The effects of green supply chain management practices on firm performance: Empirical evidence from restaurants in Egypt

Abstract

The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of three green supply chain management (GrSCM) dimensions (i.e., green management, green food, green environment, and equipment) on operational performance, competitive advantage, and firm performance, in a convenience sample of international quick-service restaurants (QSRs) in Egypt. The hypotheses of the study were tested empirically by employing a self-administered questionnaire. A total of 600 questionnaires were randomly distributed by hand to QSR managers and supervisors, and 478 usable questionnaires were personally retrieved, representing a usable response rate of 79.7%. The obtained data were analyzed using one-way independent ANOVA and structural equation modeling (SEM). The SEM results revealed that the green management dimension had a significant positive effect on a restaurant's competitive advantage while the green environment and equipment dimension had a significant positive effect on operational performance. Additionally, the operational performance had a significant positive effect on firm performance. The study has significant theoretical and practical implications.

Keywords

Competitive advantage firm performance green supply chain management operational performance quick-service restaurants

Introduction

The restaurant industry is one of the largest segments of the hospitality industry; it is a major consumer of water, energy, and other natural resources (Schubert et al., 2010). Typically, restaurants use 2.5 times more energy per square foot than other commercial institutions (Han et al., 2011). Restaurants may have negative influences on the surrounding environment. First, there are the upstream environmental influences, including pollutions from manufacturers and farmers (Schubert et al., 2010). Second, there are the direct environmental influences, including excessive use of resources, for example, electricity, gas, and water; usage of harmful chemicals and non-recyclable products; and increasing carbon footprints through the transportation of products and employees (Schubert et al., 2010; Wang, 2016). Third, there are the downstream environmental influences, including excessive use of plastic bags and disposable tableware by customers (Schubert et al., 2010).

Given the numerous adverse ecological impacts caused by restaurants, there is a growing concern to adopt green practices in the food-service industry (Bonn et al., 2016). Green practices relate to actions that protect the environment (Tzschentke et al., 2008). Examples of green practices include using renewable energy; reducing consumption of energy and water; implementing a recycling program; purchasing local or organic products; and educating customers to be environmentally conscious (Chou et al., 2012; Hu et al., 2010; Tzschentke et al., 2008). Currently, there are several green restaurant certifications: Green Restaurant Association (GRA), Green Table Network (GTN), Sustainable Restaurant Association (SRA), National Restaurant Association (NRA), and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) (DiPietro et al., 2013).

There are certain benefits of adopting green practices in the food-service industry. These benefits include increased customers’ purchasing intentions to pay more for green products (DiPietro et al., 2013; Namkung and Jang, 2017); increased customer satisfaction and loyalty (Barber and Deale, 2014); improved employee satisfaction and loyalty (Alcorn, 2014; Chiu and Hsieh, 2016); reduced operating costs (Chiu and Hsieh, 2016; Schubert et al., 2010); improved image and customer satisfaction (Chiu and Hsieh, 2016; Hu et al., 2010); enhanced competitiveness (Chiu and Hsieh, 2016; Schubert et al., 2010); and improved environmental and financial performance (Chiu and Hsieh, 2016; Hussain et al., 2019; Perramon et al., 2014). However, some barriers prevent the food-service industry from adopting green practices: high costs related to implementing environmental technologies (Chan, 2011), lack of social awareness and green education (Abbas and Hussien, 2017), lack of resources, lack of support, and uncertainty of outcomes (Chan, 2011).

In the hospitality industry, most studies have shed the light on green practices in hotels (e.g., Hussain et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020), but few studies have been done to look at green practices in restaurants compared to hotels (e.g., Abbas and Hussien, 2017; Dipietro et al., 2013; Hu et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2013). A study conducted by Kim et al. (2017) showed that 76% of the published articles between 2000 and 2014 on green hospitality practices were based on the hotel sector, compared with only 11% of the published articles based on the restaurant sector. Most of those studies have focused on investigating customers' attitudes and behaviors toward green practices (e.g., González-Rodríguez et al., 2020; Hu et al., 2010; Schubert et al., 2010). However, less attention has been paid to the invisible green practices, such as green procurement and green cooking, that are unrecognized by the customer (Alcorn, 2014). Most green activities in restaurants take place back-of-the-house; therefore, they are hidden from the customer (Abbas and Hussien, 2017). These invisible green practices may result in increased employee satisfaction, improved services, and improved customer satisfaction (Schubert et al., 2010). In addition, most literature on green practices for restaurants have focused on western developed countries. Few equivalent studies have been implemented in more developing countries, for example, Egypt (Abbas and Hussien, 2017; El Dief and Font, 2012).

The general aims of any process innovation (e.g., green initiative innovation) are to reduce costs, increase competitiveness, and increase profits (Schubert et al., 2010). The current study investigates the effect of green supply chain management (GrSCM) practices on firm performance in a sample of international quick-service restaurants in Egypt. Subsequently, the research objectives of the current study were to determine whether:

GrSCM practices (i.e., green management, green food, and green environment and equipment) affect a restaurant's operational performance;

GrSCM practices (i.e., green management, green food, and green environment and equipment) affect a restaurant's competitive advantage;

a restaurant's operational performance owing to GrSCM practices affects firm performance; and

a restaurant's competitive advantage owing to GrSCM practices affects firm performance.

Literature review and hypotheses

Green restaurants

According to Gilg et al. (2005), a green restaurant focuses on three Rs (i.e., reduce, reuse, and recycle) and two Es (i.e., energy and efficiency). In 2007, the Green Restaurant Association (GRA) mentioned three main green practices: green action (energy and water efficiency, recycling, green construction), green foods (organic and local), and green giving (donating to green projects). In 2012, GRA identified the seven criteria of green practices: sustainable furnishings and building materials, sustainable food, water efficiency, energy efficiency, waste reduction and recycling, pollution reduction, and disposables/chemical reduction. In 2013, Wang et al. outlined four green restaurant practices: environmental management policies (e.g., green education for employees and consumers, and social responsibility); sustainability (e.g., green building, organic food, eco-friendly production, and service); environmental conservation (e.g., waste reduction, low pollution, and saving resources through approaches such as recycling, reducing and reusing); and low-carbon footprint (e.g., energy conservation, energy efficiency, saving water, and use of local food and resources). In 2015, GRA identified the 11 criteria of green practices: green building and construction, employee education, sustainable food, energy efficiency and conservation, water efficiency and conservation, recycling and composting, use of chlorine-free paper products, use of non-hazardous cleaning and chemical products, pollution prevention, and renewable power. In 2016, Kwok et al. classified the green practices of restaurants into three categories: administration-focused green attributes (i.e., green corporate social responsibility, green certifications, and employee training on green practices); food-focused green attributes (i.e., local and organic food); environment-focused green attributes (i.e., water efficiency and conservation, energy efficiency and conservation, recycling and composting, pollution prevention and reduction, and renewable power). Based on the previously mentioned definitions of green restaurants, this study suggested that green restaurants refer to restaurants that provide green food (e.g., local, organic, and sustainable food); restaurants that incorporate green environment practices (e.g., energy and water efficiency, recycling, and green construction); and that implement green administration practices (green certifications, green corporate social responsibility, and employee training for green practices). Examples of green environmental practices adopted by McDonald's restaurants are using energy-efficient fryers, incorporating more natural lighting, using recycling programs, and reusing rainwater (Green Building Council, 2009).

Restaurant green supply chain management

Green supply chain management (GrSCM) has grown to be an essential approach for restaurants to increase profit, reduce environmental risks, and enhance ecological efficiency (Li, 2011). GrSCM is meant to integrate environmental concerns into supply chain management practices. A restaurant’s GrSCM process includes some greening practices such as green management policy, green management planning, green food procurement, green menu planning, and cooking, green package for takeout, green kitchen environment, green dining environment, and green cleaning, and post-treatment (Chiu and Hsieh, 2016; Ronnakrit et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2013). In this study, these GrSCM practices were divided into three main dimensions: green management, green food, and green environment and equipment.

Green management

Green management is recognized as a policy aiming at constantly improving the quality of the environment quality, such as ecological communication, the development of employees in charge of environmental activities, and environmental management systems (Wang et al., 2013). In this study, the green management dimension includes two factors: green management policy and green management planning (Ronnakrit et al., 2016). Green management policies are statements that serve as guidelines for achieving environmental objectives (Ronnakrit et al., 2016). Organizations should have clear and easy-to-understand green management policies to help guide their environmental progress. A green management policy includes environmental communication with partners such as the selection of green suppliers and green education for both employees and customers (Ronnakrit et al., 2016). The green management planning is about the development of employees responsible for green activities and environmental management systems (Global Stewards, 2019). Several researchers (e.g., Chiu and Hsieh, 2016; Montabon et al., 2007) have posited that green management significantly and positively enhances operational performance, competitive advantage, and subsequently firm performance. Consequently, the following hypotheses were proposed:

H1: The effect of green management on a restaurant's operational performance was significantly positive.

H2: The effect of green management on a restaurant's competitive advantage was significantly positive.

Green food

The green food dimension developed by Wang et al. (2013) includes three factors: green food procurement, green menu planning, and cooking, and green package for takeout. Some researchers (e.g., Chiu and Hsieh, 2016; Han et al., 2011) have postulated that working with sustainable suppliers, green production, and the green package has positive influences on restaurant's operating costs and competitiveness. Such green food practices positively enhance restaurant performance (Green Jr. et al., 2012). Thus, the authors proposed the following hypotheses:

H3: The effect of green food on a restaurant's operational performance was significantly positive.

H4: The effect of green food on a restaurant's competitive advantage was significantly positive.

Green environment and equipment

The green environment and equipment dimension includes three factors: green kitchen environment, green dining environment, and green cleaning and post-treatment (Wang et al., 2013). Some studies (e.g., Hussain et al., 2019) showed that applying more efficient water and energy consumption and waste recycling methods subsequently reduces overall operational costs. Additionally, green practices can improve a restaurant's competitive advantage externally and internally. Externally, green practices can improve a restaurant's image (Bagur-Femenias et al., 2013), increase customer satisfaction and loyalty (Bagur-Femenias et al., 2013), attract new customers, and thus, enhance its overall competitive advantage (Bagur-Femenias et al., 2013; Hu et al., 2010). Internally, green practices can increase employee's satisfaction and commitment (Bagur-Femenias et al., 2013). Thus, green practices positively affect overall competitiveness (Hussain et al., 2019; Perramon et al., 2014). Besides, previous studies (e.g., Li, 2011) showed that recycling and energy and water efficiency initiatives improve environmental performance. However, a study conducted by Chiu and Hsieh (2016) did not find a significant correlation between product recycling and a restaurant's operational performance and competitive advantage. Hence, this study posited the following hypotheses:

H5: The effect of a green environment and equipment on a restaurant's operational performance was significantly positive.

H6: The effect of a green environment and equipment on a restaurant's competitive advantage was significantly positive.

Operational performance, competitive advantage, and firm performance

In this research, operational performance is operationalized as a restaurant's ability to reduce its overall operating costs associated with energy consumption, water consumption, and waste treatment. The operational performance construct's measurable variables are operating costs, water consumption, and electricity consumption. The competitive advantage is operationalized as a restaurant's ability to improve its image and increase customer and employee satisfaction due to implementing green initiatives. The competitive advantage construct's measurable variables are the company's image, customer satisfaction, and employee satisfaction. Firm performance is operationalized as a restaurant's ability to increase sales, profits, and seat turnover rates due to implementing green initiatives. The firm performance construct's measurable variables are restaurant sales, profits, and seat turnover rates. Some previous studies (e.g., López-Gamero et al., 2009) did not find a significant relationship between GrSCM practices and firm performance. In contrast, other studies (e.g., Perramon et al., 2014) asserted that GrSCM practices could improve firm performance through other mediated variables, such as operational performance and competitive advantage. In other words, when the company reduces its daily operating costs and consumptions, its financial performance may also be improved (Llach et al., 2013). GrSCM practices can also produce indirect effects on firm performance in terms of improved employee satisfaction, customer satisfaction, and company image (Bagur-Femenias et al., 2013; Jang et al., 2017; López-Gamero et al., 2009). Hence, the following hypotheses were proposed:

H7: The effect of a restaurant's operational performance owing to GrSCM practices on firm performance was significantly positive.

H8: The effect of a restaurant's competitive advantage owing to GrSCM practices on firm performance was significantly positive.

A proposed conceptual model

Based on the previous literature and the developed conceptual models (e.g., Chiu and Hsieh, 2016; Perramon et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2013), this article proposes and tests a conceptual model (Figure 1) that examines the influence of three GrSCM practices (i.e., green management, green food, green environment, and equipment) on a restaurant's operational performance, competitive advantage, and firm performance.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model.

Methodology

Measures and pre-test

The hypotheses of the study were verified empirically by employing a self-administered questionnaire as the data-gathering instrument. Items chosen for the six study constructs were adapted and revised from prior studies: green management, green food, green environment and equipment constructs (Chiu and Hsieh, 2016; Ronnakrit et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2013); operational performance construct (Bagur-Femenias et al., 2013); competitive advantage construct (Bagur-Femenias et al., 2013; López-Gamero et al., 2009); firm performance construct (Bagur-Femenias et al., 2013; López-Gamero et al., 2009). The items were slightly modified to suit the nature of QSRs in Egypt. In the current study, responses to the items in green management policy, green management planning, green food procurement, green menu planning and cooking, green package for takeout, green kitchen environment, green dining environment, green cleaning and post-treatment, operational performance, competitive advantage, and firm performance were evaluated on a five-point Likert-type scale: “definitely agree,” “mostly agree,” “neither agree nor disagree,” “mostly disagree,” and “definitely disagree.” The questionnaire was developed in English and Arabic versions. The questionnaire was pre-tested on 20 restaurant managers and experts. The participants were asked to report any ambiguities in the meanings. Then, the questionnaire was amended. The final version of the questionnaire included 74 items that tested the six constructs in the model.

Sample and procedures

The target population of the current study consisted of the managers and supervisors of international QSRs chains in Greater Cairo. The investigated international QSRs in Greater Cairo were selected for three reasons. First, less attention has been paid to invisible green practices in QSRs in Egypt that are hidden from the customer, as they take place back-of-the-house (Abbas and Hussien, 2017). Second, depending on the statistic of the Chamber of Tourism Establishments (2019), the number of international QSR chain branches in Greater Cairo (i.e., 124) is greater than the international QSR branches in the other Governorates in Egypt (i.e., 60). Third, the international QSR chains, for example, KFC, Pizza Hut, McDonald's, and Burger King are the dominant market in Egypt (i.e., 70% of the domestic market), followed by the local QSR chains, like Moamen, Pizza King, and Pizza Plus (i.e., 30% of the domestic market) (Abdelhamied, 2012). Therefore, this study gathered data from 78 international QSR chain branches out of 124 QSR chain branches in Greater Cairo using the convenience sampling method. The authors made contact with the managers and supervisors of the selected international QSRs chains in Greater Cairo to explain the nature and purpose of the research. A total of 600 questionnaires were randomly distributed by hand to managers and supervisors of the investigated international QSR chains, and 496 questionnaires were returned. Among the returned questionnaires, 18 incomplete questionnaires were excluded. Accordingly, 478 usable questionnaires were personally retrieved, representing a usable response rate of 79.7%. The 478 usable questionnaires were greater than the minimum sample size of 385, which is considered adequate to provide 95% confidence level, with 5% margin error, and 50% estimated proportion of successes, as suggested by Mendenhall et al. (1993).

Data analysis

The structural equation modeling (SEM) using AMOS version 22.0 was utilized. SEM is a set of statistical techniques used to measure and analyze the relationships of latent variables (i.e., green management, green food, and green environment and equipment) and observed variables (i.e., operational performance, competitive advantage, and firm performance). In particular, a two-step SEM approach was applied. First, a second-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) technique was used to check the reliability of constructs (i.e., composite reliability and Cronbach's alpha) and the construct validity (i.e., convergent validity and discriminant validity), as recommended by Hair et al. (2010). Second, the maximum likelihood estimation technique was used to verify the study hypotheses. Finally, one-way independent ANOVA was carried out using SPSS version 22.0 to identify if any significant differences exist among different types of QSRs (i.e., chicken, burger, pizza, and limited menu) in relation to the adopted GrSCM practices, operational performance, competitive advantage, and firm performance.

Analysis and results

Descriptive analysis of the adopted GrSCM practices and its outcomes

To generalize the results of the current study to all types of QSRs in Egypt, a usable sample of 478 responses was obtained from different segments of the international QSRs industry in Egypt: chicken restaurants (32.6%), burger restaurants (24.7%), pizza restaurants (22.2%), and limited menu restaurants (20.5%). The majority of investigated international QSR chains (i.e., 88%) did not have any green certification from the international green certifier's organizations compared with only 12% of the investigated QSR chains that were awarded LEED green certification.

In investigating the adopted GrSCM practices by the different QSRs as reported by the respondents (see Table 1), the highest adopted GrSCM practices by the investigated QSRs were: “Food expiration date is monitored to avoid foods becoming out of shelf life” (M = 4.27, SD = 1.11); “Efficient stock control” (M = 4.17, SD = 1.06); “Good ventilation and temperature control in the kitchen” (M = 4.09, SD = 1.08); “Foods are purchased in appropriate quantities” (M = 4.08, SD = 0.99); “Using appliances that are not leaching chemicals or toxic metal particles when cooking” (M = 4.07, SD = 1.05); “The kitchen equipment and appliances are regularly cleaned and maintained” (M = 4.06, SD = 1.05); “Cooking practices meet the safety and sanitation regulations, such as HACCP” (M = 4.05, SD = 1.03); “Employees follow the food safety and sanitation regulations” (M = 4.05, SD = 1.16); “Management circulates and collects information using an electronic system or via the Internet” (M = 4.04, SD = 1.04); and “Air quality is controlled in the dining area, no uncomfortable odors” (M = 4.04, SD = 1.12).

Table 1.
Descriptive analysis of the adopted GrSCM practices by QSRs (N = 478).

Green practices M SD

Green management policy (GMP) 3.56 1.26

GMP1 Management selects suppliers with an environmental management system, such as suppliers who provide diverse green foods, adopting green transportation, and doing recycle 3.69 1.18

GMP2 Management integrates green concepts into marketing programs 3.77 1.11

GMP3 Management avoids providing bottle water for customers 3.46 1.32

GMP4 Management reduces the replacement of tableware in a meal 3.39 1.32

GMP5 Management uses cloth napkin or reprocessed paper napkin 3.25 1.36

GMP6 Management uses seasoning in can or bottle instead of small individual package 3.35 1.31

GMP7 Management avoids using disposable tableware in the dining room 3.62 1.34

GMP8 Management announces green management policies or practices to the employee 3.84 1.15

GMP9 Management puts power, water, energy saving posters in the kitchen, bathroom, office 3.68 1.21

Green management planning (GMPL) 3.79 1.15

GMPL1 Management implements annual training program to improve employees' green ability 3.72 1.24

GMPL2 Management adopts customer relationship management or caring customer by using an electronic system or via the Internet 3.84 1.13

GMPL3 Management circulates and collects information using electronic system or via the Internet 4.04 1.04

GMPL4 Management adopts e-marketing to make promotion or advertisement 3.92 1.09

GMPL5 Management uses electronic order system (i.e., POS) to order dishes 3.76 1.18

GMPL6 Management adopts energy audit system to monitor the consumption of energy 3.67 1.15

GMPL7 Management adopts water audit system to examine the leak of water, and rapidly repair 3.82 1.16

GMPL8 Management reuses energy, such as heat recycled 3.54 1.19

Green food procurement (GFP) 3.76 1.16

GFP1 Local foods are more than 50% of food purchase amounts per month 3.13 1.38

GFP2 Foods in season are more than 50% of food purchase amount per month 3.51 1.23

GFP3 Organic certified foods are more than 20% of food purchase amounts per month 3.41 1.21

GFP4 Inspected safe foods (i.e., HACCP) are more than 50% of food purchase amounts per month 3.97 1.19

GFP5 Processed foods are less than 20% of food purchase amounts per month 3.38 1.26

GFP6 Traceability agricultural foods are more than 10% of food purchase amounts per month 3.95 1.03

GFP7 Foods are purchased in appropriate quantities 4.08 0.99

GFP8 Efficient stock control is adopted, e.g., moisture control, categorized management 4.17 1.06

GFP9 Food expiration date is monitored to avoid foods becoming out of shelf life 4.27 1.11

Green menu planning and cooking (GMPC) 3.76 1.19

GMPC1 The menu includes healthy cooking methods, e.g., low fat and low fried dishes 3.51 1.24

GMPC2 The menu includes a diversity of dishes and food materials 4.00 1.08

GMPC3 The menu is balanced on colour and texture of dishes 3.87 1.20

GMPC4 More vegetables and fruit are used and less than 30% of dishes are meat 3.34 1.27

GMPC5 Energy is conserved when cooking, e.g., turn off cooking hoods when not in use 3.46 1.32

GMPC6 Food materials are conserved when cooking 3.87 1.13

GMPC7 Adopt appropriate way to defrost, e.g., avoid using running water to defrost 3.78 1.22

GMPC8 Adopt less consumption of energy to cook, like blanching, steaming, boiling 3.63 1.22

GMPC9 Using appliances that are not leaching chemicals or toxic metal particles when cooking 4.07 1.05

GMPC10 Employees follow the food safety and sanitation regulations 4.05 1.16

Green package for takeout (GPT) 3.70 1.24

GPT1 Safe package materials are used, not leaching chemicals when packing hot foods or reheating 4.03 1.18

GPT2 Packaging or container is made free of polystyrene 3.98 1.09

GPT3 Package or container is made of biodegradable and composted materials 3.23 1.36

GPT4 Over-package is avoided, two layers of packaging as the maximum 3.77 1.19

GPT5 Long-lasting or reusable materials are used for package 3.49 1.38

Green kitchen environment (GKE) 3.95 1.12

GKE1 The old equipment is replaced by new energy-saving equipment 3.85 1.21

GKE2 The old equipment is replaced by new water-saving equipment 3.80 1.22

GKE3 Good ventilation and temperature control are used in the kitchen (around 26-28 C) 4.09 1.08

GKE4 Cool air in the refrigerator is kept from going out by reducing opening frequency 4.00 1.03

GKE5 At least 50% low-flow faucets and pressurized sprayers are installed 3.90 1.13

GKE6 Kitchen equipment and appliances are regularly cleaned and maintained 4.06 1.05

GKE7 Cooking practices meet the safety and sanitation regulations, such as HACCP 4.05 1.03

GKE8 Activated carbon treatment equipment is installed to prevent exhaust pollution 3.87 1.17

Green dining environment (GDE) 3.54 1.30

GDE1 At least 50% of faucets in restrooms are water-saving 3.28 1.39

GDE2 All restrooms are equipped with dual flush toilets 3.60 1.25

GDE3 At least 50% of lighting bulbs are energy-saving 3.90 1.20

GDE4 Sunlight is used as natural lighting in the dining room 2.87 1.45

GDE5 Plants are used in the dining room to make environment greener 3.04 1.41

GDE6 Smoking is prohibited in the restaurant 3.64 1.34

GDE7 Air quality is controlled, no smoke smell and other uncomfortable odors 4.04 1.12

GDE8 Outdoor noise control is consistent with the low noise control standards (less than 60 decibels) 3.92 1.23

Green cleaning and post-treatment (GCP) 3.57 1.28

GCP1 All detergents for dishes are eco-friendly with Green Mark and diluted when use 3.99 1.12

GCP2 Detergents or chemical agents maintain surrounding's sanitation and pollution control 3.93 1.05

GCP3 Kitchen waste is recycled to do compost 3.36 1.31

GCP4 Waste and garbage are properly classified for recycling 3.46 1.34

GCP5 FOG waste (fat, oil, grease) being collected and handled by a qualified company to recycle or reuse 3.73 1.31

GCP6 Hazardous waste is recycled, such as fluorescent lamps, batteries, electronic products 3.27 1.36

GCP7 Gray water is collected to be reused for hand-washing or for watering plants 3.11 1.46

GCP8 Air control in surrounding restaurant meets the Air Pollutant Emissions 3.68 1.32

Operational performance (OP) 3.07 1.10

OP1 Green activities allow the organization to reduce its total operating costs 2.42 0.87

OP2 Green activities allow the organization to reduce its water consumption 3.10 1.26

OP3 Green activities allow the organization to reduce its electricity consumption 3.69 1.15

Competitiveness (C) 3.72 1.20

C1 Green activities improve the company's image 3.47 1.30

C2 Green activities increase customer satisfaction 3.95 1.10

C3 Green activities increase employee satisfaction 3.75 1.20

Firm performance (FP) 2.18 0.84

FP1 Sales have increased over the last 2 years 2.19 0.82

FP2 Profits have increased over the last 2 years 2.07 0.86

FP3 The seat turnover rate has improved in the last 2 years 2.28 0.83

Note: SD: standard deviation.

The lowest adopted GrSCM practices were: “Sunlight is used as natural lighting in the dining room” (M = 2.87, SD = 1.45); “Plants are used in the dining room to make environment feel greener” (M = 3.04, SD = 1.41); “Gray water is collected to be reused for handwashing or for watering plants” (M = 3.11, SD = 1.46); “Local foods are more than 50% of food purchase amount per month” (M = 3.13, SD = 1.38); “Package or container is made of biodegradable and composted materials” (M = 3.23, SD = 1.36); “Management uses cloth napkin or reprocessed paper napkin” (M = 3.25, SD = 1.36); “Hazardous waste is recycled, such as fluorescent lamps, batteries, electronic products” (M = 3.27, SD = 1.36); and “At least 50% of faucets in restrooms are water-saving” (M = 3.28, SD = 1.39).

The results revealed that the most adopted GrSCM practices in QSRs were related to green kitchen environment (M = 3.95, SD = 1.12); green management planning (M = 3.79, SD = 1.15), green food procurement (M = 3.76, SD = 1.16); green menu planning and cooking (M = 3.76, SD = 1.19); and green package for takeout (M = 3.70, SD = 1.24). On the contrary, the lowest adopted GrSCM practices were related to green dining environment (M = 3.54, SD = 1.30); green management policy (M = 3.56, SD = 1.26); and green cleaning and post-treatment (M = 3.57, SD = 1.28).

For the expected outcomes of the adopted GrSCM practices, the highest outcomes highlighted by the investigated QSRs were: “Green activities increase customer satisfaction” (M = 3.95, SD = 1.10); “Green activities increase employee satisfaction” (M = 3.75, SD = 1.20); “Green activities allow the organization to reduce its electricity consumption” (M = 3.69, SD = 1.15); “Green activities improve the company's image” (M = 3.47, SD = 1.30); and “Green activities allow the organization to reduce its water consumption” (M = 3.10, SD = 1.26). The lowest expected outcomes were: “Profits have increased over the last 2 years” (M = 2.07, SD = 0.86); “Sales have increased over the last 2 years” (M = 2.19, SD = 0.84); “The seat turnover rate has improved in the last 2 years” (M = 2.28, SD = 0.83); and “Green activities allow the organization to reduce its total operating costs” (M = 2.42, SD = 0.87).

Variance analysis among the types of QSRs in terms of GrSCM practices and its outcomes

One-way ANOVA test was adopted to compare the GrSCM practices and outcomes in the different types of QSRs. The results did not show many differences in practices among the QSRs. Only two practices, “Management reduces the replacement of tableware in a meal” (f = 2.26, p = 0.045, ω = 0.16) and “FOG waste (fat, oil, grease) being collected and handled by a qualified company to recycle or reuse” (f = 3.85, p = 0.002, ω = 0.25) were significantly different. A post hoc test (i.e., Tukey) was adopted to explain the differences among the restaurants. Specifically, burger restaurants had higher ratings of reducing the replacement of tableware in a meal (M = 3.86, SD = 1.16) than chicken (M = 3.24, SD = 1.32) and pizza restaurants (M = 3.31, SD = 1.22). A possible explanation for this difference may be that burger restaurants are usually serving sandwiches which do not require extra tableware. Additionally, burger (M = 4.07, SD = 1.09) and chicken (M = 3.73, SD = 1.34) restaurants had higher ratings in terms of FOG waste being collected and handled by an experienced company to recycle or reuse, as compared with pizza restaurants (M = 3.03, SD = 1.38). This difference may be due to the large numbers of fried items served in chicken and burger restaurants. For the expected outcomes of adopted GrSCM practices, the results did not reveal any differences among the QSRs in operational performance (f = 0.80, p = 0.551), competitive advantage (f = 1.95, p = 0.087), and firm performance (f = 1.97, p = 0.084).

Analysis of the measurement model

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), based on the obtained data from the QSRs, was performed through AMOS to verify the reliability and validity of the study constructs, and the measurement model data fit. First, squared multiple correlation (SMC) of each item, composite reliability (CR), Cronbach's alpha coefficient, and average variance extracted (AVE) of each construct were used to evaluate the construct reliability levels (Hair et al., 2010). The CFA results show that the SMC values for all the items are greater than 0.50, representing an excellent reliability level (Hair et al., 2010). The CR values and Cronbach's alpha coefficients for all constructs exceeded the minimum acceptable value of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2010), representing an excellent reliability level. The AVE values for all constructs exceeded the minimum acceptable value of 0.50 (Hair et al., 2010), indicating an excellent reliability level (Table 2).

Table 2.
Results of the confirmatory factor analysis, validity analysis, and reliability test.

Construct Factor loading t value Standardized path coefficient SMC Composite reliability Cronbach’s α AVE

Green management (GM) 0.87 0.86 0.78

Green management policy 1.00 0.86 0.73

Green management planning 1.08 18.08 0.90 0.81

Green food (GF) 0.81 0.81 0.59

Green food procurement 1.00 0.70 0.50

Green menu planning and cooking 1.41 9.34 0.88 0.77

Green package for takeout 1.18 9.36 0.70 0.51

Green environment and equipment (GEE) 0.78 0.77 0.59

Green kitchen environment 1.00 0.70 0.52

Green dining environment 1.30 10.99 0.88 0.78

Green cleaning and post-treatment 0.99 8.86 0.70 0.50

Operational performance (OP) 0.89 0.88 0.70

OP1 1.00 0.85 0.81

OP2 1.12 18.05 0.87 0.83

OP3 0.93 14.50 0.79 0.70

Competitive advantage (CA) 0.85 0.83 0.62

C1 1.00 0.81 0.76

C2 1.20 14.22 0.79 0.70

C3 0.92 13.86 0.77 0.68

Firm performance (FP) 0.98 0.97 0.91

FP1 1.00 0.99 0.98

FP2 0.97 33.32 0.92 0.85

FP3 0.97 39.73 0.95 0.90

Note: SMC: squared multiple correlation; AVE: the average variance extracted; OP: operational performance; CA: competitive advantage; FM: firm performance.

Second, to evaluate the construct validity, both absolute t values of each item as well as the AVE value of each construct were used. The results of CFA in Table 2 show that the absolute t value of every item exceeded 3.29 (p < 0.001), representing good convergent validity (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). CFA results in Table 3 reveal that the AVE value of each construct was higher than the squared correlation for each pair of constructs, representing good discriminant validity as suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981).

Table 3.
Discriminant validity of the measurement model.

Construct
Variance

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Green management 0.78

2. Green food 0.09 0.59

3. Green environment and equipment 0.02 0.44 0.59

4. Operational performance 0.01 0.49 0.42 0.70

5. Competitive advantage 0.48 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.62

6. Firm performance 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.58 0.01 0.91

Note: The boldface values along the diagonal line are the AVE values for the constructs, and the other values are the squared correlations for each pair of constructs.

Third, some goodness-of-fit indices were utilized to assess the overall measurement model fit. The measurement model showed a good fit, with χ² = 2865.16, df = 1284, χ²/df = 2.23, lower than the recommended value of 3, p > 0.05; goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = 0.92, adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) = 0.91, normed fit index (NFI) = 0.94, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.97, relative fit index (RFI) = 0.90, incremental fit index (IFI) = 0.97, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = 0.96, which were all greater than the recommended level of 0.90; and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.048, lower than the cutoff value of 0.08 (Arbuckle, 2011; Hair et al., 2010). Thus, the measurement model fitted the obtained data well.

Analysis of the structural model

Following the CFA, structural equation modeling (SEM) technique was used to estimate the structural model using AMOS. Based on the rules of previous research (e.g., Arbuckle, 2011; Hair et al., 2010), the overall fit indices for the structural model (Table 4) indicated that the model fits the data within an acceptable level (χ² = 64.06, df = 22, χ²/df = 2.91, p > 0.001, GFI = 0.94, AGFI = 0.93, NFI = 0.96, CFI = 0.98, RFI = 0.91, IFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.96, and RMSEA = 0.038). Figure 2 graphically depicts the results of the SEM.

Table 4.
Parameter estimates of the structural model.

Hypotheses Path Factor loading t value Standardized path coefficient (ß) Results

H1 GM→ OP −0.05 −0.92 −0.04 Not supported

H2 GM→ CA 1.14 18.05** 0.90 Supported

H3 GF→ OP −0.16 −2.01* −0.10 Not supported

H4 GF→ CA 0.03 0.47 0.02 Not supported

H5 GEE →OP 1.18 10.60 0.80 Supported

H6 GEE→ CA 0.01 0.03 0.01 Not supported

H7 OP→ FP 0.52 9.24 0.51 Supported

H8 CA→ FP 0.07 1.04 0.09 Not supported

Note: H: hypothesis; GM: green management; GF: green food; GEE: green environment and equipment; OP: operational performance; CA: competitive advantage; FP: firm performance.

*Absolute t > 1.96, p < .05. **Absolute t value > 3.29, p < 0.001.

Figure 2.
Final structural equation model and standardized estimates. Note: t values in parentheses; squared multiple correlations in italics; bold lines denote significant hypotheses; dotted lines denote nonsignificant hypotheses.

Results of hypotheses testing

The standardized path coefficients (ß) and t values, presented in Table 4 and Figure 2, were used to verify the study hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1 states: The effect of green management on a restaurant's operational performance was significantly positive.

The results revealed that on the one hand, green management dimension (green policy and green planning) had an insignificant effect on operational performance (ß = −0.04, p < 0.05), rejecting Hypothesis 1.

Hypothesis 2 states: The effect of green management on a restaurant's competitive advantage was significantly positive.

Green management dimension, on the other hand, had a significant effect on a restaurant's competitive advantage (ß = 0.90, p > 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 2.

Hypothesis 3 states: The effect of green food on a restaurant's operational performance was significantly positive.

The green food dimension (green procurement, green menu planning and cooking, green package for takeout) had a significant negative effect on operational performance (ß = −0.10, p < 0.05), rejecting Hypothesis 3.

Hypothesis 4 states: The effect of green food on a restaurant's competitive advantage was significantly positive.

The green food dimension (green procurement, green menu planning and cooking, green package for takeout) had an insignificant effect on a restaurant's competitive advantage (ß = 0.02, p < 0.05), rejecting Hypothesis 4.

Hypothesis 5 states: The effect of a green environment and equipment on a restaurant's operational performance was significantly positive.

The green environment and equipment dimension (green kitchen environment, green dining environment, green cleaning and post-treatment) had a significant effect on operational performance (ß = 0.80, p > 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 5.

Hypothesis 6 states: The effect of a green environment and equipment on a restaurant's competitive advantage was significantly positive.

The green environment and equipment dimension, on the other hand, had an insignificant effect on a restaurant's competitive advantage (ß = 0.01, p < 0.05), rejecting Hypothesis 6.

Hypothesis 7 states: The effect of a restaurant's operational performance owing to GrSCM practices on firm performance was significantly positive.

The results revealed that operational performance owing to GrSCM practices had a significant effect on firm performance (ß = 0.51, p > 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 7.

Hypothesis 8 states: The effect of a restaurant's competitive advantage owing to GrSCM practices on firm performance was significantly positive.

Competitive advantage owing to GrSCM practices had an insignificant effect on firm performance (ß = 0.09, p < 0.05), rejecting Hypothesis 8.

Discussion and conclusion

The current study contributes to the limited literature on restaurants invisible green practices, such as green procurement and green cooking, that are unseen by customers (e.g., Abbas and Hussien, 2017; Alcorn, 2014), by examining the effects of green supply chain management (GrSCM) practices on a restaurant's operational performance, competitive advantage, and firm performance, in a sample of international quick-service restaurants (QSRs) in Egypt. The SEM results confirmed the robust nature of the model (see Figure 2). Particularly, the model explained 66% of the variance in operational performance, 81% in competitive advantage, and 27% in the overall firm performance.

The study tested whether green management dimension (i.e., green management policy and green management planning) has an effect on QSRs operational performance and competitive advantage. Inconsistent with some previous findings (e.g., Chiu and Hsieh, 2016; Montabon et al., 2007), the results of this study showed that green management dimension had an insignificant effect on operational performance (ß = −0.04, p < 0.05), rejecting Hypothesis 1. An explanation for this lack of effect could pertain to the high cost of adopting green management activities, such as selecting sustainable suppliers, providing green training programs, and deploying ecological management systems. However, the results of this study revealed that green management dimension had a strong significant positive effect on a restaurant's competitive advantage (ß = 0.90, p > 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 2. This result reinforces previous findings (e.g., Chiu and Hsieh, 2016; Montabon et al., 2007). This strong positive effect on the competitive advantage could be explained by three reasons. First, green management practices, such as green marketing can improve QSRs image, and thus enhance a restaurant's competitive advantage (Bagur-Femenias et al., 2013). Second, green management practices, for example, adopting electronic customer relationship management can increase customer satisfaction and loyalty; attract new customers; and thus, enhance the overall competitive advantage (Bagur-Femenias et al., 2013). Third, green management practices, such as providing green management training and implementing environmental management systems can increase employees' satisfaction (Bagur-Femenias et al., 2013). In examining the values of path coefficients (Figure 2), green management planning had a greater effect on competitive advantage (ß = 0.90) than green management policy effect (ß = 0.86).

In this dimension, whether green food (i.e., green food procurement, green menu planning and cooking, and green package for takeout) has an effect on QSRs operational performance and competitive advantage was tested. First, the results showed that green food dimension had a significant negative effect on operational performance, rejecting Hypothesis 3. An explanation for this negative effect could pertain to the high cost of adopting green food activities, such as using organic food and using safe packaging. Second, the results noted that green food dimension had insignificant effects on a restaurant’s competitive advantage, rejecting Hypothesis 4. A possible explanation may be the case that customers probably value environment-focused green initiatives more than food-focused green initiatives. Customers generally expect more green initiatives from a QSR than simply offer organic or local food (Kwok et al., 2016). However, these findings are not in agreement with the findings of some prior research studies (e.g., Chiu and Hsieh, 2016; Han et al., 2011) which pointed out that a restaurant's green food practices can reduce operational costs and improve the restaurant's competitive advantage.

The study tested whether green environment and equipment dimension (i.e., green kitchen environment, green dining environment, and green cleaning and post-treatment) has an effect on QSRs operational performance and competitive advantage. Consistent with previous studies (e.g., Hussain et al., 2019), the results of this study showed that green environment and equipment dimension had a strong significant positive effect on operational performance (ß = 0.80, p < 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 5. In other words, the application of more efficient water and energy consumption and waste recycling methods subsequently reduce QSRs total operational costs. This strong positive effect on a restaurant's operational performance could be attributed to three reasons. First, QSR managers are forced to use some green environment practices, such as FOG waste (fat, oil, grease) being collected and handled by a company for reuse, which in turn reduces operational costs. Second, most international QSRs use energy-saving and water-saving equipment to reduce consumption and thus, reduce daily operating costs. Third, the importance of adopting green environment initiatives is increased in international QSRs. In Wang et al.'s (2013) study, “green cleaning and post treatment” was considered the most important green initiative by all the experts. Similarly, two environment-focused green initiatives: “minimizing environmentally harmful waste” and “participating in recycling programs” were considered the most important green initiatives in restaurants (Schubert et al., 2010). However, inconsistent with some prior studies (e.g., Bagur-Femenias et al., 2013; Hu et al., 2010), the results showed that green environment and equipment dimension had insignificant effect on a restaurant's competitive advantage (ß = 0.01, p > 0.05), rejecting Hypothesis 6. A possible explanation is that the majority of environment-focused green initiatives are more likely to be back-of-the-house activities; therefore, customers are less aware about such green activities (Abbas and Hussien, 2017). Similarly, the current study revealed that the majority adopted GrSCM practices in QSRs were associated with kitchen environment (M = 3.95), and the lowest adopted were related to dining environment (M = 3.54).

The study tested whether operational performance and competitive advantage owing to GrSCM practices affect QSRs firm performance. This study reinforces previous findings (Llach et al., 2013) that showed a positive and significant relationship between a restaurant's operational changes owing to green practices and firm performance (β = 0.51, p > 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 7. However, the results found that competitive advantage had an insignificant effect on firm performance (β = 0.09, p < 0.05), rejecting Hypothesis 8. In other words, there was no significant relationship found between competitive advantage owing to green practices and firm performance. As previously explained, most environment-focused green attributes tend to be back-of-the-house activities; therefore, customers tend to be less informed.

In summary, the current study contributes to the limited literature on restaurants invisible green practices, such as green procurement and green cooking, that are unseen by customers (e.g., Abbas & Hussien, 2017; Alcorn, 2014). This study has proposed and tested a conceptual model to examine the effects of three GrSCM dimensions (i.e., green management, green food, and green environment and equipment) on QSR operational performance, competitive advantage, and firm performance. The null hypotheses of the study were tested empirically by using a self-administered questionnaire. The proposed model explained 66% of the variance in operational performance, 81% in competitive advantage, and 27% in the overall firm performance. The SEM results revealed that green management dimension had a significant positive effect on a restaurant's competitive advantage while the green environment and equipment dimension had a significant positive effect on operational performance. Additionally, operational performance had a significant positive effect on firm performance.

Theoretical and practical implications

Theoretical implications

The theoretical implications of this study can be summarized in threefold. First, the current study contributes to the limited literature on restaurants invisible green practices, such as green procurement and green cooking, which are unseen by customers (e.g., Abbas and Hussien, 2017; Alcorn, 2014). In fact, most restaurant green practices take place back-of-the-house (Abbas and Hussien, 2017). Based on previous literature and the developed conceptual models (e.g., Chiu and Hsieh, 2016; Perramon et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2013), this study proposed and tested a conceptual model (Figure 1) that examined the effects of three GrSCM practices (i.e., green management, green food, and green environment and equipment) on a restaurant's operational performance, competitive advantage, and firm performance in a sample of the international quick-service restaurants (QSRs) in Egypt. Particularly, few researches on green practices for restaurants have been implemented in more developed countries (Abbas and Hussien, 2017). This is one of the first studies to examine the effects of GrSCM practices on a restaurant's performance in Egypt.

Second, this is the first study to decompose the investigated GrSCM constructs (i.e., green management, green food, and green environment and equipment) into various factors. The SEM results showed that the factor loadings of all the GrSCM factors on their relevant constructs exceeded 0.70. More specifically, the green management dimension was decomposed into two factors: green management policy and green management planning. Green food dimension was decomposed into three factors: green food procurement, green menu planning and cooking, and green package for takeout. Green environment and equipment dimension was decomposed into three factors: green kitchen environment, green dining environment, and green cleaning and post-treatment. This decomposition of the study constructs further extends our understanding of how the investigated GrSCM practices influence a restaurant's operational performance and competitive advantage. Similar previous studies (e.g., Chiu and Hsieh, 2016; Perramon et al., 2014) investigated only the effects of some measured GrSCM variables such as packaging wastes, economic transport, and product recycling.

Third, this study showed that increases in a restaurant's operational performance and competitive advantage both related to increases in green management and green environment practices. The SEM results confirmed the robust nature of the model (see Figure 2). Particularly, the model explained 66% of the variance in operational performance and 81% in competitive advantage. In addition, SEM results of this study revealed that green management dimension had a strong significant positive effect on a restaurant's competitive advantage (β = 0.90, p > 0.001) and green environment and equipment dimension also had a strong significant positive effect on restaurant's operational performance (ß = 0.80, p > 0.001). Other similar studies (e.g., Perramon et al., 2014) showed smaller variances in operational performance and competitive advantage on the one hand; and smaller standardized path coefficients on the other hand. More importantly, the study findings contribute to the literature by identifying the GrSCM practices that might help restaurants to enhance a company's competitive advantage and to reduce operational costs which in turn will help improve firm performance.

Practical implications

The current study suggests four interesting managerial practices that may be of direct interest to restaurant managers to improve their QSR competitive advantage and operational performance. First, restaurants should integrate green concepts into their marketing programs so that customers can be aware of what is being done in the back-of-the house area. For example, restaurants could use websites, information cards, menu notes, information on coffee cups, or window displays to inform customers about their green practices. Restaurants should indicate in their menus that they are using local food, organic food, or inspected safe food (i.e., HACCP). In addition, restaurants should use green and safe packages for takeout that are not leaking chemicals when packing hot food or reheating. Second, restaurants should improve their employees' green awareness. Putting energy/water-saving posters in the kitchen and toilets is a good method to improve employees' ecological awareness. Providing regular training programs on the adopted green initiatives is yet another example. Third, restaurants should acquire a green certification program from green certifier's organizations, such as LEED Certification and GRA Certification. Such green marks can create a competitive advantage to the restaurant as well as standardize the green operating procedures which in turn may reduce the operating costs. Fourth, restaurants should adopt more green initiatives in the kitchen and dining room to reduce overall operational costs. Old equipment should be replaced with new energy-saving and water-saving equipment. In addition, restaurants should apply more visible green practices to their customers, such as water-saving and energy-saving practices in the restaurant's dining room and customer toilets.

Limitations and future research

Despite the efforts to provide meaningful suggestions for QSR managers in Egypt to promote the use of GrSCM practices, this study has some limitations. First, this study investigated two mediating factors, namely, operational performance and competitive advantage. Other mediating factors, such as environmental performance should be examined in future research. Second, the cross-sectional nature of the study is another limitation. This study adopted only a questionnaire directed to QSR managers and supervisors. Adopting qualitative methods should provide a broader understanding of GrSCM practices influencing firm performance. Third, the questionnaire of this study was released in a sample of international QSR chain branches in Greater Cairo. Further studies may be expanded to other Governorates in Egypt. Fourth, this study investigated the GrSCM practices in international QSR chains (i.e., 70% of the domestic market). Additional research may investigate the GrSCM practices in local QSR chains (i.e., 30% of the domestic market) in Egypt. Fifth, future research may extend this study to other types of restaurants, such as upscale or casual dining restaurants.

Green practices	M	SD
Green management policy (GMP)	3.56	1.26
GMP1	Management selects suppliers with an environmental management system, such as suppliers who provide diverse green foods, adopting green transportation, and doing recycle	3.69	1.18
GMP2	Management integrates green concepts into marketing programs	3.77	1.11
GMP3	Management avoids providing bottle water for customers	3.46	1.32
GMP4	Management reduces the replacement of tableware in a meal	3.39	1.32
GMP5	Management uses cloth napkin or reprocessed paper napkin	3.25	1.36
GMP6	Management uses seasoning in can or bottle instead of small individual package	3.35	1.31
GMP7	Management avoids using disposable tableware in the dining room	3.62	1.34
GMP8	Management announces green management policies or practices to the employee	3.84	1.15
GMP9	Management puts power, water, energy saving posters in the kitchen, bathroom, office	3.68	1.21
Green management planning (GMPL)	3.79	1.15
GMPL1	Management implements annual training program to improve employees' green ability	3.72	1.24
GMPL2	Management adopts customer relationship management or caring customer by using an electronic system or via the Internet	3.84	1.13
GMPL3	Management circulates and collects information using electronic system or via the Internet	4.04	1.04
GMPL4	Management adopts e-marketing to make promotion or advertisement	3.92	1.09
GMPL5	Management uses electronic order system (i.e., POS) to order dishes	3.76	1.18
GMPL6	Management adopts energy audit system to monitor the consumption of energy	3.67	1.15
GMPL7	Management adopts water audit system to examine the leak of water, and rapidly repair	3.82	1.16
GMPL8	Management reuses energy, such as heat recycled	3.54	1.19
Green food procurement (GFP)	3.76	1.16
GFP1	Local foods are more than 50% of food purchase amounts per month	3.13	1.38
GFP2	Foods in season are more than 50% of food purchase amount per month	3.51	1.23
GFP3	Organic certified foods are more than 20% of food purchase amounts per month	3.41	1.21
GFP4	Inspected safe foods (i.e., HACCP) are more than 50% of food purchase amounts per month	3.97	1.19
GFP5	Processed foods are less than 20% of food purchase amounts per month	3.38	1.26
GFP6	Traceability agricultural foods are more than 10% of food purchase amounts per month	3.95	1.03
GFP7	Foods are purchased in appropriate quantities	4.08	0.99
GFP8	Efficient stock control is adopted, e.g., moisture control, categorized management	4.17	1.06
GFP9	Food expiration date is monitored to avoid foods becoming out of shelf life	4.27	1.11
Green menu planning and cooking (GMPC)	3.76	1.19
GMPC1	The menu includes healthy cooking methods, e.g., low fat and low fried dishes	3.51	1.24
GMPC2	The menu includes a diversity of dishes and food materials	4.00	1.08
GMPC3	The menu is balanced on colour and texture of dishes	3.87	1.20
GMPC4	More vegetables and fruit are used and less than 30% of dishes are meat	3.34	1.27
GMPC5	Energy is conserved when cooking, e.g., turn off cooking hoods when not in use	3.46	1.32
GMPC6	Food materials are conserved when cooking	3.87	1.13
GMPC7	Adopt appropriate way to defrost, e.g., avoid using running water to defrost	3.78	1.22
GMPC8	Adopt less consumption of energy to cook, like blanching, steaming, boiling	3.63	1.22
GMPC9	Using appliances that are not leaching chemicals or toxic metal particles when cooking	4.07	1.05
GMPC10	Employees follow the food safety and sanitation regulations	4.05	1.16
Green package for takeout (GPT)	3.70	1.24
GPT1	Safe package materials are used, not leaching chemicals when packing hot foods or reheating	4.03	1.18
GPT2	Packaging or container is made free of polystyrene	3.98	1.09
GPT3	Package or container is made of biodegradable and composted materials	3.23	1.36
GPT4	Over-package is avoided, two layers of packaging as the maximum	3.77	1.19
GPT5	Long-lasting or reusable materials are used for package	3.49	1.38
Green kitchen environment (GKE)	3.95	1.12
GKE1	The old equipment is replaced by new energy-saving equipment	3.85	1.21
GKE2	The old equipment is replaced by new water-saving equipment	3.80	1.22
GKE3	Good ventilation and temperature control are used in the kitchen (around 26-28 C)	4.09	1.08
GKE4	Cool air in the refrigerator is kept from going out by reducing opening frequency	4.00	1.03
GKE5	At least 50% low-flow faucets and pressurized sprayers are installed	3.90	1.13
GKE6	Kitchen equipment and appliances are regularly cleaned and maintained	4.06	1.05
GKE7	Cooking practices meet the safety and sanitation regulations, such as HACCP	4.05	1.03
GKE8	Activated carbon treatment equipment is installed to prevent exhaust pollution	3.87	1.17
Green dining environment (GDE)	3.54	1.30
GDE1	At least 50% of faucets in restrooms are water-saving	3.28	1.39
GDE2	All restrooms are equipped with dual flush toilets	3.60	1.25
GDE3	At least 50% of lighting bulbs are energy-saving	3.90	1.20
GDE4	Sunlight is used as natural lighting in the dining room	2.87	1.45
GDE5	Plants are used in the dining room to make environment greener	3.04	1.41
GDE6	Smoking is prohibited in the restaurant	3.64	1.34
GDE7	Air quality is controlled, no smoke smell and other uncomfortable odors	4.04	1.12
GDE8	Outdoor noise control is consistent with the low noise control standards (less than 60 decibels)	3.92	1.23
Green cleaning and post-treatment (GCP)	3.57	1.28
GCP1	All detergents for dishes are eco-friendly with Green Mark and diluted when use	3.99	1.12
GCP2	Detergents or chemical agents maintain surrounding's sanitation and pollution control	3.93	1.05
GCP3	Kitchen waste is recycled to do compost	3.36	1.31
GCP4	Waste and garbage are properly classified for recycling	3.46	1.34
GCP5	FOG waste (fat, oil, grease) being collected and handled by a qualified company to recycle or reuse	3.73	1.31
GCP6	Hazardous waste is recycled, such as fluorescent lamps, batteries, electronic products	3.27	1.36
GCP7	Gray water is collected to be reused for hand-washing or for watering plants	3.11	1.46
GCP8	Air control in surrounding restaurant meets the Air Pollutant Emissions	3.68	1.32
Operational performance (OP)	3.07	1.10
OP1	Green activities allow the organization to reduce its total operating costs	2.42	0.87
OP2	Green activities allow the organization to reduce its water consumption	3.10	1.26
OP3	Green activities allow the organization to reduce its electricity consumption	3.69	1.15
Competitiveness (C)	3.72	1.20
C1	Green activities improve the company's image	3.47	1.30
C2	Green activities increase customer satisfaction	3.95	1.10
C3	Green activities increase employee satisfaction	3.75	1.20
Firm performance (FP)	2.18	0.84
FP1	Sales have increased over the last 2 years	2.19	0.82
FP2	Profits have increased over the last 2 years	2.07	0.86
FP3	The seat turnover rate has improved in the last 2 years	2.28	0.83

Construct	Factor loading	t value	Standardized path coefficient	SMC	Composite reliability	Cronbach’s α	AVE
Green management (GM)					0.87	0.86	0.78
Green management policy	1.00		0.86	0.73
Green management planning	1.08	18.08	0.90	0.81
Green food (GF)					0.81	0.81	0.59
Green food procurement	1.00		0.70	0.50
Green menu planning and cooking	1.41	9.34	0.88	0.77
Green package for takeout	1.18	9.36	0.70	0.51
Green environment and equipment (GEE)					0.78	0.77	0.59
Green kitchen environment	1.00		0.70	0.52
Green dining environment	1.30	10.99	0.88	0.78
Green cleaning and post-treatment	0.99	8.86	0.70	0.50
Operational performance (OP)					0.89	0.88	0.70
OP1	1.00		0.85	0.81
OP2	1.12	18.05	0.87	0.83
OP3	0.93	14.50	0.79	0.70
Competitive advantage (CA)					0.85	0.83	0.62
C1	1.00		0.81	0.76
C2	1.20	14.22	0.79	0.70
C3	0.92	13.86	0.77	0.68
Firm performance (FP)					0.98	0.97	0.91
FP1	1.00		0.99	0.98
FP2	0.97	33.32	0.92	0.85
FP3	0.97	39.73	0.95	0.90

Construct	Variance
1. Green management	0.78
2. Green food	0.09	0.59
3. Green environment and equipment	0.02	0.44	0.59
4. Operational performance	0.01	0.49	0.42	0.70
5. Competitive advantage	0.48	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.62
6. Firm performance	0.02	0.04	0.02	0.58	0.01	0.91

Hypotheses	Path	Factor loading	t value	Standardized path coefficient (ß)	Results
H1	GM→ OP	−0.05	−0.92	−0.04	Not supported
H2	GM→ CA	1.14	18.05**	0.90	Supported
H3	GF→ OP	−0.16	−2.01*	−0.10	Not supported
H4	GF→ CA	0.03	0.47	0.02	Not supported
H5	GEE →OP	1.18	10.60**	0.80	Supported
H6	GEE→ CA	0.01	0.03	0.01	Not supported
H7	OP→ FP	0.52	9.24**	0.51	Supported
H8	CA→ FP	0.07	1.04	0.09	Not supported

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Tamer M Abbas

Author Biographies

Tamer M Abbas is a professor at the Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management, Helwan University, Egypt. He is currently on sabbatical leave as a professor at the Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality, King Salman International University, Sharm El-Sheikh Branch, Egypt. He has been a visiting professor at Cardiff Metropolitan University (UK) and Purdue University (USA). His research interests are green supply chain management, education, marketing, and technology, especially in the hospitality and tourism context. Tamer Abbas is the corresponding author and can be contacted at tamer.abbas@fth.helwan.edu.eg

Faten M Hussien is an associate professor at the Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management, Helwan University, Egypt. She is currently on sabbatical leave as an associate professor at the Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality, King Salman International University, Sharm El-Sheikh Branch, Egypt. She has been a visiting professor at Cardiff Metropolitan University (UK) and Purdue University (USA). Her research interests are green supply chain management, marketing, and technology, especially in the hospitality and tourism context.

References

Abbas

Hussien

(2017) The effects of green marketing and green corporate social responsibility on customers’ willingness to patronize a casual dining restaurant. International Academic Journal Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management 3(3): 137–157.

Abdelhamied

(2012) The effects of sales promotion on post promotion behaviors and brand preferences in fast food restaurants. Tourismos: An International Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism 7(1): 93–113.

Alcorn

(2014) The green restaurant in practice: Employee attitude and behavior toward environmental sustainability. Master Thesis in Hotel and Restaurant Administration. Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University, Stillwater: Oklahoma.

Anderson

Gerbing

(1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103(3): 411–423.

Arbuckle

(2011) IMB SPSS AMOS 20 user’s guide. Mount Pleasant, SC: AMOS Development Corporation.

Bagur-Femenias

Llach

Alonso-Almeida

(2013) Is the adoption of environmental practice: A strategic decision for small service companies? An empirical approach. Management Decision 51(1): 41–62.

Barber

Deale

(2014) Tapping mindfulness to shape hotel guests’ sustainable behavior. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 55(1): 100–114.

Bonn

Cronin

Jr and Cho

(2016) Do environmental sustainable practices of organic wine suppliers affect consumers’ behavioral intentions? The moderating role of trust. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 57(1): 21–37.

Chamber of Tourism Establishments (2019) Statistics of quick service restaurants (Electronic copy). The Egyptian Chamber of Tourism Establishments (Unpublished copy).

10.

Chan

ESW

(2011) Implementing environmental management systems in small and medium-size hotels: Obstacles. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 35(1): 3–23.

11.

Chiu

Hsieh

(2016) The impact of restaurants’ green supply chain practices on firm performance. Sustainability 8(1): 42–14.

12.

Chou

Chen

Wang

(2012) Green practices in the restaurant industry from an innovation adoption perspective: Evidence from Taiwan. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31(3): 703–711.

13.

DiPietro

Gregory

Jackson

(2013) Going green in quick-service restaurants: Consumer perceptions and intentions. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration 14(2): 376–393.

14.

El Dief

Font

(2012) Determinants of environmental management in the Red Sea hotels: Personal and organizational values and contextual variables. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 36(1): 115–137.

15.

Fornell

Larcker

(1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1): 39–50.

16.

Gilg

Barr

Ford

(2005) Green consumption or sustainable lifestyles? Identifying the sustainable consumer. Futures 37(6): 481–504.

17.

Global Stewards (2019) Go green hotels: Green ideas for hotels and resorts. Available at: http://www.globalstewards.org/green-hotel.htm (accessed 15 May 2019).

18.

González-Rodríguez

Díaz-Fernández

Font

(2020) Factors influencing willingness of customers of environmentally friendly hotels to pay a price premium. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 32(1): 60–80.

19.

Green Building Council (2009) McDonald’s HQ achieves LEED platinum status. Nation’s Restaurant News 43(17): 14.

20.

Green

Jr Zelbst

Meacham

, et al. (2012) Green supply chain management practices: Impact on performance. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 17(3): 290–305.

21.

Green Restaurant Association (2007) Environmental guidelines. Available at: http://www.dinegreen.com/twelvesteps.asp (accessed 25 June 2018).

22.

Green Restaurant Association (2012) Green restaurant certification 4.0 standards. Available at: http://dinegreen.com/restaurants/standards.asp (accessed 20 July 2018).

23.

Green Restaurant Association (2015) Green restaurant certification standards. Available at: http://www.dinegreen.com/restaurants/standards.asp (accessed 15 May 2019).

24.

Hair

Black

Babin

, et al. (2010) Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

25.

Han

Hsu

Lee

, et al. (2011) Are lodging customers ready to go green? An examination of attitudes, demographics, and eco-friendly intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management 30(2): 345–355.

26.

Parsa

Self

(2010) The dynamics of green restaurant patronage. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 51(3): 344–362.

27.

Hussain

Al-Aomar

Melhem

(2019) Assessment of lean-green practices on the sustainable performance of hotel supply chains. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 31(6): 2448–2467.

28.

Jang

Zheng

Bosselman

(2017) Top managers’ environmental values, leadership, and stakeholder engagement in promoting environmental sustainability in the restaurant industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 63: 101–111.

29.

Kim

S-H

Lee

Fairhurst

(2017) The review of “green” research in hospitality, 2000-2014: Current trends and future research directions. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 29(1): 226–247.

30.

Kwok

Huang

Y-K

(2016) Green attributes of restaurants: What really matters to consumers? International Journal of Hospitality Management 55: 107–117.

31.

(2011) Research on the performance measurement of green supply chain management in China. Journal of Sustainable Development 4(3): 101–107.

32.

Llach

Bagur-Femenías

Alonso-Almeida

MDM

, et al. (2013) Joint impact of quality and environmental practices on firm performance in small service businesses: An empirical study of restaurants. Journal of Cleaner Production 44: 96–104.

33.

López-Gamero

Molina-Azorín

Claver-Cortés

(2009) The whole relationship between environmental variables and firm performance: Competitive advantage and firm resources as mediator variables. Journal of Environmental Management 90(10): 3110–3121.

34.

Mendenhall

Beaty

Oddou

(1993) Where have all the theorists gone? An archival review of the international management literature. International Journal of Management 10(2): 146–153.

35.

Montabon

Sroufe

Narasimhan

(2007) An examination of corporate reporting, environmental management practices and firm performance. Journal of Operations Management 25(5): 998–1014.

36.

Namkung

Jang

(2017) Are consumers willing to pay more for green practices at restaurants? Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 41(3): 329–356.

37.

Perramon

Alonso-Almeida

Llach

, et al. (2014) Green practices in restaurants: Impact on firm performance. Operations Management Research 7(1–2): 2–12.,

38.

Ronnakrit

Thanyaphat

Supanna

, et al. (2016) The main dimensions of green hotel in supply chain management: The Thai hotel industry. In: 6th Annual international conference on business strategy in the age of disruption (BizStrategy 2016). DOI: 10.5176/2251-1970_BizStrategy16.23.

39.

Schubert

Kandampully

Solnet

, et al. (2010) Exploring consumer perceptions of green restaurants in the US. Tourism and Hospitality Research 10(4): 286–300.

40.

Tzschentke

Kirk

Lynch

(2008) Going green: Decisional factors in small hospitality operations. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27(1): 126–133.

41.

Wang

Wong

Narayanan

(2020) The demographic impact of consumer green purchase intention toward green hotel selection in China. Tourism and Hospitality Research 20(2): 210–222.

42.

Wang

Chen

Lee

, et al. (2013) Developing green management standards for restaurants: An application of green supply chain management. International Journal of Hospitality Management 34: 263–273.

43.

Wang

Y-F

(2016) Modeling predictors of restaurant employees' green behavior: Comparison of six attitude-behavior models. International Journal of Hospitality Management 58: 66–81.