverse decision (ordinal regression analysis). Independent factor

Parameter coefficient

Standard error

Wald

ddl

P-Value.

Confidence interval 5%

Threshold

[labelcoice1 = 1.00] [labelchoice1 = 2.00] Formal structure (PBC) Normative pressure (norms) Taking risks (PBC) Autonomy (PBC) Regulatory pressure (norms) Subjective norms (norms) Pearson Deviance Cox and Snell Nadelgerke

− 7.662 − 5.276 − 1.080 0.571 1.666 − 0.970 0.485

1.966 1.895 0.208 0.233 0.391 0.308 0.165

15.187 7.749 26.883 6.013 18.200 9.898 8.668

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0.000 0.005 0.000 0.014 0.000 0.002 0.003

−11.515 −8.990 −1.489 0.115 0.901 −1.574 0.162

−3.808 −1.561 −0.672 1.027 2.432 −0.366 0.808

0.447 452.782 359.355 0.363 0.392

0.243

3.383

1

0.066 0.000 0.000

0.029

0.924

Location

QualityIndex

is to say the next five years? (Definitely Not, Probably No, Definitely Yes)”. The variable intention takes the value 1, for the answer Definitely Not: I do not intend in the future to adopt an eco-label, the value 2: I probably do not intend to adopt an eco-label in the future, 3: I intend to adopt certification in the future. By carrying out a test of Kruskall-Wallis, we identify variables (with an error risk inferior to 5%) which significantly affects intention to adopt: attitude, subjective norms, formal structure, entrepreneurial orientation (risk taking, creativity), normative and coercive pressures (regulatory). We have complemented this approach with an ordinal regression analysis in order to identify the factors that significantly influence the intention to adopt behavior, namely the attitude towards this innovation, the opinion of the reference group on behaviors to be adopted, perceived behavioral control, institutional pressures that may influence behavior, and different traits of entrepreneurial orientation. The following results are presented below (Table 10). It appears that the subjective norms (that is, the opinion of the reference group) and the perception of regulatory pressure influence positively the intention to adopt the behavior. On the other hand, the fear of formalization and the fact of supporting autonomy hampers the intention to adopt an eco-label. The intention to adopt an eco-label is all the more strong as the manager has an entrepreneurial orientation marked by the will to take risks. The hypotheses related to the theory of planned behavior are validated. The assumptions about the effect of entrepreneurial orientation are partially validated by the autonomy factor. The fear of bureaucratization is verified H8. The more the firm perceives that adoption leads it to deviate from its simple structure and the more likely it is that it does not intend to adopt an eco-label. The hypotheses H9 and H10 about normative and coercive pressures, are validated. The study shows that the main factors of adoption are the desire to conform to professional norms and entrepreneurial orientation. This last dimension is source of opposing forces with on the one hand the risk-taking, which favors the intention to adopt and on the other hand

the fear of bureaucracy and loss initiative from the staff, which reduces the intention to adopt. Risk-taking dimension is the only determining factor shared with adoption model, this entrepreneurial dimension is determinant in intentions and behaviors. Normative pressures in the broad perspective, including regulatory pressure, are more decisive for intention than for behavior. However, they influence indirectly adoption behavior through compatibility with the values of the organization.

3.5. Intentions of certified establishments to reverse their decision or to maintain their adoption We try to explain the intention to abandon or not an eco-label (56 have adopted an ecolabel). We use as explanatory variables, the ecolabeling attributes such as benefits, compatibility of technology, complexity. We exclude entrepreneurial orientation or institutional pressures, which in essence are not likely to vary profoundly and discriminate in future intentions (the Mann-Withney tests confirm our point of view; these elements are not discriminating between the populations of those wishing to abandon this certification and the others). The results of the binary logistic regression are obtained by the SAS software that allows to estimate stable parameters1 from an exact conditional inference method that can be implemented through algortihm proposed by Hirji et al. (1987). The exact logistic regression is used to model binary variables of results when the sample size is too small for a regular logistic regression (using the standard estimator based on the maximum likelihood). Only three variables namely perceived complexity, attitude towards innovation and subjective norms clearly explain the intention of whether or not to abandon the certification (Table 11). 1

13

Amalia Gordóvil Merino, Joan Guàrdia Olmos-* & Maribel Peró-Cebollero.

Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

E. Leroux, P.-C. Pupion

Table 11 Logistic regression and intent to adopt an eco-label. Test

Chi2

DDL

Pr > Chi2

Score Wald

28.4268 10.9629

3 3

< 0.0001 0.0119

Parameter

Estimate

Standard error

95% Confidence interval

Bilateral p-value

Complexity (attitude) Attitude (attitude) Subjective norms (norms)

− 2.598 3.028 0.867

1.022 0.944 0.476

− 4.602 1,178 0.066

0.011 0.001 0.027

− 0,594 4.879 1.799

factors: attitudes, norms and perceived behavior control. These factors can explain the choice to adopt but also the intentions of whether or not to maintain this choice, i.e. the intention to adopt for those who have not done so and to abandon the environmental certification for those who already benefit from the certification. To build this model we used the analysis of diffusion theory, entrepreneurial orientation perspective, neo-institutional theory. In a classical way, the analysis of diffusion theory allows us to explain which perceived attributes have a positive influence on the choice of adopting the eco-label but also on the intention to abandon the ecolabel among those who have adopted the certification. The study makes it possible to highlight the attributes associated with this green innovation that are decisive in the adoption, namely the compatibility with the organization's values and objectives. In other words, the adoption of this certification is part of a global approach to environmental responsibility and not just a one-off action. The perceived complexity explains intention to abandon eco-labelling. The lessons of the entrepreneurial analyzes shed some light on the managers' intentions and their passage to the act. As any strategic decisions, the entrepreneurial orientation in terms of risk taking is a decisive factor in this passage to the act of environmental responsibility. We show that two traits of entrepreneurial orientation can influence the intention to use certification or not, one positively the taking risk, the other negatively the taste for autonomy. Certification may seem as a formalization mechanism hindering the autonomy given to individuals in the structure. The fear of the structure's bureaucratization also appears as a factor hindering the intention of adopting a certification. The use of neo-institutional theory makes it possible to appreciate the existence of mimetic, normative and mimetic pressures in the field of the green economy. It partially explains the choice to adopt and the intention to maintain this choice. Imitation of peers is an important factor in a context where, as in any strategic choices, is marked by high uncertainty. In the field of the green economy, there is regulatory pressure in the hospitality sector, but also normative pressure that aims to develop the use of the environmental certification. A device like the green key is the prototype of these collective actions that promote the spread of this green innovation. The pressure of his reference group in an area where environmental societal values are significant also explains the managers' intention. The theory of planned behavior and the dimension of feasibility of the project (the perceived behavioral control) allow us in the context of the study of small structures to explain the choice of whether or not to abandon the already obtained certification. The feasibility, particularly in terms of associated costs, is a factor that can slow down the transition to bureaucratic structure. In an original way, we explain the intentions to abandon the environmental certification. The intention to abandon is mainly due to the complexity of the certification implementation and the resulting cumbersomeness. It is clear that the positive attitude towards this green innovation and the social pressure of the reference group act as a reminder to them to maintain this certification. Going beyond these simple analyzes, our study may be useful for

Regarding the explanatory hypotheses intentions we validate both H7, H8 and H9 hypotheses. The manager has all the less intention to abandon his certification that he has a favorable attitude towards the eco-label and that adoption is highly considered by the reference group. Complexity is also a factor of intention to abandon the eco-label and this according to the hypothesis H9c. The decisive factor in the decision to abandon the eco-label would be the perceived complexity, a perceived attribute of this innovation. The general attitude towards the eco-label and the pressure of the reference group act on the contrary as a force of inertia. We can note that the factors determining the adoption of innovation and the decision to abandon are different. Indeed, implementation helps to determine attitudes and reveals certain characteristics. 4. Conclusion and discussion We explain and analyze why hotels adopt an ecolabel, whereas previous studies have merely identified various factors preventing or promoting adoption of ecolabel. The study helps to fill the lack of studies on this subject. We complete previous analyzes, which only highlight the advantages and disadvantages associated with eco-labeling in tourism, as did Jarvis et al. (2010) in the study entitled “The Benefits and Challenges of Sustainable Tourism Certification: A Case Study of the Green Tourism Business” or Ivanov et al. (2017) for accommodation establishments. Our analysis also enriches and completes a recent analysis published in March 2017 by Smerecnik and Andersena, which reveals a set of perceived attributes that, in Rogers' perspective diffusion, influence the decision to adopt the environmental innovation. However, in our study, we highlight the effects of entrepreneurial orientation and the pressing institutional constraints, which are ignored in the previous study. These constraints are pervasively present when dealing with a theme such as sustainable development. It appears that environmental commitment and values take precedence over the imperatives of competitiveness. However, the uncertainty and risk dimensions are significant; the entrepreneurial ability to take risks explains the choice, as does the legitimacy of a choice shared by a greater number. These dimensions constitute a piece of our original contribution to the theoretical question of the innovation adoption. From a theoretical point of view, our study is complete. It integrates all factors of adoption and it articulates them in a general model. It integrates the effects of entrepreneurial dimension and the perception of behavior control. By integrating that factor (perceived behavior control) in the adoption process, this study meets the expectations of Vagnani, G. and Gatti, C. (2016). We propose a general model that explains the adoption of an innovation, from the knowledge phase to the adoption phase and after decision to the confirmation or information phase of the choice. We analyze the factors that can explain adoption and reverse decisions. This model makes it possible to explain the behavior of adoption but also the intention to maintain or to reverse its choice. This global model is composed of three dimensions or set of 14

Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

E. Leroux, P.-C. Pupion

Milbank Q. 82 (4), 581–629. Hirji, K.F., Mehta, C.R., Patel, 1987. Computing distributions for exact logistic regression. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 82 (400), 1110–1117. Hitchcock, D.E., Willard, M.L., 2006. The Step-by-Step Guide to Sustainability Planning: How to Create and Implement Sustainability Plans in Any Business or Organization. Earthscan. Hobday, M., 1998. Product complexity, innovation and industrial organisation. Res. Policy 26 (6), 689–710. Horne, R., 2009. Limits to labels: The role of eco-labels in the assessment of product sustainability and routes to sustainable consumption. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 33, 175–182. Hughes, M., Morgan, R.E., 2007. Deconstructing the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and business performance at the embryonic stage of firm growth. Ind. Mark. Manag. 36 (5), 651–661. Hughes, M., Weaver, D., Ch, Pforr, 2015. The Practice of Sustainable Tourism: Resolving the Paradox. Routledge. Iraldo, F., Barberio, M., 2017. Drivers, barriers and benefits of the EU ecolabel in European companies' perception. Sustain. For. 9 (5), 751. Ivanov, S., Gavrilina, M., Webster, C., Ralko, V., 2017. Impacts of political instability on the tourism industry in Ukraine. J. Policy Res. in Tour., Leis. and Events 9 (1), 100–127. Jarvis, N., Weeden, C., Simcock, N., 2010. The benefits and challenges of sustainable tourism certification: a case study of the Green Tourism Business Scheme in the West of England. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 17, 83–93. Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W., Chervany, N.L., 1999. Information technology adoption across time: a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Q. 23 (2), 183–213. Khan, M., Khan, M.A., 2009. How Technological Innovations Extend Services Outreach to Customers: The Changing Shape of Hospitality Services Taxonomy, Vol. 21, Issue 5. pp. 509–522. Kijek, T., 2015. Modelling of eco-innovation diffusion: the EU eco-label. Comp. Econ. Res. 18 (1), 65–79. Le, Y., Hollenhorst, S., Harris, C., McLaughlin, W., Shook, S., 2006. Environmental management: a study of Vietnamese hotels. Ann. Tour. Res. 33 (2), 545–567. Lin, C.H., Lin, I.C., Roan, J.S., Yeh, J.S., 2012. Critical factors influencing hospitals' adoption of HL7 version 2 standards: an empirical investigation. J. Med. Syst. 36 (3), 1183–1192. Londiveau, A., 2012. The Establishment of the Eco-label in a Hotel and Its Consequences on Communication: The Case of the Hotel Albert 1er, CETIA. Université de Toulouse II-Le Mirail. Lumpkin, G.T., Dess, G.G., 1996. Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 21 (1), 135–172. Lumpkin, G.T., Dess, G.G., 2001. Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: the moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. J. Bus. Ventur. 16 (5), 429–451. Lumpkin, G.T., Cogliser, C.C., Schneider, D.R., 2009. Understanding and measuring autonomy: an entrepreneurial orientation perspective. entrepreneurship. Enterp. Theory Pract. 33 (1), 47–69. March, J.G., Simon, H.A., 1958. Organizations, 2nd ed. Wiley, New York. Mehamli, A., 2013. Determinants of environmental product innovation in the detergent and maintenance sector: application for the European ecolabel certification. Int. Bus. Res. 6 (2). Mendel, P., Meredith, L., Schoenbaum, M., Sherbourne, C., Wells, K., 2008. Interventions in organizational and community context: a framework for building evidence on dissemination and implementation in health services research. Adm. Policy Ment. Health Ment. Health Serv. Res. 35 (1), 21–37. Messeghem, K., 2005. ISO 9000 standards and specificity of SMEs. In: Économies et Sociétés, Série “Systèmes agroalimentaires”, A.G, no. 27, 5/2005, pp. 855–875. Messenghem, K., 2001. Peut-on concilier logiques managériale et entrepreneuriale en PME. In: XIème Conférence de l'Association Internationale de Management Stratégique, juin. Midgley, D.F., Dowling, G.R., 1978. Innovativeness: The concept and its measurement. J. Consum. Res. 4 (4), 229-24. Miller, D., 1983. The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Manag. Sci. 29, 770–791. Miller, D., Friesen, P., 1982. Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: two models of strategic momentum. Strateg. Manag. J. 3, 1–25. Mitchell, S.A., Fisher, C.A., Hastings, C.E., Silverman, L.B., Wallen, G.R., 2010. A thematic analysis of theoretical models for translational science in nursing: mapping the field. Nurs. Outlook 58 (6), 287–300. Molina Azorín, J.F., Pereira Moliner, J., Tarí Guilló, J.J., Pertusa Ortega, E.M., López Gamero, M.D., 2014. Quality certification, firm performance and organizational structure in Spanish hotel industry. Intangible Cap. 9 (1), 199–224. Moon, J.W., Kim, Y.G., 2001. Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context. Inf. Manag. 38 (4), 217–230. Moore, G.C., Benbasat, I., 1991. Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information. Inf. Syst. Res. 2 (3), 192–222. OECD, 1991. Environmental Labelling in OECD countries. OECD Publishing, Paris. Oldenburg, B., Glanz, K., 2008. Diffusion of innovations. Health Behav. and Health Educ.Theory Res., and Pract. 313–330. Pereira, A.F., Soares, S.R., 2016. Environmental parameters for ecodesign: a tool based on ecolabel programs and life cycle thinking. Int. J. Sustain. Des. 3 (1), 1–19. Perlines, F.H., Araque, B.Y., 2015. Linking training to organizational performance: an Absorptive capacity-based view. case study method in spanish family businesses. J. Promot. Manag. 21 (4), 432–446. Popp, D., Newell, R.G., Jaffe, A.B., 2010. Energy, the environment, and technological

government policy. National government can stimulate the supply of sustainable products through Public Ecolabelling Policy. Public policy aims to reduce the growth of collective environmental footprints and to enhance standards of living by developing ecolabels. In correspondence to our study, a public policy based on development of information about the growing adoption of eco-label can facilitate the diffusion of ecolabel by imitation. The governments should also propose a type of eco-label, which is not too complex. In the opposite case, certified firms would risk to give up their ecolabel and diffuse a bad opinion on it. It would be interesting to go further by conducting a comparative study with other sectors to validate the results of our study and to identify the fundamental traits in terms of intention and behavior for green innovations brought socially by public and private actors. References Aarons, GA., Hurlburt, M., Horwitz, S., 2011. Advancing a conceptual model of evidencebased practice implementation in public service sectors. Adm. Policy Ment. Health Ment. Health Serv. Res. 38 (1), 4–23. Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M., 1977. Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychol. Bull. 84 (5), 888. Ajzen, I., 1985. In: Kuhl, J., Beckmann, J. (Eds.), From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. Action-control: From Cognition to Behavior, vol. 1. Springer, Heidelberg, pp. l–39. Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211. Ajzen, I., Madden, T.J., 1986. Prediction of goal-directed behavior from attitudinal and normative variables. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 22, 453–474. Armstrong, J.S., Morwitz, V.G., Kumar, V., 2000. Sales forecasts for existing consumer products and services: Do purchase intentions contribute to accuracy? Int. J. Forecast. 16 (3), 383–397. Buckley, R., 2002. Tourism ecolabels. Ann. Tour. Res. 29 (1), 183–208. Calantone, R.J., Chan, K., Cui, A.S., 2006. Decomposing product innovativeness and its effects on new product success. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 23 (5), 408–421. Chouinard, Y., 2005. Let My People Go Surfing. Penguin, New York, NY. Churchill, G.A., 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing construct. J. Mark. Res. XVI (February 1979), 67–73. Cohen, WM., Levinthal, DA., 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 35 (1), 128–152. Conway, T., 2016. Chapter fourteen endogenous and exogenous resource use in ecotourism promotion: evidence from Ireland Thérèse Conway and Mary Cawley. In: Meeting Challenges for Rural Tourism Through Co-Creation of Sustainable Tourist Experiences. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 309 (August). Covin, J.G., Slevin, D.P., 1989. Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strateg. Manag. J. 10 (1), 75–87. De Jorge, J., Suárez, C., 2014. Productivity, efficiency and its determinant factors in hotels. Serv. Ind. J. 34 (4), 354–372. Delmas, M.A., Toffel, M.W., 2008. Organizational responses to environmental demands: opening the black box. Strateg. Manag. J. 29 (10), 1027–1055. Deutsch, M., Gerard, H.B., 1955. A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 51 (3), 629. Diallo, M., Diop, F., Leroux, E., Valette-Florence, P., 2015. Responsible behavior of tourists: the role of social commitment. Rech. Appl. Mark. 30 (3), 88–108 SAGE Publications. Duglio, S., Ivanov, S.H., Magliano, F., Ivanova, M.G., 2017. Motivation, Costs and Benefits of the Adoption of the European Ecolabel in the Tourism Sector: An Exploratory Study of Italian Accommodation Establishments. EVER, 2006. Report to the European Commission – Part I. Brussels: DG, Environment European evaluation of eco-label and EMAS for their revision. Res. Find. IEFE Bocconi. Feldstein, A.C., Glasgow, R.E., 2008. A practical, robust implementation and sustainability model (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice. Jt. Comm. J. Qual. Patient Saf. 34 (4), 228–243. Font, X., 2005. Critical Review of Certification and Accreditation in Sustainable Tourism Governance. (Retrieved from). Font, X.E., Wood, M., 2007. Sustainable tourism certification marketing and its contribution to SME market access. Qual. Assur. and Certification in Ecotourism 147–163. Frambach, RT., Schillewaert, N., 2002. Organizational innovation adoption: A multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research. J. Bus. Res. 55 (2), 163–176. Freeman, R.E., Pierce, J., Dodd, R., 2000. Environmentalism and the new logic of business: How firms can be profitable and leave our children a living planet. NY: Oxford University Press, New York. Gallivan, M.J., 2001. Organizational adoption and assimilation of complex technological innovations: development and application of a new framework. ACM Sigmis Database 32 (3), 51–85. Gountas, S., Ewing, M.T., Gountas, J.I., 2007. Exploring consumers' responses to service providers' positive affective displays. Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res. 1 (1), 97–109. Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., Kyriakidou, O., 2004. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations.

15

Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

E. Leroux, P.-C. Pupion

Zhu, J.J., He, Z., 2002. Perceived characteristics, perceived needs, and perceived popularity: adoption and use of the Internet in China. Commun. Res. 29 (4), 466–495.

change, in Bronwyn Hall and Nathan Rosenberg (eds) Handbook of the Economics of Innovation. North-Holland, Amsterdam. Ranacher, L., Pröbstl-Haider, U., 2014. Green meetings: ecocertification of sustainable events in conference and business tourism. Sustain. Tour. VI (187), 121. Reix, R., 2004. Information System and Management of Organization. Vuibert (2002). Rogers, E.M., 1983. Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd edition. The Free Press, New York, NY. Rogers, E.M., 1995. “Diffusion of innovations”, New York. Rogers, E.M., 2003. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edition. The Free Press, New York, NY. Sahli, A.B., Legohérel, P., 2016. The tourism Web acceptance model: A study of intention to book tourism products online. J. Vacat. Mark. 22 (2), 179–194. Sasidharan, V., Sirakaya, E., Kerstetter, D., 2002. Developing countries and tourism ecolabels. Tour. Manag. 23 (2), 161–174. Smerecnik, Karl R., Andersen, P.A., 2011. The diffusion of environmental sustainability innovations in North American hotels and ski resorts. J. Sustain. Tour. 19 (2), 171–196. Smerecnik, K.R., Andersen, P.A., Hellweg, S., Beck, L., 2009. Environmental sustainability in hotel and resorts, report School of Hospitality and Tourism Management. pp. 1–6. Stetler, C.B., 2001. Updating the Stetler Model of research utilization to facilitate evidence-based practice. Nurs. Outlook 49 (6), 272–279. Stevenson, H.H., Jarillo, J.C., 1990. A paradigm of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial management. Strateg. Manag. J. 11 (5), 17–27. Sutton, P., 2000. Building corporate capabilities to promote ecological sustainability: a“case study”. In: Dunphy, D., Benveniste, J., Griffiths, A., Sutton, P. (Eds.), Sustainability: The Corporate Challenge of the 21st Century. Allen & Unwin, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia, pp. 127–166. Taylor, S., Todd, P.A., 1995. Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Inf. Syst. Res. 6 (2), 144–176. Tornatzky, L.G., Fleischer, M., 1990. The Process of Technology Innovation. Lexington Books, Lexington. Vagnani, G., Gatti, C., 2016. Innovation attributes-innovation adoption linkages in organizations: a meta-analytical review. In: Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2016, No. 1, p. 17691). Academy of Management, (January). Vishwanath, A., Goldhaber, G.M., 2003. An examination of the factors contributing to adoption decisions among late-diffused technology products. New Media Soc. 5 (4), 547–572. Wejnert, B., 2002. Integrating models of diffusion of innovations, a conceptual framework. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 28, 297–326. Wysokińska, Z., 2013. Transition to a green economy in the context of selected European and global requirements for sustainable development. Comp. Econ. Res. 16 (4).

Erick Leroux is Associate Professor at the University of Paris 13-Sorbonne Paris City and member at CNRS laboratory CEPN 7324. Erick Leroux is the president of the international association of sustainable tourism (AIMTD), association which gathers all Frenchspeaking researchers in sustainable tourism. He is also an expert on environmental issues in France and an author of numerous books on sustainable tourism. He is mainly interested in the innovation adoption and sustainable development strategy including sustainable marketing. He has authored and co-authored books, book chapters, and sections in academic journals, such as Information and Management Systems (French Journal of Management Information Systems) and “Recherche et Applications en Marketing”.

Address: IUT département TC, place du 8 Mai 1945 93206 Saint Denis, France.

e-mail: [email protected]. Pierre-Charles Pupion is full Professor of Public Management at the International centre for public management IPAG-CIMP of the Poitiers University, and researcher at the laboratory CEREGE. His research is devoted to the study of adoption of innovation, tourism and public management. He is the president of AIRMAP, the International Association for Research in Public Management which is an international network of experts, researchers and professors speaking French in public administration. He has authored books and articles on public management such as “Modelling cloud computing adoption in major French local public authorities” in Systèmes d'information & management, 2015, and on tourism management such as “Ecosystem-based Artefacts as a Source of Loyalty at the French Valley of the Monkeys” in Ecological Economics (2017). He is also board member of scientific board in the highest French institutions, international scientific conferences and academic journals.

Address: IPAG-CIMP, 2 rue jean Carbonnier, 86073 Poitiers cedex, TSA 81100 France.

e-mail: [email protected].

16