Does firms’ CSR engagement support tourism sector development? Moderation effect of CSR committee and CEO duality

Abstract

The study tests whether the hospitality and tourism (H&T) sector’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) engagement supports tourism sector development and investigates whether CSR committee and CEO duality moderate this relationship. The data was retrieved from the Thomson Reuters Eikon and the World Bank databases covering the years between 2002 and 2019, and Fixed-Effects panel data regression analysis was executed. The results show that the environmental and social performance of H&T firms improves tourist arrivals and tourism receipts. Moreover, the first moderation analysis showed that CSR committees’ existence makes a significant difference in connecting only environmental practices to the tourism sector development. The second moderation analysis indicated that CEO duality moderates the association between CSR performance and the tourism sector development depending on the CSR dimension. While moderation does not exist for environmental indicators, it exists for social and governance indicators. The findings suggest several theoretical and practical implications for H&T firms and associated governmental and nongovernmental organizations.

Keywords

CEO duality corporate social responsibility CSR committee tourism sector development

Introduction

The hospitality and tourism (H&T) sector contributes to the local and global economy by bringing foreign exchange earnings (Camilleri, 2014), generating employment opportunities (MacKenzie and Gannon, 2019; Suárez-Cebador et al., 2018), and triggering infrastructural developments, such as roads, airports, and rails (Camilleri, 2014). Nevertheless, it is criticized due to its undesirable economic, environmental, and social impacts, including contribution to inflation, climate change, air and noise pollution, waste generation, deterioration of natural resources, biodiversity loss, overcrowding, and erosion of the cultural heritage (de Grosbois, 2012; Medrado and Jackson, 2016; Su et al., 2018). These criticisms have urged H&T firms to understand their responsibilities to the communities in which they operate and recognize the importance of ensuring adherence to practices that are accepted as sustainable (Medrado and Jackson, 2016). Accordingly, sustainable tourism¹ has become a prominent theme that has received more attention over the past few decades (Ayuso, 2006). Sustainable tourism requires both the sustainable growth of the sector’s contribution to the economy and the sustainable use of resources (Liu, 2003). As being one of the dimensions of sustainable tourism, economic sustainability ensures that development is economically efficient and resources are used and managed in such a way that considers future generations (Timur and Getz, 2009).

There are multiple stakeholders, such as consumers, employees, shareholders, suppliers, communities, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and government who are affected by the economic and social aspects of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities in the H&T sector (Farmaki, 2019). From the perspective of stakeholder theory, the major objective of a firm is to balance the demands of these multiple stakeholders, and thus sustainability behaviors of companies are shaped by these stakeholders (Guix et al., 2018). Tourism sector development is impacted by both the demand and supply factors (Liu, 2003). As the demand and supply factors are driven by the stakeholders’ concerns, sustainable development of the H&T sector can be maintained by properly responding to the stakeholders’ needs and expectations, establishing good relations with them, and gaining their support and trust. For example, since tourism is a consumer discretionary sector, consumers can stay away from brands that do not consider their concerns about social and environmental issues (Kim et al., 2018). In this context, CSR engagement of H&T firms can attract socially and environmentally sensitive consumers, stimulate the tourist demand, and provide satisfactory experiences for visitors, which ultimately can contribute to the development of the tourism sector. Although prior H&T research has examined the impact of CSR on organizational outcomes at the microlevel, such as brand image (Liu et al., 2020), brand preference (Liu et al., 2014), customer loyalty (Gürlek et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2020), firm reputation (González-Rodríguez et al., 2019), organizational identity (Martínez et al., 2014b), and corporate financial performance (González-Rodríguez et al., 2019; Inoue and Lee, 2011), no prior study examined the contribution of H&T firms’ CSR efforts to the tourism sector development at the macro-level. The study addresses this gap by exploring macro-level sectoral impacts of CSR beyond its firm-level impacts. Doing so, the study adds insights to the understanding of the role of H&T firms’ CSR practice in facilitating the tourism sector development.

Corporate decisions related to allocating resources to firms, CSR commitment to the stakeholders and society, maintaining good relations with all stakeholders, and CSR strategies and policies are made by boards of directors (Pucheta-Martínez and Gallego-Álvarez, 2019). Stakeholder theory suggests that the board of directors is an effective mechanism for protecting all stakeholders’ interests and encouraging and promoting the management team to involve with CSR matters (Pucheta-Martínez and Gallego-Álvarez, 2019). CSR committees are formed at the board level to manage societal and environmental risks, to monitor relationships with stakeholders (Fuente et al., 2017), and to address the stakeholders’ social and environmental concerns. These committees are expected to stimulate tourism sector development by fostering H&T firms’ CSR engagement, promoting responsible corporate behavior, formulating and recommending CSR policies to the board (Gallego-Álvarez and Pucheta-Martínez, 2020), and encouraging CSR practice (Fuente et al., 2017). Hence, they can develop policies for leveraging H&T firms’ CSR practices into the tourism sector development. For example, they can initiate CSR implementations such as usage of eco-friendly energy sources which may spur revisit intentions of the guests in the next periods. Further, CEO duality, the integration of CEO and board chair roles in the same person, can be seen as an instrument of managerial power (Gallego-Álvarez and Pucheta-Martínez, 2020). Agency theory argues that managers’ interests will impact their commitment to CSR practice and reporting (Pucheta-Martínez and Gallego-Álvarez, 2019). Hence, the managerial power of a dual CEO may negatively impact firms’ CSR engagement if the dual CEO considers that CSR activities are not valuable (Pucheta-Martínez and Gallego-Álvarez, 2019). The selection of the CSR committee as moderator is due to its importance in the CSR orientation of the firms and its ability to steer CSR initiatives in the firms. On the other hand, CEO duality is selected on the basis that dual role empowers CEOs overly which may cause them to be more entrenched and overlook the stakeholder interests. Although prior studies have largely focused on the direct relationship between board characteristics and firm financial and CSR performance, they mostly ignore the indirect role of board characteristics like CSR committee and CEO duality in impacting organizational output or sectoral development. Thus, the study fills this void in the literature by investigating the indirect role of CSR committee and CEO duality in the development of the tourism sector through CSR investment. The aim of this study is twofold. First, it examines whether H&T firms’ CSR engagement is associated with tourism sector development in terms of augmenting tourist arrivals and tourism receipts. Second, it explores the moderating impact of CSR committee and CEO duality on the association between H&T firms’ CSR engagement and tourism sector development.

This study is expected to contribute to the literature in the following ways. First, prior CSR research in the H&T sector has focused on certain countries and territories (Ayuso, 2006; Horng et al., 2018; Matev and Assenova, 2012; Suárez-Cebador et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2014)² or a subsector of H&T, such as hotels (Ayuso, 2006; Kucukusta et al., 2013; Luu, 2017; Suárez-Cebador et al., 2018), travel agencies (Zhu et al., 2014), and restaurants (Kim et al., 2018). This study presents a global perspective of CSR practice in the H&T sector by incorporating a wide spectrum of H&T firms including bars & restaurants, cruise lines, gaming & casinos, motels & hotels, and recreation industries & leisure. Second, while prior studies have mostly focused on a single subdimension of CSR, such as social (Wang et al., 2018) or environmental (Ayuso, 2006; Day and Cai, 2012; Hall, 2019; Kang and Atkinson, 2021; Luu, 2017; Mair and Jago, 2010), few of them examined multiple dimensions of CSR performance in the H&T context (Inoue and Lee, 2011). Hence, the study adds to the literature measuring CSR performance of H&T firms using environment, social, and governance (ESG) scores synthesized from a wide number of indicators. By testing the moderation effect of CSR committee and CEO duality between three dimensions of ESG scores and tourist arrivals and tourism revenues, the study highlights which dimensions of CSR translate into the tourism sector development with the interaction of the CSR committee and CEO duality. Recently, Uyar et al. (2021) tested the moderating effect of CSR committee and CEO duality in the firm-level health-care industry study without considering the country-level health-care sector development. They tested the moderating effect of CSR committee between board gender diversity and CSR performance of health-care firms and examined the moderating effect of CEO duality between board gender diversity and firm performance (i.e. financial and CSR performance). Thus, in that study, they mainly explored whether the CSR committee enriches female directors’ role in fostering CSR investment, and CEO duality weakens or strengthens female directors’ monitoring function. Unlike in Uyar et al.’s (2021) study, our focus in this study is not to test CSR committee and CEO duality’s effect on firm outcomes but to explore whether they can leverage H&T firms’ CSR engagement for the tourism sector development with their external connections. Hence, we test whether CSR committee and CEO duality’s influence passes beyond firms’ CSR practices and outcomes and they are beneficial for the tourism sector development of the countries. Accordingly, the study suggests implications for each CSR metric’s interaction with the CSR committee and CEO duality in fostering the tourism sector development. Third, the study provides a significant contribution to CSR research as it is the first one to examine the macro-level impact of CSR practice in the H&T sector, analyzing the role of H&T firms’ CSR initiatives in stimulating tourism sector development. This enables the authors to suggest policymaking implications for the authorities associated with tourism development. Fourth, examining the moderation effect of corporate governance mechanisms (i.e. CSR committees and CEO duality) on the association between CSR performance and tourism sector development, the study highlights that organizational contingencies provide further insights for firms and the sector’s development.

The remainder of this study is structured as follows. The second section reviews the literature. The third section establishes the theoretical framework of the study and provides the research hypotheses. The fourth section describes the sample, variables, and outlines the empirical methodology. The fifth section reports the findings and provides the robustness test. The sixth section discusses the findings and draws conclusions. The last section suggests implications and future research avenues.

Literature review

A growing number of studies examined CSR practices in the H&T sector (Font and Lynes, 2018; Hughes and Scheyvens, 2016; Martínez et al., 2013; Moneva et al., 2019)³. For example, Horng et al. (2018) established an assessment model to measure CSR practice, in five dimensions, including economy, environment, society, culture, and consequence in the tourism industry. Likewise, Martínez et al. (2013), Fatma et al. (2016), and Suárez-Cebador et al. (2018) developed a measurement scale to assess the implementation of CSR activities in environmental, social, and economic areas in the H&T industry. Matev and Assenova (2012) empirically outlined the context of the implementation of the CSR principles and determined the current status of CSR issues in the Bulgarian hospitality sector. Recently, Moneva et al. (2019) examined the bidirectional relation between CSR performance and financial performance in the tourism sector and determined no significant impact of corporate environmental, social, and governance performance on tourism firms’ profitability. Moreover, an extensive number of papers explored the reporting of CSR practice in the H&T sector (de Grosbois, 2012; Font et al., 2012; Guix et al., 2018, 2019; Kang and Atkinson, 2021; Medrado and Jackson, 2016).

A further strand of research examined the association between CSR and customer behavior, employee attitudes, and corporate financial performance in the context of the H&T sector (Serra-Cantallops et al., 2018).⁴ For example, Luu (2017) explored the role of CSR on organizational citizenship behavior for the environment among employees in the Vietnamese hotel industry. In a similar vein, Wong and Gao (2014) analyzed the impact of CSR on employees’ organizational commitment in the Chinese H&T sector. Kucukusta et al. (2013) examined perceptions of visitors to Hong Kong toward the CSR practice of its hotels. Furthermore, Tamajón and Font (2013) investigated CSR motivations and practices of tourism small and medium enterprises and analyzed whether their motivations and practices are associated with other business characteristics, including age, clients and certifications, size, ownership, and financial performance. Liu et al. (2020) analyzed whether and how CSR influences customer loyalty in the Chinese hotel industry. The aforementioned studies highlight that while CSR issues in the H&T at the firm-level have been largely explored in the prior literature, there seems to be a scarcity of research that specifically examines the influence of firm CSR performance on the development of the tourism sector.

Theoretical framework and hypotheses

Stakeholder theory is regarded as an appropriate framework for analyzing stakeholder interests and influences (Farmaki, 2019) and understanding the factors associated with the effective management of stakeholder relations. CSR involves a wide range of corporate citizenship behaviors, such as acting environmentally friendly, protecting shareholder rights, and ensuring employee welfare benefits that are deemed significant in improving organizational legitimacy (Zhu et al., 2014). These CSR practices impact multiple stakeholder groups, such as customers, employees, suppliers, governmental bodies, and NGOs (Zhu et al., 2014). In terms of stakeholder influence on CSR in the H&T sector, customers of hotels, regional tourism bodies, media organizations, and local authorities are regarded as dominant stakeholders holding legitimacy and power (Farmaki, 2019). The adoption and implementation of sustainability initiatives, beyond regulatory compliance, is related to greater pressure from stakeholders for companies to demonstrate their commitment to ethical and sustainable behavior (Martínez-Ferrero and García-Meca, 2020). Drawing on the stakeholder theory, this study examines the association between firm CSR performance and tourism sector development and analyzes whether and how board structure (i.e. CSR committee and CEO duality) impacts the association between CSR performance and tourism sector development.

CSR performance and tourism sector development

Sustainable tourism development requires the reconciliation of opposing demands and interests, establishing cooperation between decision-makers, consumers, and other stakeholders, and promoting long-term interests (Jucan and Jucan, 2010). By maintaining good relations with stakeholders (i.e. residents, employees, and consumers) and gaining their support and trust, CSR practice can contribute to the tourism sector’s overall development. For example, responsible corporate behavior, such as minimization of negative economic, environmental, and social impacts and generating economic benefits for local people in the tourism destinations, can be appreciated by relevant stakeholders, specifically by residents who are the main constituents of the local society (Su et al., 2018). The support of residents for tourism activities plays a crucial role in the development of the tourism sector (Su et al., 2018). CSR efforts directed toward the employees, such as the provision of suitable salaries, fair promotion opportunities, skill, and career development programs, and work-life balance (González-Rodríguez et al., 2019) can motivate them to be more dedicated to their work and enhance their organizational commitment (Wong and Gao, 2014). Greater employee commitment leads to better service quality (Lee and Chen, 2013), which in turn, enhances consumer satisfaction and loyalty in the H&T sector (Amin et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2005). Furthermore, as consumers today are more concerned about social and environmental issues, they are more likely to prefer responsible brands (Liu et al., 2014) and have more willingness to stay at green hotels (Kucukusta et al., 2013). Therefore, as the tourism sector is reliant on its brand image (Coles et al., 2013) and reputation, the development of the tourism sector is impacted by CSR activities that can influence H&T firms’ image.

Prior empirical research documented that CSR practice helps H&T firms ensure stakeholder satisfaction (Zhu et al., 2014), deliver value to all stakeholders (Zhu et al., 2014), improve customer trust (Liu et al., 2020), increase employee and guest loyalty (Gürlek et al., 2017; Medrado and Jackson, 2016), and gain support from a broad range of stakeholders (Zhu et al., 2014). In this sense, by positively impacting customers’ purchase intentions and enhancing their loyalty and satisfaction, H&T firms’ CSR engagement may lead to an increase in tourist arrivals and receipts and thus support tourism sector development. Consistent with prior discussions and empirical findings, we expect that corporate CSR performance (i.e., environmental, social, and governance) is positively associated with the development of the tourism sector in terms of augmenting tourist arrivals and tourism receipts. Thus, we suggest the following hypotheses:

H1a: Environmental performance (Envscore) supports tourism sector development by augmenting tourist arrivals and tourism receipts.

H1b: Social performance (Socscore) supports tourism sector development by augmenting tourist arrivals and tourism receipts.

H1c: Governance performance (Govscore) supports tourism sector development by augmenting tourist arrivals and tourism receipts.

CSR committee, CSR performance, and tourism sector development

While board committees such as audit, remuneration, and risk committees have been a tradition in a board’s governance structure, CSR (i.e. environmental and sustainability) committees are reasonably new establishments (Tingbani et al., 2020). Companies form CSR committees at the board level to specifically focus on sustainability problems (Sellami et al., 2019); supervise social responsibility, sustainability, or ethical issues (Mallin and Michelon, 2011); and properly address the social and environmental concerns of the stakeholders. Therefore, a CSR committee signals companies’ concerns with their social and environmental reputation (Pucheta-Martínez and Gallego-Álvarez, 2019), reveals their willingness to meet stakeholders’ expectations (Mallin and Michelon, 2011), and demonstrates their commitment to CSR and stakeholders (Gallego-Álvarez and Pucheta-Martínez, 2020). Since a CSR committee is expected to be composed of experts with skills and knowledge in CSR issues, the existence of such a committee will play an important role in guaranteeing a good CSR performance (Gallego-Álvarez and Pucheta-Martínez, 2020; Pucheta-Martínez and Gallego-Álvarez, 2019). Accordingly, prior empirical research documented that the existence of a CSR committee helps promote sustainable social and environmental initiatives (García Martín and Herrero, 2020).

In consequence, a company with a CSR committee can more effectively serve the demands and expectations of its stakeholders and undertake more responsible practices, and thus have a greater CSR performance. In this context, we assume that the existence of the CSR committee positively moderates the association between H&T firms’ CSR performance and tourism sector development. Thus, we suggested the following hypothesis:

H2: CSR committee moderates the association between (a) Envscore, (b) Socscore, and (c) Govscore and tourism sector development by augmenting tourist arrivals and receipts.

CEO duality, CSR performance, and tourism sector development

CEO duality exists when one individual serves as both chief executive officer and the chair of the board (Mallin and Michelon, 2011). Agency theory posits that the accumulation of the power of CEO and board chair positions in the same individual leads to greater agency problems due to the potential for entrenchment, which could result in higher agency costs (García Martín and Herrero, 2020). In this sense, the separation of CEO and board chair roles reduces conflict between directors and managers, facilitating the board’s promotion of social and environmental investment with financial and nonfinancial results (García Martín and Herrero, 2020). Mallin and Michelon (2011) provided empirical evidence supporting that CEO duality is detrimental to corporate social performance. Therefore, when the same person holds the positions of CEO and board chair, the firm is less likely to engage in CSR practice. In line with theoretical discussions and prior empirical findings, we expect that CEO duality negatively moderates the association between CSR performance and the tourism sector development. Thus, we developed the following hypothesis:

H3: CEO duality moderates the association between (a) Envscore, (b) Socscore, and (c) Govscore and tourism sector development by weakening tourist arrivals and receipts.

Figure 1 depicts the theoretical framework of the study.

Research methodology

Various statistical analysis approaches such as univariate as well as multivariate methodologies are employed. Initially, the data preprocessing by organizing the data, analyzing the missing values, imputation of the missing values, investigation of the possible outliers, and winsorization approaches are performed. Following the data screening process, descriptive statistics to summarize the variables of the proposed models, Spearman’s correlation analysis, and panel data regression analysis are utilized. Finally, two robustness tests are conducted considering financial crisis and SARS periods, and taking into account low number of observations for some countries.

Sample

The sample of the study covers all H&T firms listed in the Thomson Reuters Eikon⁵ database for the years between 2002 and 2019. The available observations of IntTourRecExp are used for the selection of the research sample. Initially, the sample of the study included 1119 firm-year records for 18 years. In the Thomson database, H&T is one of the industry groups out of 54, which includes bars & restaurants, cruise lines, gaming & casinos, motels & hotels, and recreation industries & leisure (Refinitiv, 2019). The data preprocessing before the baseline analysis is performed using missing data analysis, investigation of outliers, the process of winsorization, and multiple imputations.

The dependent variable of IntTourRecExp and the control variables of Leverage, return on assets (ROA), and Trade were subject to the winsorization procedure after the initial descriptive statistics since there was a significant skewness with extreme values in their distributions. Accordingly, these indicated control variables were winsorized in lower and top tails at one percent by replacing the extreme values in both tails. Besides, the multivariate outlier detection methodology is utilized using the minimum covariance determinant (MCD) estimator to robustify the Mahalanobis distance (Verardi and Dehon, 2010). According to the MCD approach, seven extreme firm-year records are removed from the sample as extreme outliers. As a result of these procedures, the final sample for further analysis is 1112 firm-year records between 2002 and 2019 for the 18 years. The sample distribution based on country with the number of data points as well as the number of distinct firms is presented in Table A1 (Online Supplemental Material).

In the next step of the data preprocessing, a missing data analysis with multiple imputation steps is followed. First, the missing data analysis results indicate that IntTourArr had 14 (1.26%), Boardsize had 6 (0.54%), Freefload had 13 (1.17%), and Trade had 4 (0.36%) firm-year records of missing values which are significantly less than 5% of the sample size ranging between 0.36% and 1.26%. In a research sample, a ratio of 5% missing values is considered to be inconsequential (Schafer, 1999). Even though the ratio of the missing values is relatively small and does not cause any biased estimation results, multiple imputations with the Markov chain Monte Carlo method employing a linear regression as the model type for scale variables are used in the final step of the data screening process was performed in the final step of the data preprocessing.

The distribution of the final sample shows that the firm-year observations range between 5 in 2002 and 142 in 2019. There is a relatively small number of firm-year observations in the early years of the sample frame while there are relatively larger firm-year observations in the most recent years. To overcome the limitation associated with the low number of observations for some countries, we ran a robustness test by excluding the countries with a relatively small number of firm-year data points (please see the robustness section). Besides, the sample structure is in panel data where the firm is the panel variable and the year is the time variable, and the sample is an unbalanced panel data caused by the nonexistence of the firm-year records of some firms.

Variables

In the empirical analysis, the study incorporates four sets of variables. For the tourism sector development, the study uses three indicators such as the total number of tourist arrivals (IntTourArr), the tourism receipts (IntTourRec), and the tourism receipts relative to exports (IntTourRecExp) (Fahimi et al., 2018; Koçak et al., 2020; Lv, 2020). CSR performance indicators are proxied by three pillar scores, namely environmental score (Envscore), social score (Socscore), and governance score (Govscore) (Shahbaz et al., 2020; Uyar et al., 2020). The pillar scores are designed to assess a company’s relative performance objectively and evidently. Thomson Reuters determines the environmental pillar score based on the categories including emissions, innovation, and resource use, which also includes many diversified sets of themes such as waste, biodiversity, water, energy, and so on (68 various metrics are used). The social pillar is based on community, human rights, product responsibility, and workforce categories (62 different metrics are used). The governance pillar is based on CSR strategy, management, and shareholders categories (56 distinct metrics are used). All three-pillar scores are percentile rank scores and range between 0 and 100 (Refinitiv, 2020). As moderators, the paper utilizes CSR committee (CSRcom) and CEO duality (CEOduality) which are both binary variables coded as 1 if they exist, otherwise 0 (Shahbaz et al., 2020; Uyar et al., 2020). As control variables, the study uses a battery of firm-level and country-level variables such as free float percentage (Freefloat) for the ownership structure of firms, Boardsize for board structure, total assets for firm size (Firmsize), Leverage for the utilization of external funds, ROA for firm profitability, gross domestic product per capita (GDP) for economic development level, and the trade as a percentage of GDP (Trade) (Shahbaz et al., 2020; Uyar et al., 2020; Uyar et al., 2021). While tourism sector development, GDP, and Trade variables were derived from the World Bank (2020), all other firm-level variables were retrieved from the Thomson Reuters Eikon database. Table 1 presents the list of all variables, their descriptions, and their sources.

Table 1.

List of variables, their descriptions, and sources.

Variables	Description	Source
IntTourArr	International tourism, number of arrivals (natural logarithm)	World Bank (2020)
IntTourRec	International tourism, receipts (current US$) (natural logarithm)	World Bank (2020)
IntTourRecExp	International tourism, receipts (% of total exports)	World Bank (2020)
Envscore	Environmental score shows a firm’s environmental engagement ranging between 0 and 100.	Thomson Reuters Eikon
Socscore	Social score assesses a company’s engagement toward customers, employees, and communities ranging between 0 and 100.	Thomson Reuters Eikon
Govscore	Governance score evaluates board members’ and executives’ engagement to ensure shareholder interest ranging between 0 and 100.	Thomson Reuters Eikon
CSRcom	1 in case a firm has a particular CSR or sustainability committee, 0 otherwise	Thomson Reuters Eikon
Boardsize	Number of directors on the board	Thomson Reuters Eikon
CEOduality	If the CEO holds chairman position at the same time 1, otherwise 0	Thomson Reuters Eikon
Freefloat	Percentage of shares traded on the organized stock exchange	Thomson Reuters Eikon
Firmsize	Natural logarithm of total assets	Thomson Reuters Eikon
Leverage	Percentage of total debt to total assets	Thomson Reuters Eikon
ROA	The ratio of profit before tax to total assets (%)	Thomson Reuters Eikon
GDP	Natural logarithm of GDP per capita (current US$)	World Bank (2020)
Trade	Trade (% of GDP)	World Bank (2020)

Note: GDP: gross domestic product per capita; ROA: return on assets.

Empirical methodology

The proposed models, formulation of the models as part of the empirical methodology, are explained in this section. Due to the time-variant association characteristic of the independent variables and the dependent variables as well as the structure of the sample being in the firm-year panel data format in the sample, the panel data regression analysis is selected as the most appropriate methodological approach for testing the proposed models. Employing the panel data regression analysis eliminates the risk of multicollinearity and estimation bias (Baltagi, 2001). To determine the panel data regression analysis estimator (i.e. Fixed-Effects, Random-Effects, Ordinary OLS), various tests such as F-test, Breusche, and Pagan Lagrange multiplier (LM) test, and Hausman’s test are performed. Accordingly, the F-test results show that Fixed-Effects panel regression analysis is the most appropriate approach compared to ordinary pooled-OLS regression analysis. Besides, Breusch and Pagan LM test reveals that panel data analysis with random-effects is the most appropriate compared to the ordinary OLS regression analysis. Finally, the results of Hausman’s (1978) test indicate that panel data analysis with Fixed-Effects is the most appropriate compared to the random-effects. Based on these results from the indicated tests, the panel data analysis with Fixed-Effects is chosen as the most appropriate analysis approach to test the proposed hypothesis.

The following functional relationships in equation (1) represent the proposed research models.

y_{i t} = α + β_{1} X_{1 i (t - 1)} + β_{2} X_{2 i t} + ϑ_{i} + ϵ_{i t}

The term in equation (1) “ $y_{i t}$ ” shows the dependent variables: IntTourArr, IntTourRec, and IntTourRecExp; the term “ $X_{1 i (t - 1)}$ ” shows the independent test while “ $X_{2 i t}$ ” shows the control variables where the independent test variables are Envscore, Socscore, and Govscore (one year lag of the independent testing variables are incorporated)—as well the control variables are Boardsize, CEOduality, Freefloat, Firmsize, Leverage, ROA, GDP, and Trade. Moreover, the index “i” shows the firms as the panel variable while the index “t” shows the year as the time variable. In addition, the term “ $ϑ_{i} + ϵ_{i t}$ ” indicates the error term where “ $ϑ_{i}$ ” is the firm-specific error term while “ $ϵ_{i t}$ ” is the regular error term. The one-year lagged values of the independent test variables are used in the baseline analysis to address the endogeneity issue (Bellemare et al., 2017; Reed, 2015). The one-year lagged model would also better reflect the causality from CSR engagement of firms to the tourism sector development.

The proposed models in the further analysis are subject to robust standard errors in the idiosyncratic error term $“ ϵ_{i t} ”$ to alleviate the risk of heteroskedasticity issue (Wooldridge, 2013). Using the Fixed-Effects regression analysis, the omitted variable bias is addressed. According to Wooldridge (2010), the Fixed-Effects panel data regression analysis alleviates the risk of omitted variable bias by estimating the amount of changes within firms as the panel variable across years as the time variable.

Finally, the sample of the research is unbalanced longitudinal data where unequal records of the firms within years exist due to the missing financial information of the included variables. However, the Stata Module (StataCorp, 2015) of the Fixed-Effects panel data regression analysis can deal with the unbalanced panel data.

Findings

Descriptive statistics

The summary of the analysis results regarding the descriptive characteristics of the included variables such as mean, standard deviation, and range is provided in Table 2. The results show that means of the dependent variables are as follows: IntTourArr is 17.77 ± 1.35, IntTourRec is 24.92 ± 1.20, and IntTourRecExp is 11.32 ± 13.57. Besides, the averages of the independent test variables are Envscore, 29.88 ± 29.83; Socscore, 39.89 ± 22.61; and Govscore, 42.41 ± 21.27. Moreover, the distribution of the moderating variables shows that 50.18% of the firm-year records have the existence of CEOduality while 38.58% of firm-year records have the existence of CSRcom.

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics.

Variable	Observation	Mean	Standard deviation	Min	Max
IntTourArr	1112	17.77	1.35	13.55	19.17
IntTourRec	1112	24.92	1.20	20.77	26.19
IntTourRecExp	1112	11.32	13.57	1.58	92.11
Envscore	1112	29.88	29.83	0.00	94.24
Socscore	1112	39.89	22.61	0.49	97.16
Govscore	1112	42.41	21.27	2.43	93.19
Boardsize	1112	9.53	3.03	2.00	26.00
Freefloat	1112	71.96	23.20	9.43	100.00
Firmsize	1112	21.77	1.40	17.82	24.58
Leverage	1112	0.34	0.27	0.00	1.39
ROA	1112	0.09	0.10	−0.21	0.44
GDP	1112	10.62	0.68	7.40	11.67
Trade	1112	79.71	105.16	24.35	430.57
Variable	Categories	Freq.	Percent
CEOduality	Non-exist	554	49.82
	Exist	558	50.18
	Total	1112	100
CSRcom	Non-exist	683	61.42
	Exist	429	38.58
	Total	1112	100

Note: GDP: gross domestic product per capita; ROA: return on assets; Freq: Frequency.

Correlation analysis

In the list of the variables of interest, there are two dichotomous categorical variables: CEOduality and CSRcom. Due to the non-normal characteristics of these variables, Spearman’s correlation analysis as the nonparametric approach is performed to determine the bivariate correlations between each pair of variables of interest. The results of Spearman’s correlation coefficients are shown in Table 3. The results show that Envscore (r_s = 6.7%, p < 0.05) and Socscore (r_s = 20.2%, p < 0.05) have a significant positive association with IntTourArr while Govscore does not have a significant correlation with it. In addition, Socscore (r_s = 13.1%, p < 0.05) has a significant positive linear correlation with IntTourRec while Envscore and Govscore do not have a significant linear correlation with IntTourRec at the 5% significance level. Furthermore, Govscore (r_s = 22.3%, p < 0.05) has a significant positive linear correlation with IntTourRecExp while Envscore and Socscore do not have a significant relationship with it at a 5% significance level.

Following the correlation analysis, the risk of multicollinearity issue is addressed by using the variance inflation factors (VIFs) of the independent variables of the proposed models. Accordingly, the values of VIFs of the proposed models range between 1.09 and 2.95 which are significantly less than the cutoff value of 10 considered for multicollinearity (Hair et al., 2019).

Table 3.

Spearman’s correlation coefficients.

.	Variables	V1	V2	V3	V4	V5	V6	V7	V8
V1	IntTourArr	1
V2	IntTourRec	0.883*	1
V3	IntTourRecExp	−0.101*	−0.082*	1
V4	Envscore	0.067*	−0.047	0.049	1
V5	Socscore	0.202*	0.131*	−0.002	0.747*	1
V6	Govscore	−0.005	0.012	0.223*	0.407*	0.439*	1
V7	Boardsize	0.204*	0.046	−0.033	0.401*	0.327*	0.151*	1
V8	Freefloat	0.258*	0.377*	−0.246*	0.026	0.189*	0.074*	−0.028	1
V9	Firmsize	0.323*	0.236*	0.007	0.478*	0.339*	0.107*	0.421*	−0.055
V10	Leverage	0.316*	0.338*	0.080*	−0.038	0.075*	−0.025	0.033	0.150*
V11	ROA	−0.061*	−0.080*	0.159*	−0.029	0.047	0.106*	0.014	0.046
V12	GDP	0.419*	0.629*	0.111*	−0.134*	−0.038	0.083*	−0.085*	0.173*
V13	Trade	−0.196*	−0.377*	−0.029	0.048	−0.104*	0.015	−0.032	−0.454*
V14	CEOduality	0.379*	0.311*	0.043	0.107*	0.086*	0.035	0.009	0.045
V15	CSRcom	−0.082*	−0.162*	0.015	0.703*	0.573*	0.330*	0.307*	0.001
.	Variables	V9	V10	V11	V12	V13	V14	V15
V9	Firmsize	1
V10	Leverage	0.088*	1
V11	ROA	−0.218*	−0.006	1
V12	GDP	0.166*	0.130*	−0.078*	1
V13	Trade	0.070*	−0.217*	−0.038	−0.104*	1
V14	CEOduality	0.218*	0.105*	−0.052	0.104*	−0.092*	1
V15	CSRcom	0.253*	−0.021	−0.023	−0.206*	0.112*	−0.023	1

Note: GDP: gross domestic product per capita; ROA: return on assets.

*p < 0.05.

Results

The baseline analysis results with the Fixed-Effects panel data regression analysis are provided in Table 4. In the analysis, 1 year lag of the independent testing variables are used (Envscore_(t-1), Socscore_(t-1), and Govscore_(t-1)) due to the potential that firms’ CSR engagement may better stimulate tourism development in the subsequent period. The association of the independent test variables (Envscore_(t-1), Socscore_(t-1), and Govscore_(t-1)) with the dependent variables (IntTourArr, IntTourRec, and IntTourRecExp) are investigated. Regarding the model 1 where the dependent variable is IntTourArr, the coefficients of Envscore_(t-1) (β = 0.0037, p < 0.01) and Socscore_(t-1) (β = 0.0025, p < 0.01) are significant and positive. In model 2, Envscore_(t-1) (β = 0.0036, p < 0.01) and Socscore_(t-1) (β = 0.0018, p < 0.05) have a significant positive association with IntTourRec. Regarding the model 3 where IntTourRecExp is the dependent variable, the coefficient of Envscore_(t-1) (β = 0.013, p < 0.01) and Govscore_(t-1) (β = 0.0091, p < 0.01) are significant positive while the coefficient of Socscore_(t-1) is not significant. Thus, the results confirm the validity of the sub-hypotheses H1a and H1b implying that environmental and social performance of H&T firms contributes to the tourism sector development in terms of number of tourist arrivals and tourism receipts. H1c is supported only in the model where the dependent variable is the tourism receipts as percentage of total exports implying that governance performance is influential in increasing share of tourism receipts within total exports.

Table 4.

Fixed-Effects panel regression analysis.

	(1)	(2)	(3)
Independent variables	IntTourArr	IntTourRec	IntTourRecExp
Envscore_(t-1)	0.0037^*** (5.82)	0.0036^*** (8.10)	0.013^*** (4.19)
Socscore_(t-1)	0.0025^*** (3.01)	0.0018^*** (3.10)	0.0050 (1.21)
Govscore_(t-1)	−0.00089 (−1.43)	0.00050 (1.14)	0.0091^*** (2.92)
Boardsize	−0.0093^* (−1.70)	−0.0059 (−1.51)	−0.024 (−0.89)
CEOduality	−0.061^* (−1.94)	−0.019 (−0.85)	−0.0059 (−0.04)
Freefloat	0.00047 (0.46)	0.00070 (0.97)	−0.0039 (−0.77)
Firmsize	0.035 (1.48)	0.052^*** (3.10)	0.47^*** (3.98)
Leverage	−0.099 (−1.59)	0.022 (0.49)	0.50 (1.61)
ROA	0.055 (0.46)	0.039 (0.46)	1.16^* (1.95)
GDP	0.28^*** (3.33)	0.67^*** (11.47)	−2.45^*** (−5.92)
Trade	0.0044^*** (6.25)	0.0073^*** (14.74)	0.015^*** (4.40)
Constant	13.7^*** (16.69)	15.8^*** (27.20)	25.3^*** (6.17)
Firm-year effects	Yes	Yes	Yes
N	960	960	960
R ²	0.23	0.54	0.12
F-Stat.	21.59^***	84.76^***	9.95^***

Note: GDP: gross domestic product per capita; ROA: return on assets. t statistics in parentheses.

*p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01.

The moderating role of “CSRcom”

The moderating role of CSRcom on the relationship between the independent test variables (Envscore_(t-1), Socscore_(t-1), and Govscore_(t-1)) and the dependent variables (IntTourArr, IntTourRec, and IntTourRecExp) is presented in Table 5. The moderating variable CSRcom is a binary variable with one being the existence of the CSR committee while zero being otherwise. To investigate and test interaction variables, Hayes’ (2017) moderation analysis methodology by utilizing a Stata module developed by Jose (2013) is performed. This moderation analysis incorporates the interaction variables between the independent testing variables and the moderating variable (Envscore_(t-1) × CSRcom; Socscore_(t-1) × CSRcom; Govscore_(t-1) × CSRcom).

In model 1, regarding “IntTourArr” as the dependent variable, the coefficient of Envscore_(t-1) × CSRcom is significant positive while the coefficients of the interacting variables Socscore_(t-1) × CSRcom and Govscore_(t-1) × CSRcom are not significant. In model 2, where “IntTourRec” is the dependent variable, the coefficient of Envscore_(t-1) × CSRcom is significant positive while the coefficients of the interacting variables Socscore_(t-1) × CSRcom and Govscore_(t-1) × CSRcom are not significant. Finally, concerning model 3 where the dependent variable is “IntTourRecExp”, the coefficient of Envscore_(t-1) × CSRcom is significant negative while the coefficients of the interacting variables Socscore_(t-1) × CSRcom and Govscore_(t-1) × CSRcom are not significant.

Overall, the results show that CSRcom moderates the relationship between Envscore and the tourism sector development but not between Socscore and Govscore and tourism sector development. Hence, while H2a is accepted, H2b and H2c are rejected.

Table 5.

Moderating role of CSR committee.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)
Independent variables	IntTourArr	IntTourArr	IntTourArr	IntTourRec	IntTourRec	IntTourRec	IntTourRecExp	IntTourRecExp	IntTourRecExp
CSRcom	−0.65^***(−4.92)	−0.51^***(−3.22)	−0.33^**(−1.97)	−0.45^***(−4.71)	−0.34^***(−2.93)	−0.33^***(−2.72)	5.24^***(3.15)	1.97(0.96)	3.11(1.51)
Envscore_(t-1)	−0.0049^**(−2.00)			−0.0060^***(−3.33)			0.12^***(3.74)
Socscore_(t-1)		0.0089^***(3.55)			0.0038^**(2.06)			−0.022(−0.67)
Govscore_(t-1)			−0.0059^***(−2.86)			−0.0048^***(−3.17)			0.17^***(6.78)
Envscore_(t-1) × CSRcom	0.0099^***(3.18)			0.0090^***(3.99)			−0.12^***(−3.10)
Socscore_(t-1) × CSRcom		0.000017(0.01)			0.0012(0.46)			0.032(0.73)
Govscore_(t-1) × CSRcom			0.0019(0.57)			0.0040(1.63)			−0.051(−1.24)
Boardsize	0.097^***(7.83)	0.090^***(7.31)	0.100^***(8.09)	0.029^***(3.17)	0.024^***(2.59)	0.029^***(3.21)	−0.34^**(−2.13)	−0.28^*(−1.75)	−0.34^**(−2.23)
CEOduality	0.76^***(11.36)	0.76^***(11.39)	0.78^***(11.70)	0.45^***(9.27)	0.45^***(9.22)	0.46^***(9.50)	0.96(1.13)	1.08(1.27)	0.67(0.81)
Freefloat	0.012^***(7.29)	0.0099^***(6.00)	0.012^***(7.16)	0.011^***(9.56)	0.010^***(8.37)	0.011^***(9.31)	−0.25^***(−12.19)	−0.24^***(−11.40)	−0.25^***(−12.41)
Firmsize	0.16^***(5.07)	0.14^***(4.70)	0.16^***(5.54)	0.11^***(4.91)	0.094^***(4.36)	0.10^***(4.88)	−0.62(−1.59)	−0.39(−1.02)	−0.24(−0.66)
Leverage	0.95^***(7.60)	0.98^***(7.94)	0.96^***(7.70)	0.71^***(7.81)	0.75^***(8.30)	0.74^***(8.12)	5.30^***(3.33)	4.39^***(2.77)	5.33^***(3.46)
ROA	0.092(0.28)	−0.043(−0.13)	0.31(0.93)	−0.21(−0.89)	−0.27(−1.14)	−0.073(−0.30)	24.8^***(5.96)	24.8^***(5.89)	20.5^***(5.03)
GDP	0.57^***(10.81)	0.59^***(11.40)	0.62^***(11.79)	0.87^***(22.65)	0.89^***(23.54)	0.91^***(23.77)	4.28^***(6.43)	3.86^***(5.84)	2.98^***(4.58)
Trade	0.00043	0.00048	0.00028	−0.0017^***	−0.0017^***	−0.0018^***	−0.025^***	−0.024^***	−0.024^***
	(1.22)	(1.35)	(0.80)	(−6.44)	(−6.43)	(−6.84)	(−5.58)	(−5.28)	(−5.56)
Constant	5.97^***	6.06^***	5.46^***	12.1^***	12.1^***	11.8^***	−4.45	−4.16	−3.39
	(8.21)	(8.59)	(7.82)	(22.80)	(23.34)	(23.20)	(−0.48)	(−0.46)	(−0.39)
N	960	960	960	960	960	960	960	960	960
R ²	0.46	0.47	0.46	0.63	0.63	0.63	0.18	0.17	0.22
F-Stat.	74.03^***	76.22^***	74.04^***	149.49^***	148.12^***	148.00^***	19.23^***	17.73^***	24.15^***

Note: GDP: gross domestic product per capita; ROA: return on assets; CSR: corporate social responsibility. t statistics in parentheses.

*p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01.

The moderating role of “CEOduality”

The moderating role of CEOduality on the association of Envscore_(t-1), Socscore_(t-1), and Govscore_(t-1) with IntTourArr, IntTourRec, and IntTourRecExp are investigated using the Hayes’ (2017) moderation analysis methodology. The results are provided in Table 6. Like CSRcom, CEOduality as the moderating variable is a dichotomous variable (1: CEOduality exists; 0: otherwise). Similarly, the objective is to examine the interaction variables: Envscore_(t-1) × CEOduality, Socscore_(t-1) × CEOduality, and Govscore_(t-1) × CEOduality.

In model 1 where IntTourArr is the dependent variable, the coefficients of Socscore_(t-1) × CEOduality and Govscore_(t-1) × CEOduality are significant and positive while the coefficient of Envscore_(t-1) × CEOduality is not significant. In model 2 where “IntTourRec” is the dependent variable, similarly, the coefficients of Socscore_(t-1) × CEOduality and Govscore_(t-1) × CEOduality are significant and positive while the coefficient of Envscore_(t-1) × CEOduality is not significant. In model 3 where “IntTourRecExp” is the dependent variable, the coefficient of Govscore_(t-1) × CEOduality is significant and positive while the coefficients of Envscore_(t-1) × CEOduality and Socscore_(t-1) × CEOduality are not significant.

Table 6.

Moderating role of CEO duality.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)
Independent variables	IntTourArr	IntTourArr	IntTourArr	IntTourRec	IntTourRec	IntTourRec	IntTourRecExp	IntTourRecExp	IntTourRecExp
CEOduality	0.70^***(7.59)	0.57^***(4.30)	0.31^**(2.16)	0.41^***(6.10)	0.31^***(3.19)	0.17(1.63)	0.37(0.32)	2.73(1.62)	−3.08^*(−1.72)
Envscore_(t-1)	−0.0049^***(−2.67)			−0.0039^***(−2.95)			0.055^**(2.41)
Socscore_(t-1)		0.00074(0.34)			−0.00076(−0.48)			0.052^*(1.91)
Govscore_(t-1)			−0.012^***(−5.81)			−0.0078^***(−4.98)			0.12^***(4.41)
Envscore_(t-1) × CEOduality	0.0030(1.35)			0.0020(1.25)			0.015(0.54)
Socscore_(t-1) × CEOduality		0.0052^*(1.81)			0.0039^*(1.83)			−0.046(−1.26)
Govscore_(t-1) × CEOduality			0.011^***(3.75)			0.0070^***(3.18)			0.088^**(2.35)
Boardsize	0.095^***(7.53)	0.080^***(6.42)	0.092^***(7.57)	0.028^***(3.00)	0.018^*(1.94)	0.023^***(2.65)	−0.30^*(−1.91)	−0.21(−1.31)	−0.32^**(−2.12)
Freefloat	0.011^***(6.67)	0.0095^***(5.71)	0.011^***(6.72)	0.011^***(8.92)	0.0099^***(8.08)	0.010^***(8.88)	−0.24^***(−11.82)	−0.24^***(−11.29)	−0.25^***(−12.43)
Firmsize	0.17^***(5.41)	0.13^***(4.26)	0.15^***(5.16)	0.12^***(5.20)	0.089^***(4.10)	0.096^***(4.67)	−0.72^*(−1.84)	−0.27(−0.73)	−0.22(−0.62)
Leverage	0.96^***(7.66)	1.00^***(7.95)	0.96^***(7.70)	0.74^***(8.04)	0.77^***(8.37)	0.74^***(8.12)	4.93^***(3.10)	4.23^***(2.65)	5.41^***(3.52)
ROA	0.21(0.64)	0.10(0.31)	0.34(1.04)	−0.13(−0.54)	−0.19(−0.78)	−0.057(−0.24)	23.7^***(5.67)	24.0^***(5.70)	20.3^***(4.99)
GDP	0.61^***(11.66)	0.64^***(12.55)	0.65^***(12.78)	0.90^***(23.57)	0.92^***(24.61)	0.93^***(25.02)	3.86^***(5.85)	3.48^***(5.35)	2.75^***(4.38)
Trade	0.000063(0.18)	0.000049(0.14)	0.000020(0.06)	−0.0019^***(−7.47)	−0.0019^***(−7.53)	−0.0019^***(−7.63)	−0.022^***(−5.07)	−0.022^***(−4.82)	−0.024^***(−5.58)
Constant	5.29^***(7.34)	5.93^***(8.29)	5.81^***(8.30)	11.6^***(22.07)	12.0^***(23.02)	12.0^***(23.39)	2.62(0.29)	−4.69(−0.52)	0.89(0.10)
N	960	960	960	960	960	960	960	960	960
R ²	0.45	0.45	0.46	0.63	0.62	0.63	0.17	0.16	0.22
F-Stat.	77.41^***	77.37^***	82.15^***	158.91^***	157.42^***	162.88^***	19.84^***	18.49^***	27.00^***

Note: GDP: gross domestic product per capita; ROA: return on assets. t statistics in parentheses.

*p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01.

In summary, the results show that CEO duality moderates the association between CSR performance and the tourism sector development sensitive to the CSR metric. According to the results, while H3a is rejected, H3b and H3c are accepted. Hence, while CEO duality positively moderates the association between social and governance performance and the tourism sector development proxied by both tourist arrivals and tourism receipts, it does not moderate the association between environmental performance and tourism sector development.

Robustness check

In this section, two further analyses are performed to check the robustness of the baseline models. First, a new subsample excluding the observations from 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2008 from the research sample is created. This is because during 2002–2004 and 2008 SARS and financial crisis erupted which might have caused tourism firms’ outcomes to fluctuate and also affected the tourism sector developments of the countries. Then, the baseline model is rerun based on the new subsample excluding these 4 years. The results are presented in Table 7. According to the results, while Envscore_(t-1) and Socscore_(t-1) have a significant positive relationship with both IntTourArr and IntTourRec, Envscore₍ _t _-1) and Govscore₍ _t _-1) have a significant positive relationship with IntTourRecExp.

Robustness tests

Table 7.

Fixed-Effects panel regression analysis (excluding 2002–2004 and 2008 periods).

	(1)	(2)	(3)
Independent variables	IntTourArr	IntTourRec	IntTourRecExp
Envscore_(t-1)	0.0035^*** (5.34)	0.0042^*** (8.63)	0.016^*** (4.71)
Socscore_(t-1)	0.0024^*** (2.89)	0.0016^** (2.51)	0.0041 (0.91)
Govscore_(t-1)	−0.00067 (−1.10)	0.00029 (0.63)	0.0072^** (2.22)
Boardsize	−0.0097^* (−1.76)	−0.0063 (−1.54)	−0.033 (−1.14)
CEOduality	−0.049 (−1.58)	−0.011 (−0.49)	0.036 (0.22)
Freefloat	−0.00037 (−0.36)	0.00040 (0.52)	−0.0035 (−0.64)
Firmsize	0.038^* (1.65)	0.042^** (2.42)	0.44^*** (3.60)
Leverage	−0.070 (−1.17)	0.025 (0.56)	0.48 (1.50)
ROA	0.061 (0.52)	−0.0095 (−0.11)	0.99 (1.58)
GDP	0.14^* (1.76)	0.66^*** (10.94)	−2.32^*** (−5.41)
Trade	0.0043^*** (6.23)	0.0081^*** (15.71)	0.019^*** (5.16)
Constant	15.1^*** (18.72)	16.2^*** (27.19)	24.3^*** (5.71)
Firm-year effects	Yes	Yes	Yes
N	918	918	918
R ²	0.18	0.52	0.13
F-Stat.	15.71^***	76.72^***	10.13^***

Note: GDP: gross domestic product per capita; ROA: return on assets. t statistics in parentheses.

*p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01.

Secondly, to overcome the limitation associated with the low number of observations for some countries, a new subsample is generated by excluding the countries with a relatively small number of firm-year data points. The sample distribution based on data points indicated that Thailand, Uruguay, Bahrain, Mexico, Switzerland, Belgium, Brazil, Luxembourg, Cambodia, and India had less than 10 firm-year data points. Thus, these countries are eliminated. The baseline model is rerun based on the resulting new subsample. The results are provided in Table 8. The results indicate that Envscore_(t-1) and Socscore_(t-1) have a significant positive relationship with both IntTourArr and IntTourRec. Moreover, Envscore₍ _t _-1₎ and Govscore₍ _t _-1₎ have a significant positive relationship with IntTourRecExp.

Table 8.

Fixed-Effects panel regression analysis (excluding countries with less than 10 firm-year observations).

	(1)	(2)	(3)
Independent variables	IntTourArr	IntTourRec	IntTourRecExp
Envscore_(t-1)	0.0037^*** (5.81)	0.0037^*** (8.11)	0.013^*** (4.20)
Socscore_(t-1)	0.0025^*** (2.96)	0.0018^*** (3.04)	0.0041 (1.01)
Govscore_(t-1)	−0.00088 (−1.41)	0.00051 (1.14)	0.0095^*** (3.07)
Boardsize	−0.0093^* (−1.69)	−0.0059 (−1.51)	−0.028 (−1.03)
CEOduality	−0.061^* (−1.93)	−0.019 (−0.86)	−0.0086 (−0.06)
Freefloat	0.00043 (0.43)	0.00066 (0.91)	−0.0041 (−0.83)
Firmsize	0.035 (1.48)	0.052^*** (3.09)	0.45^*** (3.85)
Leverage	−0.100 (−1.59)	0.022 (0.49)	0.54^* (1.74)
ROA	0.054 (0.45)	0.037 (0.43)	1.10^* (1.87)
GDP	0.27^*** (3.30)	0.67^*** (11.40)	−2.48^*** (−6.05)
Trade	0.0044^*** (6.23)	0.0074^*** (14.72)	0.016^*** (4.66)
Constant	13.7^*** (16.59)	15.9^*** (27.08)	26.0^*** (6.41)
Firm-year effects	Yes	Yes	Yes
N	943	943	943
R ²	0.23	0.54	0.12
F-Stat.	21.18^***	83.71^***	10.05^***

Note: GDP: gross domestic product per capita; ROA: return on assets. t statistics in parentheses.

*p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01.

Overall, the robustness checks completely confirm the baseline analysis. While Envscore has a positive association with IntTourArr, IntTourRec, and IntTourRecExp, Socscore has a positive association with IntTourArr and IntTourRec, and Govscore has a positive association with IntTourRecExp. Thus, the results are robust to alternative sampling.

Discussion and conclusion

As CSR investment cause firms to incur associated costs, whether these investments payback is a question to be answered. Although prior studies assessed the return of CSR investments at the firm level in the H&T sector (Lee et al., 2013; Youn et al., 2015), they ignored whether CSR fosters country-level tourism sector development. Hence, this study addresses this gap by investigating whether firms’ CSR initiatives stimulate the sector’s development at nations beyond firm-level returns. Doing so, the study aims to highlight the role of firms in the tourism sector’s development as well as to alert authorities for better policymaking. Hence, the study is hoped to advance sustainable tourism development across countries and to contribute to the growing body of sustainable tourism literature.

The results show that the environmental and social performance of H&T firms improves tourist arrivals and tourism receipts in subsequent periods. Besides, environmental and governance performance is particularly influential in improving tourism sector receipts as a percentage of total exports. The findings confirm firm-level studies’ outputs such as CSR enhances brand image and customer loyalty (Gürlek et al., 2017; Martínez et al., 2014a), customer satisfaction (Martínez and Del Bosque, 2013; Su et al., 2015), and firm performance (Tamajón and Font, 2013; Yoon and Chung, 2018) in the H&T sector. Furthermore, the first moderation analysis showed that CSR committees moderate the relationship between environmental performance and tourist arrivals and tourism receipts positively. The positive role of CSR committees in firms’ CSR practices such as CSR performance or reporting was verified by prior studies (Arayssi et al., 2020; Cucari et al., 2018; Kılıç and Kuzey, 2019; Shahbaz et al., 2020). Our finding indicates that their influence passes beyond firms’ CSR practices, and hence they are beneficial for the tourism sector development of the countries. The second moderation analysis indicated that CEO duality positively moderates the association between social and governance performance and the tourism sector development proxied by both tourist arrivals and tourism receipts. In particular, the strong interaction effect for the governance indicator supports stewardship theory (Donaldson and Davis, 1991) but rejects agency theory (García Martín and Herrero, 2020); while the former proposes that CEO duality enhances decision-making and command leadership, the latter posits that CEO exacerbates agency conflict between managers and shareholders. Hence, the finding rejects the proposition that CEO power inhibits CSR engagement of the companies (Muttakin et al., 2018) in the H&T sector. Previously, Guillet et al. (2013) found that CEOs with dual roles enhance firm performance in the H&T industry. Thus, our finding supports extra evidence that they play role in fostering the tourism sector development as well.

Implications and future research avenues

The findings suggest several theoretical and practical implications for firms and associated governmental organizations. Theoretical implication is that stakeholder theory well explains the connection between H&T firms’ CSR practices and the tourism sector development. Among the stakeholders, employees, customers, regional tourism bodies, and media might be playing a particular role in leveraging CSR practices in the tourism sector development. Furthermore, the findings show that countries benefit from firms’ CSR investments with a higher number of tourist arrivals and a higher amount of tourism receipts. They imply that the tourists care about what CSR practices firms undertake in especially environmental and social dimensions. The findings may stimulate H&T firms to continue to make CSR investments accordingly or to augment their investments. Besides, the results might incite H&T firms to inquire about what CSR initiatives tourists expect from the firms so that they can increase clients’ revisiting intentions. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the governance dimension is the weakest among three indicators of CSR performance in supporting tourism sector development; it is significant only in increasing the share of tourism receipts within total exports. The H&T firms should make investigations to find out why it is so which may provide opportunities to firms to strengthen their board and management structure. However, the moderation analysis showed that CSR committees’ existence makes a significant difference in connecting only environmental practices to the tourism sector development. Although this finding implies that their role in firms is limited, it could be broadened to social and governance performance. Hence, the findings suggest they broaden their function in companies and develop some strategies concerning how to better turn those investments to attracting more tourists and tourism receipts. They can formulate some policies such as leveraging workforce (in social dimension) and board capital (in governance dimension) to tourism sector development. In addition, the insignificant interaction effect between CEO duality and environmental performance implies that environmental indicator continuously supports tourism sector development in all models which might imply the prominence of ecological issues in the sector without being influenced by the power of CEOs. However, the positive interaction effect between CEO duality and the other two CSR dimensions (i.e. social and governance) implies that CEO duality is beneficial for translating H&T firms’ CSR practices to attracting more tourists and greater tourism receipts. Guillet et al. (2013) highlight the validity of stewardship theory for the H&T sector in such a way that CEOs with dual role could lessen coordination costs, facilitate decision-making, and fasten adaptability of the firms to rapidly changing dynamic conditions in the sector.

Moreover, considering the results, governmental bodies can recognize firms’ concrete contributions to brightening the touristic image of the country and generating competitive advantage at the international level through CSR efforts. The official organizations such as culture or tourism ministries might develop strategies to help H&T firms better align their practices with more ecologically and socially responsible practices by caring for stakeholders’ interests as well as shareholders’. Furthermore, local tourism offices (if exists) or municipalities may cooperate with firms to develop city-level guidelines/roadmaps for better alignment of firms’ practices with municipalities’ practices. The local authorities may also support some CSR projects initiated by the firms or local academia/researchers who might be well conscious in identifying the gaps in terms of CSR investment within the local community and directed to sustainable tourism development.

The main limitation of the study is that it ignores CSR-related regulations in the countries (if exist). Incorporating CSR-related regulations in the countries (if exist) is likely to affect the outcome too. The robustness tests considering some irregular periods and excluding the small number of observations from some countries enhance the validity and generalizability of the results. The study also suggests some other future potential research avenues. For example, a qualitative study by interviewing both sector representatives and officials of culture/tourism ministries can highlight the details of how governmental authorities can help firms in improving their CSR practices. Moreover, country-level sustainability indices (i.e. environmental and human well-being) might be investigated to test their potential impacts on the tourism sector development since air quality, climate, biodiversity, sanitation, and gender equality might play role in attracting tourists and tourism revenues. Finally, further studies might explore which CEO attributes or qualifications (e.g. gender, educational, or other qualifications) support or inhibit CSR initiatives if data exists.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-teu-10.1177_13548166211024502 - Does firms’ CSR engagement support tourism sector development? Moderation effect of CSR committee and CEO duality

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-teu-10.1177_13548166211024502 for Does firms’ CSR engagement support tourism sector development? Moderation effect of CSR committee and CEO duality by Ali Uyar, Cemil Kuzey, Merve Kilic and Abdullah S. Karaman in Tourism Economics

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

Ali Uyar

Cemil Kuzey

Notes

References

Amin

Yahya

Ismayatim

, et al. (2013) Service quality dimension and customer satisfaction: an empirical study in the Malaysian hotel industry. Services Marketing Quarterly 34(2): 115–125.

Arayssi

Jizi

Tabaja

(2020) The impact of board composition on the level of ESG disclosures in GCC countries. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 11(1): 137–161.

Ayuso

(2006) Adoption of voluntary environmental tools for sustainable tourism: analysing the experience of Spanish hotels. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 13(4): 207–220.

Baltagi

(2001) Econometric Analysis of Panel Data. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Bellemare

Masaki

Pepinsky

(2017) Lagged explanatory variables and the estimation of causal effect. The Journal of Politics 79(3): 949–963.

Camilleri

(2014) Advancing the sustainable tourism agenda through strategic CSR perspectives. Tourism Planning & Development 11(1): 42–56.

Coles

Fenclova

Dinan

(2013) Tourism and corporate social responsibility: a critical review and research agenda. Tourism Management Perspectives 6: 122–141.

Cucari

Esposito De Falco

Orlando

(2018) Diversity of board of directors and environmental social governance: evidence from Italian listed companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 25(3): 250–266.

Day

Cai

(2012) Environmental and energy-related challenges to sustainable tourism in the United States and China. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 19(5): 379–388.

10.

de Grosbois

(2012) Corporate social responsibility reporting by the global hotel industry: commitment, initiatives and performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31(3): 896–905.

11.

Donaldson

Davis

(1991) Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns. Australian Journal of Management 16(1): 49–64.

12.

Fahimi

Saint Akadiri

Seraj

, et al. (2018) Testing the role of tourism and human capital development in economic growth. A panel causality study of micro states. Tourism Management Perspectives 28: 62–70.

13.

Farmaki

(2019) Corporate social responsibility in hotels: a stakeholder approach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 31(6): 2297–2320.

14.

Fatma

Rahman

Khan

(2016) Measuring consumer perception of CSR in tourism industry: scale development and validation. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 27: 39–48.

15.

Font

Lynes

(2018) Corporate social responsibility in tourism and hospitality. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 26(7): 1027–1042.

16.

Font

Walmsley

Cogotti

, et al. (2012) Corporate social responsibility: the disclosure-performance gap. Tourism Management 33: 1544–1553.

17.

Fuente

García-Sánchez

Lozano

(2017) The role of the board of directors in the adoption of GRI guidelines for the disclosure of CSR information. Journal of Cleaner Production 141: 737–750.

18.

Gallego-Álvarez

Pucheta-Martínez

(2020) Corporate social responsibility reporting and corporate governance mechanisms: an international outlook from emerging countries. Business Strategy & Development 3(1): 77–97.

19.

García Martín

Herrero

(2020) Do board characteristics affect environmental performance? A study of EU firms. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 27(1): 74–94.

20.

González-Rodríguez

Martín-Samper

Köseoglu

, et al. (2019) Hotels’ corporate social responsibility practices, organizational culture, firm reputation, and performance. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 27(3): 398–419.

21.

Guillet

Seo

Kucukusta

, et al. (2013) CEO duality and firm performance in the US restaurant industry: moderating role of restaurant type. International Journal of Hospitality Management 33: 339–346.

22.

Guix

Bonilla-Priego

Font

(2018) The process of sustainability reporting in international hotel groups: an analysis of stakeholder inclusiveness, materiality and responsiveness. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 26(7): 1063–1084.

23.

Guix

Font

Bonilla-Priego

(2019) Materiality: stakeholder accountability choices in hotels’ sustainability reports. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 31(6): 2321–2338.

24.

Gürlek

Düzgün

Meydan Uygur

(2017) How does corporate social responsibility create customer loyalty? The role of corporate image. Social Responsibility Journal 13(3): 409–427.

25.

Hair

Black

Babin

, et al. (2019) Multivariate Data Analysis. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

26.

Hall

(2019) Constructing sustainable tourism development: the 2030 agenda and the managerial ecology of sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 27(7): 1044–1060.

27.

Hausman

(1978) Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica 46: 1251–1271.

28.

Hayes

(2017) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

29.

Horng

J-S

Hsu

Tsai

C-Y

(2018) An assessment model of corporate social responsibility practice in the tourism industry. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 26(7): 1085–1104.

30.

Hughes

Scheyvens

(2016) Corporate social responsibility in tourism post-2015: a development first approach. Tourism Geographies 18(5): 469–482.

31.

Inoue

Lee

(2011) Effects of different dimensions of corporate social responsibility on corporate financial performance in tourism-related industries. Tourism Management 32: 790–804.

32.

Iyer

Jarvis

(2019) CSR adoption in the multinational hospitality context: a review of representative research and avenues for future research. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 31(6): 2376–2393.

33.

Jose

(2013) Doing Statistical Mediation and Moderation. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

34.

Jucan

(2010) Social responsibility in tourism and sector development. Wseas Transactions on Environment and Development 10(6): 677–686.

35.

Kang

Atkinson

(2021) Effects of message objectivity and focus on green CSR communication: the strategy development for a hotel’s green CSR message. Journal of Marketing Communications 27(3): 229–249.

36.

Kılıç

Kuzey

(2019) The effect of corporate governance on carbon emission disclosures: evidence from Turkey. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management 11(1): 35–53.

37.

Kim

Lee

Kang

(2018) The moderating role of CEO narcissism on the relationship between uncertainty avoidance and CSR. Tourism Management 67: 203–213.

38.

Koçak

Ulucak

ZŞ

(2020) The impact of tourism developments on CO₂ emissions: an advanced panel data estimation. Tourism Management Perspectives 33: 100611.

39.

Kucukusta

Mak

Chan

(2013) Corporate social responsibility practices in four and five-star hotels: perspectives from Hong Kong visitors. International Journal of Hospitality Management 34: 19–30.

40.

Lee

C-C

Chen

C-J

(2013) The relationship between employee commitment and job attitude and its effect on service quality in the tourism industry. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management 3(2): 196–208.

41.

Lee

Seo

Sharma

(2013) Corporate social responsibility and firm performance in the airline industry: the moderating role of oil prices. Tourism Management 38: 20–30.

42.

Lee

Y-K

Park

K-H

Park

D-H

, et al. (2005) The relative impact of service quality on service value, customer satisfaction, and customer loyalty in Korean family restaurant context. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 6(1): 27–51.

43.

Liu

, et al. (2020) How CSR influences customer behavioural loyalty in the Chinese hotel industry. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 32(1): 1–22.

44.

Liu

Wong

Shi

, et al. (2014) The impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance and perceived brand quality on customer-based brand preference. Journal of Services Marketing 28(3): 181–194.

45.

Liu

(2003) Sustainable tourism development: a critique. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 11(6): 459–475.

46.

Luu

(2017) CSR and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment in hotel industry: the moderating roles of corporate entrepreneurship and employee attachment style. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 29(11): 2867–2900.

47.

(2020) Does tourism affect the informal sector? Annals of Tourism Research 80: 102816.

48.

MacKenzie

Gannon

(2019) Exploring the antecedents of sustainable tourism development. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 31(6): 2411–2427.

49.

Mair

Jago

(2010) The development of a conceptual model of Greening in the business events tourism sector. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18(1): 77–94.

50.

Mallin

Michelon

(2011) Board reputation attributes and corporate social performance: an empirical investigation of the US Best Corporate Citizens. Accounting and Business Research 41(2): 119–144.

51.

Martínez

del Bosque

(2013) CSR and customer loyalty: the roles of trust, customer identification with the company and satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality Management 35: 89–99.

52.

Martínez

Pérez

del Bosque

(2013) Measuring corporate social responsibility in tourism: development and validation of an efficient measurement scale in the hospitality industry. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 30(4): 365–385.

53.

Martínez

Pérez

del Bosque

(2014a) CSR influence on hotel brand image and loyalty. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración 27(2): 267–283.

54.

Martínez

Pérez

del Bosque

(2014b) Exploring the role of CSR in the organizational identity of hospitality companies: a case from the Spanish tourism industry. Journal of Business Ethics 124(1): 47–66.

55.

Martínez-Ferrero

García-Meca

(2020) Internal corporate governance strength as a mechanism for achieving sustainable development goals. Sustainable Development 28(5): 1189–1198.

56.

Matev

Assenova

(2012) Application of corporate social responsibility approach in Bulgaria to support sustainable tourism development. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 14(6): 1065–1073.

57.

Medrado

Jackson

(2016) Corporate nonfinancial disclosures: an illuminating look at the corporate social responsibility and sustainability reporting practices of hospitality and tourism firms. Tourism and Hospitality Research 16(2): 116–132.

58.

Moneva

Bonilla-Priego

Ortas

(2019) Corporate social responsibility and organisational performance in the tourism sector. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 28(6): 853–872.

59.

Muttakin

Khan

Mihret

(2018) The effect of board capital and CEO power on corporate social responsibility disclosures. Journal of Business Ethics 150(1): 41–56.

60.

Pucheta-Martínez

Gallego-Álvarez

(2019) An international approach of the relationship between board attributes and the disclosure of corporate social responsibility issues. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 26(3): 612–627.

61.

Reed

(2015) On the practice of lagging variables to avoid simultaneity. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 77(6): 897–905.

62.

Refinitiv (2019) Thomson Reuters business classification. Available at: https://www.refinitiv.com/content/dam/marketing/en_us/documents/quick-reference-guides/trbc-business-classification-quick-guide.pdf (accessed 25 May 2020).

63.

Refinitiv (2020) Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Scores from refinitiv. Available at: https://www.refinitiv.com/content/dam/marketing/en_us/documents/methodology/esg-scores-methodology.pdf (accessed 24 August 2020).

64.

Rhou

Singal

(2020) A review of the business case for CSR in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 84: 102330.

65.

Schafer

(1999) Multiple imputation: a primer. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 8(1): 3–15.

66.

Sellami

Dammak Ben Hlima

Jarboui

(2019) An empirical investigation of determinants of sustainability report assurance in France. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting 17(2): 320–342.

67.

Serra-Cantallops

Peña-Miranda

Ramón-Cardona

, et al. (2018) Progress in research on CSR and the hotel industry (2006-2015). Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 59(1): 15–38.

68.

Shahbaz

Karaman

Kilic

, et al. (2020) Board attributes, CSR engagement, and corporate performance: what is the nexus in the energy sector? Energy Policy 143: 111582.

69.

StataCorp (2015) Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.

70.

Huang

(2018) Effects of destination social responsibility and tourism impacts on residents’ support for tourism and perceived quality of life. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 42(7): 1039–1057.

71.

Swanson

Chen

(2015) Social responsibility and reputation influences on the intentions of Chinese Huitang Village tourists. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 27(8): 1750–1771.

72.

Suárez-Cebador

Rubio-Romero

Pinto-Contreiras

, et al. (2018) A model to measure sustainable development in the hotel industry: a comparative study. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 25(5): 722–732.

73.

Tamajón

Font

(2013) Corporate social responsibility in tourism small and medium enterprises evidence from Europe and Latin America. Tourism Management Perspectives 7: 38–46.

74.

Timur

Getz

(2009) Sustainable tourism development: how do destination stakeholders perceive sustainable urban tourism? Sustainable Development 17(4): 220–232.

75.

Tingbani

Chithambo

Tauringana

, et al. (2020) Board gender diversity, environmental committee and greenhouse gas voluntary disclosures. Business Strategy and the Environment 29(6): 2194–2210.

76.

Uyar

Karaman

Kilic

(2021) Institutional drivers of sustainability reporting in the global tourism industry. Tourism Economics 27(1): 105–128.

77.

Uyar

Kilic

Koseoglu

, et al. (2020) The link among board characteristics, corporate social responsibility performance, and financial performance: evidence from the hospitality and tourism industry. Tourism Management Perspectives 35: 100714.

78.

Uyar

Kuzey

Kilic

, et al. (2021) Board structure, financial performance, corporate social responsibility performance, CSR committee, and CEO duality: disentangling the connection in healthcare. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management in press, Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2141 (accessed 15 Apri l 2021).

79.

Verardi

Dehon

(2010) Multivariate outlier detection in Stata. The Stata Journal 10(2): 259–266.

80.

Wang

(2018) The corporate philanthropy and legitimacy strategy of tourism firms: a community perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 26(7): 1124–1141.

81.

Wong

Gao

(2014) Exploring the direct and indirect effects of CSR on organizational commitment: the mediating role of corporate culture. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 26(4): 500–525.

82.

Wooldridge

(2010) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

83.

Wooldridge

(2013) Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. 5th edn. Mason, OH: South-Western.

84.

World Bank (2020) The world bank data bank. Available at: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspx (accessed 8 May 2020).

85.

Yoon

Chung

(2018) The effects of corporate social responsibility on firm performance: a stakeholder approach. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 37: 89–96.

86.

Youn

Hua

Lee

(2015) Does size matter? Corporate social responsibility and firm performance in the restaurant industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 1: 127–134.

87.

Zhu

Sun

L-Y

Leung

ASM

(2014) Corporate social responsibility, firm reputation, and firm performance: the role of ethical leadership. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 31(4): 925–947.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.09 MB