Tourism Management 95 (2023) 104690

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Recontextualising the determinants of external CSR in the services industry:

A cross-cultural study
Mohamed Nageh Ibrahim a, b, *, Albert Nsom Kimbu a, c, Manuel Alector Ribeiro a, c, d
a
School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH, United Kingdom
b
Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Luxor University, Luxor, Egypt
c
School of Tourism & Hospitality, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa
d
Research Centre for Tourism, Sustainability and Well-being (CinTurs), University of Algarve, Faculty of Economics, Campus de Gambelas, 8005-139 Faro, Portugal

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Although the relationship between institutional pressures and corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been well
Corporate social responsibility studied, its underlying mechanisms and boundary conditions are not well understood. To remedy these gaps, we
Discretionary slack draw on institutional theory and the literature on organisational sensemaking, stakeholder salience and the
Egypt
resource-based view of the firm. We test our conceptual model using survey data from 442 managers of hos­
Institutional pressures
Managerial interpretation
pitality and tourism enterprises based in Egypt and the United Kingdom. SEM-based results show that both
Stakeholder issue salience stakeholder issue salience and discretionary slack mediate the link between institutional pressures and external
United Kingdom CSR. National culture moderates the effects of institutional pressures on both stakeholder issue salience and
external CSR. Multi-group analyses reveal noticeable differences between Egyptian and British managers
regarding their interpretations of CSR issues and the institutional environment. This study contributes to the
emerging micro-institutional stream and cross-cultural CSR research, providing important insights for managers,
policymakers and researchers.

1. Introduction salience are argued to simultaneously function as dual cognitive mech­

anisms mediating the relationship between institutional pressures and
Over the last few decades, interest in corporate social responsibility external CSR. First, managerial interpretation captures managers’ per­
(CSR) has grown exponentially both in theory and practice. CSR re­ ceptions of CSR issues as potential opportunities/threats to their enter­
searchers have long been interested in the relationship between the prise (Jackson & Dutton, 1988). Opportunities/threats may take many
institutional environment and CSR (Campbell, 2007). However, the ef­ forms, such as profits/losses, acquired/lost customers and positive/­
fects of institutional pressures on CSR have been inconsistent (Li & Lu, negative emotions (Sharma, 2000). Second, stakeholder issue salience
2020). Indeed, little is known about why, and how, enterprises differ in discerns how managers prioritise and act on CSR issues based on the
their responses to the institutional environment (Schilke, 2018). A key saliency of those stakeholders who raise these issues. Specifically,
reason for this incomplete understanding is that the micro-mechanisms managers will be attentive to these issues if they have been sponsored by
that transmit the influence of the institutional environment to the en­ legitimate, powerful or urgent stakeholder groups (Agle, Mitchell, &
terprise have been neither rigorously examined nor systematically in­ Sonnenfeld, 1999). Building on the resource-based view of the firm
tegrated (Durand, Hawn, & Ioannou, 2019). Therefore, we delineate an (Barney, 1991), discretionary slack (i.e., managers’ subjective assess­
integrative conceptual model (see Fig. 1) unlocking the link between ments of their access to the enterprise’s internal resources) is embedded
institutional pressures and the organisational tendency for external CSR in our model as a sequential mediating mechanism that arguably
engagement (hereafter referred to as external CSR and pertaining to transmits the influence of those cognitive mechanisms to external CSR.
actions focused on external stakeholders). By doing so, our logic is derived from Durand et al.’s (2019) willingness
Adopting an interpretive research approach (Dutton & Jackson, and ability model that corporate socially responsible behaviour in
1987) and drawing from stakeholder salience theory (Mitchell, Agle, & response to institutional pressures is facilitated/constrained by cogni­
Wood, 1997), both managerial interpretation and stakeholder issue tive and resource capacities. In sum, our model resonates with Basu and

* Corresponding author. School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH, United Kingdom.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.N. Ibrahim), [email protected] (A.N. Kimbu), [email protected] (M.A. Ribeiro).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2022.104690
Received 18 May 2022; Received in revised form 14 November 2022; Accepted 15 November 2022
Available online 25 November 2022
0261-5177/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M.N. Ibrahim et al. Tourism Management 95 (2023) 104690

Palazzo’s (2008) sensemaking view of CSR as resulting from managers’ Managers are suggested to use stakeholder issue salience as an effective
cognitive representations of the institutional environment. identification typology of CSR issues and a tool for building sustainable
Yet, cross-cultural studies between Eastern and Western countries stakeholder relationships. We further offer practical ways for managers
have been scarce in the CSR literature (Farooq, Rupp, & Farooq, 2017), to improve the organisational functioning of their enterprises. Given the
despite the theoretical evidence that institutional pressures, stake­ variation we found in managers’ perceptions across Egypt and the UK,
holders and CSR issues vary according to the national context (Matten & national policymakers are suggested to frame relative institutional
Moon, 2008). Our study’s emphasis is, therefore, on two culturally mechanisms to their unique context in terms of regulations, financing,
distinct countries: Egypt and the United Kingdom (UK), where survey competitiveness and knowledge sharing to foster the efficacy of socially
data were collected from the managers of hospitality and tourism en­ responsible business models. The following section presents the theo­
terprises. Whereas Egypt is a collectivistic nation higher in power dis­ retical rationales underlying our arguments and hypotheses.
tance and uncertainty avoidance, the UK is an individualistic nation
lower in power distance and uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede Insights, 2. Literature review and hypotheses development
2022). These substantial cultural differences motivated us to examine
how national culture moderates the relationship between institutional 2.1. Theoretical background
pressures and both stakeholder issue salience and external CSR. The
distinction between both countries extends to the economic and insti­ With institutional theory in the foreground, our conceptual model
tutional landscapes. Whereas Egypt is a developing economy charac­ (see Fig. 1) integrates cognitive, stakeholder and resource-based insights
terised by institutional voids, the UK is a developed country ruled by a in order to fully explain the drivers of external CSR. Our multi-theory
strong institutional presence (Gupta, Crilly, & Greckhamer, 2020; World approach is grounded in the following theoretical assumptions. First,
Bank, 2022). Thus, a multi-group analysis was performed to explore the institutional theory is inevitable for understanding how the local insti­
potential variation in our hypothesised relationships among Egyptian tutional context shapes decision-makers’ sensemaking (Hahn, Preuss,
and British managers. In doing so, our study addresses three main Pinkse, & Figge, 2014). Second, the cognitive lens explores how man­
research questions: Do institutional pressures affect external CSR? If so, agers make sense of the institutional environment and draw inferences
via which mediating mechanisms? To what extent do these effects differ about CSR demands (Dutton & Jackson, 1987). Third, stakeholder
between Egypt and the UK? salience theory complements the cognitive lens by illuminating how
The present research makes several theoretical contributions. First, managers logically perceive CSR issues raised by respective stakeholders
we enrich the micro-foundations of institutional theory and CSR by (Mitchell et al., 1997). Fourth, the resource-based view guides us to
empirically demonstrating how managers’ interpretations of CSR issues explain how internal resources translate managerial cognitive outcomes
affect organisational responsiveness to the institutional environment. into specific CSR actions (Barney, 1991). In sum, neither theoretical
Second, we provide initial evidence for Durand et al.’s (2019) model by paradigm is independently sufficient to paint a complete picture of an
showing that stakeholder issue salience and discretionary slack conse­ enterprise’s CSR responsiveness to the institutional environment
quently determine the willingness and ability of enterprises to engage in (McGahan, 2021), but collectively they do.
external CSR. Third, cross-cultural CSR research is enriched by revealing
the variation in managers’ interpretations of CSR issues and the insti­ 2.1.1. External CSR
tutional environment across Egypt and the UK. In short, our work con­ CSR is broadly recognised as “context-specific organisational actions
tributes to the ongoing debate of why, and how, enterprises act and policies that take into account stakeholders’ expectations and the
heterogeneously in homogeneous institutional environments. Our find­ triple bottom line of economic, social and environmental performance”
ings are also of practical relevance for managers and policymakers. (Aguinis, 2011, p. 858). Given that stakeholders are primarily external

Fig. 1. Theoretical framework. Note: IND = individualism, PD = power distance, UA = uncertainty avoidance.

2
M.N. Ibrahim et al. Tourism Management 95 (2023) 104690

and/or internal to a firm, CSR is dichotomised into external and internal mechanisms, managerial interpretation and stakeholder issue salience,
activities (Farooq et al., 2017). Whereas external CSR is the responsible are invoked in the present study to unpack managerial cognition of CSR
stewardship of enterprises towards their external stakeholders (e.g., issues. Placing them in parallel, our model suggests that managers make
local communities, customers and the environment), internal CSR re­ sense of CSR issues through the simultaneous evaluation of them
flects how enterprises responsibly treat their employees (for a review, regarding their potential threats/opportunities to the enterprise, and the
see El Akremi, Gond, Swaen, De Roeck, & Igalens, 2015). In this study, salience of stakeholders who raised them. Our conceptualisation is in
we focus on external CSR because external stakeholders are the main line with the micro-foundations of CSR, which are based on individual
actors in the institutional environment (Ortiz-de-Mandojana, actions and interactions that frame CSR perceptions and sensemaking
Aguilera-Caracuel, & Morales-Raya, 2016) and the governance, growth processes (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012).
and survival of hospitality and tourism enterprises (Chan & Wong,
2006). Here, external CSR involves actions that target the local com­ 2.1.3.1. Managerial interpretation. Like other strategic issues, CSR issues
munity (e.g., fund-raising campaigns and voluntary initiatives), cus­ are naturally ill-defined categories, such as events, dilemmas, de­
tomers (e.g., product quality, safety and hygiene programmes) and the velopments and trends (Schneider & De Meyer, 1991). According to the
environment (e.g., waste management and heritage conservation) cognitive view, this ambiguity in CSR issues can be alleviated through
(Farooq et al., 2017). Research has overwhelmingly focused on the managers’ interpretations of these issues (Nadkarni & Barr, 2008).
direct relationship between the institutional environment and CSR Interpretation is a cognitive process through which managers make
(Aguinis & Glavas, 2012), virtually ignoring its intrinsic mechanisms sense of complex data from the surrounding environment (Daft & Weick,
and boundary conditions (Basu & Palazzo, 2008). We, therefore, 1984) and attach meaningful labels to issues they face (Thomas, Clark, &
examine the underlying mechanisms that can explicate the institutional Gioia, 1993). Managers carve out the meanings of CSR issues using
pressures-external CSR link. cognitive categories that group these issues with similar perceived
classifications (Thomas et al., 1993). Two of the most frequent cate­
2.1.2. Institutional pressures gories applied to strategic issues are “opportunity” and “threat” (Jack­
According to institutional theory, firms are tied into a myriad of son & Dutton, 1988). Whereas issues labelled as “opportunities” are
institutions that affect their behaviour and organisational decision- associated with expected positive gains, such as increased profits,
making (Campbell, 2007). These institutions exert pressure on organi­ satisfied customers and more control, issues labelled as “threats” relate
sations through coercive, normative and mimetic processes, collectively to expected losses, such as budget tightening, increased costs and less
resulting in institutional isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Co­ control (Sharma, 2000). Both classifications act as evaluative appraisals
ercive pressures chiefly stem from powerful actors, including govern­ through which issues permeate to determine the subsequent behaviour
ments and resource-dominant organisations, in the form of laws, and motivations of decision-makers, and in turn, influence the process
regulations and technical requirements (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). and content of the enterprise’s actions (Dutton & Jackson, 1988).
Normative pressures are typically exerted by non-governmental and Notably, these labels are neither stable nor objective. Rather, they are
professional organisations, which are linked to enterprises in a network dynamic and change over time, constantly requiring the development of
that facilitates the appropriate processes, standards and knowledge urgently subjective representations by decision-makers (George et al.,
necessary for enterprises to conform to institutional demands (Berrone, 2006).
Fosfuri, Gelabert, & Gomez-Mejia, 2013). Mimetic pressures primarily
come from competitors, especially in uncertain situations wherein en­ 2.1.3.2. Stakeholder issue salience. Following Hahn et al.’s (2014) con­
terprises face extraordinary changes, environmental disruptions and/or ceptualisation, external CSR activities are indeed responses to stake­
unclear objectives that cause a sense of ambiguity among managers holder issues that convey the explicit concerns and claims advocated by
(DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Although institutional theory continues to stakeholders. Examples of stakeholder CSR issues include emissions
be a useful lens for understanding the impact of the external environ­ reduction, fair labour practices and sustainable products/services. While
ment on CSR decision-making (Li & Lu, 2020), it has been criticised for stakeholder salience refers to “the degree to which managers give pri­
neglecting the behaviours, backgrounds and motivations of individual ority to competing stakeholder claims” (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 854),
decision-makers (Schilke, 2018). As a result, heterogeneity in organ­ stakeholder issue salience denotes “the degree to which a stakeholder
isational responsiveness to homogeneous institutional pressures has issue resonates with and is prioritised by management” (Bundy et al.,
remained largely unexplained (Schilke, 2018). Moreover, both incon­ 2013, p. 352). Drawing from stakeholder salience theory (Mitchell et al.,
sistency and inconclusiveness of the relationship between institutional 1997), a CSR issue becomes salient if it has been sponsored by a stake­
pressures and CSR have been widely evident in previous studies (EL holder group who has all or some of the following attributes: (1) the
Ghoul, Guedhami, & Kim, 2017; Li & Lu, 2020). To address these gaps, legitimacy of the stakeholder’s relationship with the enterprise, (2)
the micro-institutional stream has been recently advocated for a better stakeholder’s power to influence the enterprise and (3) the urgency of
understanding of the individual cognitive processes that explain the stakeholder’s claims on the enterprise. As such, stakeholder issue
managerial sensemaking of institutional complexity (George, Chatto­ salience is a multidimensional construct composed of legitimacy, power
padhyay, Sitkin, & Barden, 2006). Accordingly, we hereafter integrate and urgency dimensions, which together act as perceptual factors that
two cognitive mechanisms to capture the mediating role of managerial judge the fit of issues championed by stakeholders with the enterprise
cognition between institutional pressures and CSR. (Durand et al., 2019).
First, legitimacy reflects the appropriateness and desirability of
2.1.3. Managerial cognition organisational actions in the eyes of stakeholders (Agle et al., 1999).
Because of the ambiguity in CSR issues that stem from the institu­ Indeed, enterprises seek to gain legitimacy to secure their resources and
tional environment, these issues do not transform into organisational acquire further controllability over their business environment (George
actions without the intervention of individual decision-makers (Daft & et al., 2006). Second, power is exerted by stakeholders on enterprises in
Weick, 1984). This connotes the mediating nature of managerial the form of penalties, boycotts and supplier withdrawals, among others,
cognition in transforming external events into organisational responses to influence the organisational outcomes (Pfeffer, 1981). Third, urgency
(Bundy, Shropshire, & Buchholtz, 2013). To facilitate this cognitive embodies the extent to which stakeholder claims are immediate and
process, interpretive research suggests the use of different cognitive require instant attention from enterprises to avoid any adverse conse­
frames, which act as information-filtering processes of reality con­ quences (Mitchell et al., 1997). Urgent demands are typically attributed
struction that ascribe an objective meaning to issues, guiding managers to criticality, time sensitivity and visibility (Dutton & Duncan, 1987).
for specific responses (Hahn et al., 2014). Thus, two cognitive

3
M.N. Ibrahim et al. Tourism Management 95 (2023) 104690

Managers are central to stakeholder salience theory (Mitchell et al., will be more risk-seeking to avoid losses and ergo more likely to
1997) because it is the managers who prioritise stakeholder relation­ consume slack resources. Following stakeholder salience theory (Agle
ships and subjectively evaluate the degree of legitimacy-power-urgency et al., 1999), it is expected that CSR issues advocated by influential
a stakeholder deserves. Nonetheless, despite its recognised role, this stakeholders persuade upper management with the feasible allocation of
three-attribute framework has not been adequately examined in tourism resources to undertake CSR actions. As an example, when an enterprise
research, where the focus has been mostly on examining pressures, does not respond well to customers’ calls for CSR, those customers can
rather than the issues of stakeholders, and on the dimension of legiti­ launch boycotts to threaten the enterprise’s irreplaceable sources of
macy (Wang, Font, & Liu, 2020). revenue (i.e., sales and cash flow). Furthermore, the resource-based
theory submits that slack cannot be mobilised for CSR without the
2.1.4. Discretionary slack need either to exploit/avoid an opportunity/threat or to address the
While the two above-mentioned cognitive mechanisms reflect man­ demands of key stakeholders (Barnett, 2007). Thus:
agers’ willingness to engage in external CSR, Durand et al. (2019) have
H2(a,b). Discretionary slack is positively influenced by (a) managerial
theorised that willingness alone does not specify action; instead, will­
interpretation and (b) stakeholder issue salience.
ingness needs to be coupled with the ability to invest in CSR activities.
Following this, we position “discretionary slack” as a mediating mech­
2.2.3. Managerial interpretation, stakeholder issue salience, discretionary
anism between managerial cognition (indexed by managerial interpre­
slack and external CSR
tation and stakeholder issue salience) and external CSR. Discretionary
Because of the differences in managers’ interpretations of the
slack refers to “the cushion of actual or potential resources which allows
external environment and subjective evaluations of slack resources, all
an organisation” to respond or adapt to internal and external pressures
managers are not supposed to address CSR issues in the same way
(Bourgeois, 1981, p. 30). Drawing from the resource-based theory
(Nadkarni & Barr, 2008). Empirically, Sharma (2000) found that envi­
(Barney, 1991), slack resources give managers leeway and flexibility to
ronmental strategic activities are shaped by managers’ interpretations of
address CSR issues and respond to changing external environments.
environmental issues as potential threats/opportunities to their jobs and
Organisational slack can include excess cash, employees and machinery,
their firm. Research found that hotel managers’ perceptions of the
among other resources (Sharfman, Wolf, Chase, & Tansik, 1988). Slack
benefits gained from eco-innovation enhance the application of inno­
can be either available (i.e., uncommitted resources that are visible to
vative practices (Wang et al., 2020). Logically, Crilly and Sloan (2012)
and immediately employable by decision-makers) or unavailable (i.e.,
explained that the manner in which stakeholder issues are perceived
committed resources characterised by low levels of discretion) (Chat­
affects the associated corporate attention and actions. As observed by
topadhyay, Glick, & Huber, 2001). To date, tourism researchers have
David, Bloom, and Hillman (2007), the level of a stakeholder’s salience
focused on certain facets of organisational slack, such as social capital,
determines whether managers take a symbolic or substantive response
while paying less attention to the tangible aspect (Jang, Park, & Choi,
to their CSR issues. Since external CSR requires substantial resources,
2022). In the following section, we hypothesise the relationships be­
discretionary slack is thought to be a key determinant of organisational
tween the aforementioned variables, and illustrate and justify these
engagement in external CSR activities (Chiu & Sharfman, 2011).
through literature-based reasons and empirics.
Moreover, greater levels of slack assign managers more flexibility to
meet institutional demands (Berrone et al., 2013) and manage risky
2.2. Hypotheses development situations (Sharma, 2000). Therefore:
H3(a,b,c). External CSR is negatively influenced by (a) managerial
2.2.1. Institutional pressures, managerial interpretation, stakeholder issue
interpretation, but positively influenced by (b) stakeholder issue
salience and discretionary slack
salience and (c) discretionary slack.
The sensemaking literature demonstrates that changes in the
external environment influence managers’ interpretations of strategic
2.2.4. Institutional pressures and external CSR
issues as opportunities or threats to their enterprise, and these in­
Strategic management thinking holds that corporations tend to
terpretations determine the required actions in response to these issues
conform to institutional pressures because of their willingness to avoid
(Daft & Weick, 1984). Going forward in this study, we use the concept of
penalties, secure their legitimacy and enhance their competitiveness
managerial interpretation to denote only “perceived threats”. Previous
(Berrone et al., 2013). Considerable research has established the role of
research has held that exogenous institutional arrangements may affect
institutional environments in driving CSR (e.g., Li & Lu, 2020; Uyar,
managers’ perceptions of the salience of stakeholder issues and of the
Karaman, & Kilic, 2021). For instance, hotels subject to more institu­
resources controlled by their organisations (Crilly & Sloan, 2012).
tional pressures were found to be more likely to publicly communicate
Concerning resources, scholars view institutions as determinants of how
their climate change-related information (De Grosbois & Fennell, 2022).
resources are either mobilised between organisations or allocated to
Furthermore, tourism enterprises tend to follow environmental stan­
decision-makers (Berrone et al., 2013). In their meta-analysis, Wan­
dards because of the pressures exerted by traveller groups (Miller,
grow, Schepker, and Barker (2015) identified that isomorphic pressures
2001), local communities (Uyar et al., 2021) or environmental
can predict managerial discretion. In practice, Sharfman et al. (1988)
non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (Chan & Wong, 2006). Thus:
demonstrated that institutional pressures force managers to be
conscious of selecting their options for slack resources. Thus, we posit: H4. Institutional pressures positively influence external CSR.

H1(a,b,c). Institutional pressures positively influence (a) managerial

2.2.5. The mediating role of managerial interpretation, stakeholder issue
interpretation, (b) stakeholder issue salience and (c) discretionary slack.
salience and discretionary slack
As earlier discussed, we argue that, inspired by Durand et al.’s (2019)
2.2.2. Managerial interpretation, stakeholder issue salience and
willingness and ability logic, managerial interpretation, stakeholder
discretionary slack
issue salience and discretionary slack may function as mediators be­
Cognitive research has evidenced that managers’ perceptions of a
tween institutional pressures and external CSR. Concerning willingness,
CSR issue as an opportunity or a threat carry a sense of risk, whose
both managerial interpretation and stakeholder issue salience may help
degree influences the magnitude of discretion allowed for them to hold
managers to determine the extent to which a singular CSR issue matters
slack resources (Chattopadhyay et al., 2001). More specifically, in op­
to their enterprises. Regarding ability, the extent of discretionary slack
portunity circumstances, managers will be more risk-averse and then
available may determine whether enterprises take externally-directed
decide to hold slack resources, whereas in threat situations managers

4
M.N. Ibrahim et al. Tourism Management 95 (2023) 104690

CSR actions. The joint consideration of discretionary slack and mana­ on the relationships involving managerial interpretation and discre­
gerial cognition factors resonates with the notion that internal resources tionary slack for three theoretical reasons. First, interpretive research
cannot be mobilised by managers before their cognitive assessments of prescribes that decision-makers within the same organisation are
CSR issues’ saliency (Freeman, Dmytriyev, & Phillips, 2021). Previous divergent in their perceptions of issues as opportunities/threats because
studies found that managerial cognition and beliefs mediate the rela­ of the variance in their educational backgrounds, values, preferences
tionship between institutional pressures and organisational strategic and worldviews rather than their country’s national culture (Thomas
actions (Nadkarni & Barr, 2008). Recently, Li and Lu (2020) found, first, et al., 1993). Second, the threat/opportunity rigidity proposes that dif­
a positive influence of governmental initiatives on enterprises’ CSR ac­ ferences in managerial perceptions are not inherent in the national
tions and, second, considerable variation in the effects based on legiti­ culture; instead, they are rooted in the enterprise’s internal environment
macy perceptions. As mentioned before, discretionary slack augments (Dutton & Jackson, 1987). Third, the resource-based theory (Barney,
the viable strategic choices available to managers, so that enterprises 1991) conceptualises slack as an internally developed capital that is
with more slack resources are more likely to engage in socially heterogeneous across enterprises and their respective intrinsic organ­
responsible behaviour than those with limited slack (Sharfman et al., isational systems, rather than across national cultural systems. Taken
1988). For example, Berrone et al. (2013) observed that slack resources together, we propose:
moderate the influence of institutional pressures on the adoption of
H6. National culture moderates the positive effect of institutional
eco-innovation practices. Taken together, we predict:
pressures on stakeholder issue salience.
H5(a,b). The indirect influence of institutional pressures on discre­
H7. National culture moderates the positive effect of institutional
tionary slack is mediated by (a) managerial interpretation and (b)
pressures on external CSR.
stakeholder issue salience.
According to the sensemaking literature, contextual factors, such as
H5(c,d,e). The indirect influence of institutional pressures on external
home country, considerably influence how managers map their cogni­
CSR is mediated by (c) managerial interpretation, (d) stakeholder issue
tive thoughts and diagnose strategic issues (Daft & Weick, 1984). As
salience and (e) discretionary slack.
observed by Schneider and De Meyer (1991), national culture is a key
H5(f,g). The indirect influence of (f) managerial interpretation and (g) determinant of organisational functioning and strategic responsiveness.
stakeholder issue salience on external CSR is mediated by discretionary They found, for example, that Latin European managers were more
slack. likely to label a strategic issue as a threat and lead proactive behaviours,
than were managers from other cultural backgrounds. Consequently, we
H5h. Managerial interpretation and discretionary slack sequentially
expect that our proposed relationships will differ significantly between
mediate the indirect influence of institutional pressures on external CSR.
Egypt and the UK, given that both countries are culturally distinct.
H5i. Stakeholder issue salience and discretionary slack sequentially
H8(a,b,c,d). The effect of institutional pressures on (a) managerial
mediate the indirect influence of institutional pressures on external CSR.
interpretation, (b) stakeholder issue salience, (c) discretionary slack and
(d) external CSR differs across Egyptian and British managers.
2.2.6. The moderating effects of national culture
Hofstede (1984) initially built his cultural framework based on four H8(e,f). The effect of managerial interpretation on (e) discretionary
dimensions, which are individualism, power distance, uncertainty slack and (f) external CSR differs across Egyptian and British managers.
avoidance and masculinity. Later, two new dimensions were added, i.e.,
H8(g,h). The effect of stakeholder issue salience on (g) discretionary
long-term orientation and indulgence (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov,
slack and (h) external CSR differs across Egyptian and British managers.
2010). In this study, we focus on the first three dimensions due to their
wide validation in management and CSR research, and because their H8i. The effect of discretionary slack on external CSR differs across
attributes are more relevant to the hospitality and tourism context Egyptian and British managers.
(Kang, Lee, & Yoo, 2016). We did not account for masculinity, because
both Egypt and the UK, albeit with a little difference, are masculine 3. Methods
nations (MasculinityEgypt = 55, MasculinityUK = 66; Hofstede Insights,
2022). We furthermore did not account for long-term orientation and 3.1. Study context
indulgence because they have been criticised for their overlap with the
original four dimensions, their focus on the Eastern context and their In a response to mounting calls for more cross-cultural CSR research
reliance on different samples (Gyapong & Afrifa, 2021). Individualistic (Farooq et al., 2017), our theoretical model depicted in Fig. 1 was tested
societies are autonomous, and individuals prioritise their interests over across Egypt and the UK in 2021; two culturally distinct countries as
those of the community (Hofstede et al., 2010). Power distance depends indicated by Hofstede Insights’ (2022) cultural value metrics. Whereas
on the ability of a leader to control the behaviour of subordinates, and Egypt is considered a collectivistic nation (IND = 25) high in power
thus, shape the organisational climate and performance (Kang et al., distance (PD = 70) and uncertainty avoidance (UA = 80), the UK is an
2016). Managers in societies with high uncertainty avoidance are individualistic country (IND = 89) low in power distance (PD = 35) and
risk-averse and exercise less discretion to launch their initiatives uncertainty avoidance (UA = 35). Economically speaking, whereas
(Crossland & Hambrick, 2011). Egypt is a developing or emerging economy, the UK is a developed
We expect that national culture (indexed by individualism, power country (World Bank, 2022). In terms of the institutional fabric, whereas
distance and uncertainty avoidance) amplifies/exacerbates the influ­ Egypt is characterised by institutional voids whereby informal networks
ence of institutional pressures on both stakeholder issue salience and are key in arranging business interactions (World Bank, 2022), the UK is
external CSR. Institutional and stakeholder theories have suggested that a liberal market economy characterised by a strong institutional pres­
national culture exerts a unique influence on the institutions and ence and underpinned by market-based mechanisms that shape the
stakeholders, and how they both influence managers’ cognition and business environment (Gupta et al., 2020). Regarding the stakeholder
enterprises’ socially responsible behaviour (Campbell, 2007). The composition, research suggests that Egyptian businesses care more
cross-cultural work of Maignan and Ralston (2002) has attributed the about governments and the local community, while British businesses
systematic differences in the frequency and content of stakeholder CSR prioritise customers and shareholders (EL Ghoul et al., 2017). Despite
issues between countries to the heterogeneity in their national culture. It these major differences, for both countries, the tourism industry is a key
is worth noting that we ignored the moderating effect of national culture economic sector. The two countries are extremely renowned for their

5
M.N. Ibrahim et al. Tourism Management 95 (2023) 104690

rich histories and heritage. In 2019, Egypt received approximately 13 used to measure managers’ interpretations of CSR issues in terms of their
million visitors, earned $12.6 billion in revenue, and occupied the third perceived emotional associations, loss/gain considerations and issue
position for both international tourism arrivals and receipts in the controllability. An example item included “Any actions that I may take
Middle East (UNWTO, 2020). In the same year, the UK received for social responsibility are constrained by others in the
approximately 39 million visitors, earned nearly $53 billion in revenue, company/business”.
and achieved fifth and third positions for international tourism arrivals Stakeholder issue salience (SIS). Following Mitchell et al.’s (1997)
and receipts, respectively, in Europe (UNWTO, 2020). In terms of ca­ stakeholder salience theory, we tested SIS as a second-order construct,
pabilities, whereas Egypt is still developing its infrastructure in line with constituting the first-order variables of legitimacy, power and urgency.
its strategy: “Egypt’s Vision 2030 for Sustainable Development” (Egyp­ A modified version of Agle et al.’s (1999) nine-item stakeholder salience
tian Ministry of Finance, 2021), the UK is renowned for its world-class measure was used. To capture SIS, we modified the instructions and
infrastructure and superior amenities. changed the beginning of each item from “The stakeholder group” to
“Our company/business conforms to the CSR issues raised by external
3.2. Sample and procedures stakeholders who/whom”. For example, one item was modified from
“This stakeholder group urgently communicated its claims to our firm”
Data were collected, using web-based self-administered question­ to “Our company/business conforms to the CSR issues raised by external
naires, from the managers of hospitality and tourism enterprises based in stakeholders who urgently communicate their claims to our
Egypt and the UK. Our choice of online administration was due to the company/business”.
prevailing COVID-19 pandemic at the time of data collection which did Discretionary slack (DS). It was measured using Atuahene-Gima,
not allow for face-to-face contact due to social distancing measures Slater and Olson’s (2005) subjective four-item measure. A sample item
imposed by governments in the study countries and across the globe. In was “We have substantial resources at the discretion of management for
the UK, we derived a list of hospitality and tourism businesses from four funding strategic social or environmental initiatives”.
official UK tourism websites (Visit England, Visit Wales, Visit Scotland Tendency for external CSR engagement. This was used as a reflective
and Visit Northern Ireland), ensuring all regions were included, to second-order construct covering activities that target: the local com­
reduce any bias. Then, we conducted stratified random sampling to re­ munity, customers and the environment. The original scale developed
cruit participants from each region (Bryman, 2012). In Egypt, we fol­ by El Akremi et al. (2015) was used and then adapted to the tourism
lowed the same sampling and recruiting procedures but with a list of context following Garay and Font (2013), and Wang, Li, and Xu (2019).
hospitality and tourism enterprises derived from the official websites of To capture the participants’ tendency, at the beginning of each item we
the Egyptian Hotel Association and Egyptian Travel Agents Association. added “As the manager (or having a managerial role), I will ensure that”.
To augment the response rate from Egypt, we used convenience sam­ An example item included “our company/business tries to buy materials
pling of personal networks via LinkedIn. The randomly selected Egyp­ or goods locally and prioritises local suppliers”.
tian enterprises were based primarily in Cairo, Alexandria, Luxor,
Aswan and the Red Sea region, which are the main tourism hot spots. As 3.4. Control variables
a token of appreciation and to obtain sizeable samples, we informed all
participants that they will receive a summary report highlighting the We first controlled for job tenure due to its potential association with
findings and potential implications of the study. managers’ tendency to address stakeholder demands and engage in
The original English version of the questionnaire form was translated external CSR activities (Chen, Ko, Li, & Yang, 2021). Second, enterprise
into Arabic and back-translated following Brislin’s (1970) recommen­ size was controlled for, and measured by, the total number of employees
dations. We then sent both versions to a panel of academics and prac­ (Ribeiro et al., 2021), because it correlates with managerial discretion
titioners who verified the content’s validity and readability. Based on (Wangrow et al., 2015) and CSR (Chen et al., 2021). Third, we
their feedback, minor changes were made. Next, to ensure the face controlled for enterprise age due to its synergy with the enterprise’s
validity of the questionnaire, we conducted a pilot study from 1 to 20 ability to acquire resources (Ribeiro et al., 2021). Fourth, we controlled
July 2021, yielding 64 Egyptian and 40 British valid responses. Based on for industry type because of its confounding effects on managerial
feedback from the pilot study, minor changes were made to the final discretion (Crossland & Hambrick, 2011) and CSR (Chen et al., 2021).
version (full English and Arabic questionnaires are available in the
Supplementary Material section – Appendices A and B). To avoid any 3.5. Analytical strategy and preliminary statistical verification
social desirability bias, the participants’ anonymity and confidentiality
were guaranteed; this was explained in the cover letter attached to the Prior to testing the hypotheses, multiple quality checks were per­
survey. We further stated that there were no right or wrong answers. formed to guarantee the legitimacy of our data. First, non-response bias
Finally, data were simultaneously collected in Egypt and the UK from was checked by comparing the responses of 15 early respondents with
August 1, 2021 to November 30, 2021. Overall, data collection resulted 15 late counterparts in both subsamples via the independent sample t-
in 233 British questionnaires and 242 Egyptian questionnaires, which test. In both subsamples, there was no significant difference between the
dropped to 232 and 221, respectively, after checking for missing data. two groups so non-response bias was deemed not to be an issue in our
We were not able to calculate our samples’ representativeness owing to data. Second, severe outliers and unengaged responses were detected,
the unavailability of complete and up-to-date figures of the hospitality resulting in the removal of 11 questionnaires. Hence, the net useable
and tourism enterprises’ population in Egypt and the UK. questionnaires for our final analyses became 228 (UK) and 214 (Egypt).
Third, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was performed to check the
3.3. Construct measurement normality of our data. The results indicated that the data did not follow
the normal distribution (p < 0.001). Another indication of the non-
All the items for each construct were rated on a scale ranging from 1 normal distribution was that some values of skewness and kurtosis
“strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree”. (see Appendix C of the Supplementary Material section) were found to
Institutional pressures (IP). We measured this second-order construct exceed their threshold range values of − 1 to 1 and − 2 to 2, respectively
using Colwell and Joshi’s (2013) reflective nine-item measure, which (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2017). Fourth, sampling adequacy was
covers the three first-order variables: coercive, normative and mimetic verified using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test and Bartlett’s test of sphe­
pressures. A sample item was “Our industry expects all companies/bu­ ricity. The results were 0.898 (χ2 = 7972.441, df = 528, p > 0.001),
sinesses in the industry to be environmentally responsible”. revealing the good quality of the pooled sample and the appropriateness
Managerial interpretation (MI). Sharma’s (2000) three-item scale was of the factor analysis. Fifth, multicollinearity was checked through the

6
M.N. Ibrahim et al. Tourism Management 95 (2023) 104690

calculation of the variance inflation factor (VIF) for the study’s con­ (MGA). In contrast to the traditional covariance-based SEM, PLS-SEM
structs. The results of VIF values ranged from 1.06 to 2.60, not exceeding was more convenient for this study for four main reasons: (1) it re­
the cut-off value of 5.0 (Hair et al., 2017). Thus, multicollinearity was quires neither large samples nor normally distributed data; (2) its ability
not an issue across all samples. Lastly, owing to the use of a to analyse complex models, generating higher predictive power with
self-administered questionnaire at a singular point in time, common more precise R2 values and effect sizes; (3) its nonparametric approach
method bias (CMB) was expected to threaten the results (Podsakoff, aligns with MGA; and (4) its fit with the exploratory nature of our model
MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Applying Harman’s single-factor that connects variables that have been seldom examined together
test, we found that a single factor accounted for 22.65, 30.97 and (Henseler, 2018). As per convention, first, the measurement model was
28.14% of the total variance in the UK, Egypt and pooled samples, performed to test the reliability and validity of the latent constructs and,
respectively, implying that CMB was not an issue across all samples. second, the structural model was run to test our hypotheses (Hair et al.,
After ensuring the quality of our data, SPSS (v.28.0) software was 2017).
used to calculate the descriptive statistics and the correlation matrix
(can be found in Appendices C and D of the Supplementary Material 4. Results
section). As detailed in Table 1, whereas the Egyptian sample was
majorly comprised of younger participants and large businesses, the 4.1. PLS estimation: evaluation of measurement model
British sample majorly represented elderly participants and micro-
businesses. Both samples were well-educated and skewed towards the To evaluate the validity and reliability of the measurement model,
accommodation sector. Then, SmartPLS (v.3.3.7) software (Ringle, we followed a two-stage approach because our theoretical model has
Wende, & Becker, 2015) was used to perform partial least square second-order constructs (Wang et al., 2019). In the first stage, first-order
structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) and multi-group analysis variables were approached for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in
SmartPLS without the inclusion of any second-order constructs. Then, in
the second stage, latent construct scores obtained from the first stage
Table 1 were used to build a hierarchical second-order model without the in­
Descriptive summary of sample. clusion of first-order variables, which appeared as indicators for the
Sociodemographic and business characteristics n (%) higher-order constructs in this stage. As depicted in Fig. 2 and tabulated
UK EG in Appendices E and F (see the Supplementary Material section), all
standardised factor loadings for items and constructs were significant,
n = 228 n = 214
exceeding the cut-off value of 0.50, except MI2 (see Appendix A), which
Gender failed to reach significance in the Egyptian dataset. A plausible expla­
Male 114 (50) 202 (94.4)
Female 109 (47.8) 12(5.6)
nation for this result is the item’s contradiction with the Egyptian cul­
Prefer not to say 5 (2.2) n.a. ture characterised by high power distance. Because the MI construct was
Age gauged by only three items and MI2 was significant in both the UK and
18–29 years 18 (7.9) 24 (11.2) pooled sample, we decided to retain this item, thus not violating the
30–39 years 33 (14.5) 86 (40.2)
psychometric properties of the construct. Contrarily, we deleted the
40–49 years 42 (18.4) 68 (31.8)
50–59 years 59 (25.9) 32 (15.0) fourth item in the discretionary slack (see Appendix A) owing to its very
≥60 years 76 (33.3) 4 (1.9) low factor loading that severely threatened the reliability of the
Education Level construct.
High school or less 22 (9.6) 5 (2.3) To assess convergent validity, the value of average variance extrac­
Vocational training 24 (10.5) 4 (1.9)
Undergraduate 101 (44.3) 177 (82.7)
ted (AVE) was calculated for each construct. As tabulated in Appendices
Postgraduate 81 (35.5) 28 (13.1) E and F, all AVEs were above the threshold of 0.50 across all samples,
Managerial Role except for MI (AVE = 0.48) in the Egyptian subsample. Nonetheless, as
Owner 106 (46.5) 8 (3.7) noted by Bacq and Alt (2018), MI’s convergent validity could be
Manager 71 (31.1) 127 (59.3)
acceptable since it was discriminately valid compared to other con­
Director 41 (18.0) 47 (22.0)
Supervisor 9 (3.9) 32 (15.0) structs and its AVE was slightly lower than the cut-off value. Thus, we
Job Tenure moved on to discriminant validity, which was assessed following the
1–2 years 44 (19.3) 59 (27.6) Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion and the heterotrait–monotrait
3–4 years 45 (19.7) 61 (28.5) (HTMT) ratio. As shown in Table 2, the square root of AVE for each
5–10 years 53 (23.2) 44 (20.6)
>10 years 86 (37.7) 50 (23.4)
construct was superior to its respective cross-variable correlations, thus
Enterprise Size meeting the former criterion. The latter measure was also guaranteed
1–5 employees 125 (54.8) 6 (2.8) since all HTMT values were lower than the threshold of 0.90 (Henseler,
6–10 employees 28 (12.3) 9 (4.2) Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2015). Collectively, the measurement model across
11–25 employees 34 (14.9) 10 (4.7)
all samples had satisfactory convergent and discriminant validity.
26–49 employees 20 (8.8) 19 (8.9)
≥50 employees 21 (9.2) 170 (79.4) Regarding internal consistency, recent literature has suggested the use
Enterprise Age of composite reliability (CR) rather than Cronbach’s alpha, owing to
1–9 years 81 (35.5) 50 (23.4) PLS-SEM’s underestimation of the α values (Wang et al., 2019).
10–19 years 44 (19.3) 63 (29.4) Appendices E and F show that CR estimates for both first-order and
20–29 years 32 (14.0) 33 (15.4)
30–39 years 16 (7.0) 28 (13.1)
second-order constructs rose above the cut-off value of 0.70 (Hair et al.,
40–49 years 16 (7.0) 18 (8.4) 2017), demonstrating their reliability and appropriateness. Next, the
≥50 years 39 (17.1) 22 (10.3) overall model fit was assessed using the standardised root mean square
Industry Type residual (SRMR) for first-stage and second-stage models across all
Accommodation 98 (43.0) 126 (58.9)
samples. All SRMR values were clearly below the cut-off value of 0.08
Food and beverage 34 (14.9) 25 (11.7)
Transport 3 (1.3) 3 (1.4) (Hair et al., 2017), indicating the models’ satisfactory fit across all
Travel agency 15 (6.6) 53 (24.8) samples.
Visitor attraction 44 (19.3) 6 (2.8) Before moving on to assess the structural model on the pooled
Events venue or organiser 16 (7.0) n.a. dataset, it was necessary to establish the measurement invariance (Ting,
Arts, craft and culture 18 (7.9) 1 (0.5)
Fam, Hwa, Richard, & Xing, 2019). Following Henseler, Ringle, and

7
M.N. Ibrahim et al. Tourism Management 95 (2023) 104690

Fig. 2. SEM results. Note: n = 442; ns nonsignificant, †p < 0.10, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

MGA.
Table 2
Discriminant validity.
4.2. PLS estimation: evaluation of structural model
IP MI SIS DS CSR

United Kingdom To test the significance of estimated path coefficients, the boot­
IP 0.80 0.14 0.45 0.11 0.13 strapping method was employed with 5000 resamples. According to the
MI − 0.72 0.27 0.21 0.54 results depicted in Fig. 2 and tabulated in Appendix G of the Supple­
0.06
SIS 0.36 − 0.18 0.89 0.20 0.24
mentary Material section, all direct hypotheses were supported, except
DS 0.09 − 0.15 0.18 0.83 0.28 for H1a (IP → MI). By contrast, both stakeholder issue salience (β = 0.50,
CSR 0.08 − 0.37 0.23 0.24 0.88 p < 0.001) and discretionary slack (β = 0.25, p < 0.001) were positively
Egypt predicted by institutional pressures, accepting H1(b,c). Both managerial
IP 0.86 0.23 0.67 0.38 0.60
interpretation (β = 0.18, p < 0.01) and stakeholder issue salience (β =
MI − 0.69 0.12 0.30 0.11
0.21 0.17, p < 0.01) positively impacted discretionary slack, accepting H2(a,
SIS 0.57 − 0.12 0.88 0.38 0.46 b). External CSR was found to be positively influenced by institutional
DS 0.28 0.14 0.29 0.76 0.49 pressures (β = 0.14, p < 0.05), stakeholder issue salience (β = 0.18, p <
CSR 0.52 − 0.06 0.41 0.37 0.89 0.01) and discretionary slack (β = 0.23, p < 0.001), but negatively
Pooled
IP 0.86 0.19 0.59 0.44 0.35
influenced by managerial interpretation (β = − 0.19, p < 0.01), lending
MI 0.11 0.72 0.16 0.27 0.22 support to H4 and H3(b,c,a), respectively. As presented in Appendix G,
SIS 0.50 0.00 0.88 0.36 0.37 the values of effect size (f2) for direct paths ranged from small to strong
DS 0.36 0.21 0.30 0.82 0.36 effects, according to Cohen’s (1988) criteria.
CSR 0.30 − 0.12 0.32 0.30 0.88
The structural model quality was assessed by calculating the coeffi­
Note: The bold diagonal elements are the squared root of the average variance cient of determination (R2) and cross-validated redundancy (Q2) for
extracted. Above-diagonal elements are the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio; each endogenous construct. The R2 values for stakeholder issue salience,
below-diagonal elements are correlations between the constructs for For­ discretionary slack and external CSR were 0.25, 0.18 and 0.20 respec­
nell–Larcker Criterion; IP = institutional pressures, MI = managerial interpre­ tively, exceeding the cut-off value of 0.10 (Hair et al., 2017). The
tation, SIS = stakeholder issue salience, DS = discretionary slack, CSR =
Stone-Geisser test, following the blindfolding procedure, returned a Q2
tendency for external CSR engagement.
value of 0.19, 0.12 and 0.14 for stakeholder issue salience, discretionary
slack and external CSR, respectively, all above zero. Taken together,
Sarstedt (2016), the measurement invariance of composites (MICOM) these R2 and Q2 values show the model’s fit and explanatory power to
approach was used. This technique has demonstrated its appropriate­ predict external CSR. However, one exception is managerial interpre­
ness for PLS-SEM as a composite-based analysis technique (Rasoolima­ tation, whose R2 and Q2 values were zero, and this was because of its
nesh, Roldán, Jaafar, & Ramayah, 2017). According to MICOM, we nonsignificant association with its only predictor (institutional pres­
followed three steps: configural invariance assessment, compositional sures). Furthermore, the model’s global goodness-of-fit was achieved,
invariance assessment, and equal means and variances assessment. As with a value of SRMR at 0.07, below the recommended cut-off value of
shown in Table 3, the partial measurement invariance was established 0.08 (Hair et al., 2017).
after meeting the conditions of configural and compositional invariance
(Henseler et al., 2016). Thus, we proceeded with hypotheses testing and

8
M.N. Ibrahim et al. Tourism Management 95 (2023) 104690

Table 3
Measurement invariance results.
Construct Configural Invariance Compositional Partial Measurement Equal Mean Assessment Equal variance assessment Full Measurement
(Same Algorithms for Invariance Invariance Invariance
Both Groups) (Correlation Established Established
=1)

C=1 CI Differences CI Equal Differences CI Equal

IP Yes 1.00 [0.99, Yes ̶0.87 [₋0.18, No ̶0.13 [₋0.27, Yes Yes
1.00] 0.18] 0.27]
MI Yes 0.93 [0.40, Yes ̶0.72 [₋0.18, No ̶0.42 [₋0.22, No No
1.00] 0.18] 0.22]
SIS Yes 0.99 [0.99, Yes ̶0.45 [₋0.18, No ̶0.15 [₋0.33, Yes No
1.00] 0.18] 0.33]
DS Yes 0.98 [0.98, Yes ̶1.02 [₋0.19, No ̶0.06 [₋0.22, Yes No
1.00] 0.18] 0.23]
CSR Yes 0.99 [0.99, Yes ̶0.18 [₋0.19, Yes ̶0.14 [₋0.35, Yes Yes
1.00] 0.19] 0.36]

4.3. Mediating effects impact of institutional pressures on external CSR through stakeholder
issue salience and discretionary slack was positive and statistically sig­
To test the significance of mediating effects, the product-of- nificant (β = 0.02, 95% CI [0.00, 0.03]), supporting H5i.
coefficients approach was applied using a bias-corrected bootstrap
procedure with 5000 resamples. As demonstrated in Table 4, we did not 4.4. Moderating effects and multi-group analysis (MGA)
find support for the simple and sequential mediating effects of mana­
gerial interpretation on pathways from the institutional pressures either Before conducting MGA, a two-stage approach (Fassott, Henseler, &
to discretionary slack or to external CSR, thus, rejecting H5(a,c,h). Coelho, 2016) was used to test the moderating effects of national cul­
Conversely, stakeholder issue salience was found to be a cognitive ture. As summarised in Table 5 and plotted in Figs. 3 and 4, national
vehicle from institutional pressures to both discretionary slack (β = culture (captured by its three sub-dimensions: individualism, power
0.09, 95% CI [0.03, 0.14]) and external CSR (β = 0.09, 95% CI [0.02, distance and uncertainty avoidance) moderated the effects of institu­
0.16]), thus accepting H5(b,d). Similarly, discretionary slack was a sig­ tional pressures on both stakeholder issue salience and external CSR at
nificant mechanism leading to external CSR from institutional pressures least at the 0.10 significance level, lending support to H6 and H7. Next,
(β = 0.05, 95% CI [0.02, 0.09]), managerial interpretation (β = 0.04, we performed MGA using both Henseler’s MGA and the permutation test
95% CI [0.00, 0.07]) and stakeholder issue salience (β = 0.04, 95% CI with 5000 bootstraps (Henseler, Ringle, & Sinkovics, 2009). These
[0.01, 0.07]), lending support to H5(e,f,g). Finally, the serial indirect analytical methods seem more conservative for analysing path coeffi­
cient differences between groups (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2017). As
Table 4 shown in Table 6, four hypotheses were significantly different between
Mediation testing. Egypt and the UK, supporting H8(b,d,e,f). By contrast, other hypotheses
Hypothesis Path Specific t- 95% CI Supported
(H8[a,c,g,h,i]) were virtually similar across Egyptian and British
Indirect value managers.
Lower Upper
Effect
Boot Boot
5. Discussion and implications
H5a IP → 0.02 1.20 − 0. 01 0.05 No
MI →
DS
The primary goal of this study was to understand why hospitality and
H5b IP → 0.09** 3.06 0.03 0.14 Yes tourism enterprises act heterogeneously towards the homogeneous
SIS → institutional pressures calling for external CSR actions. Our results
DS demonstrate that managerial interpretation, stakeholder issue salience
H5c IP → − 0.02 1.13 − 0.05 0.03 No
and discretionary slack all play a key role in such heterogeneity.
MI →
CSR Although these hypotheses have not been tested before, the findings are
H5d IP → 0.09* 2.51 0.02 0.16 Yes in line with previous arguments that the institutional environment
SIS → shapes, first, how managers perceive stakeholder demands (Crilly &
CSR
Sloan, 2012) and, second, the degree of slack assigned to
H5e IP → 0.05** 3.33 0.02 0.09 Yes
DS →
decision-makers (Berrone et al., 2013). Contrary to our expectations,
CSR there was no effect of institutional pressures on managerial interpreta­
H5f MI → 0.04* 2.47 0.00 0.07 Yes tion, contradicting the notion that the institutional environment affects
DS →
CSR
H5g SIS → 0.04** 2.70 0.01 0.07 Yes Table 5
DS → Moderation testing.
CSR Hypothesis Path Path Coefficient t Statistics
H5h IP → 0.00 1.13 − 0.00 0.01 No
MI → H6a IP X IND → SIS − 0.12† 1.92
DS → H6b IP X PD → SIS 0.12† 1.91
CSR H6c IP X UA → SIS 0.12† 1.93
H5i IP → 0.02** 2.73 0.00 0.03 Yes H7a IP X IND → CSR − 0.20** 3.23
SIS → H7b IP X PD → CSR 0.20** 3.26
DS → H7c IP X UA → CSR 0.20** 3.23
CSR
Note: Estimates are based on bootstrapping with 5000 resamples; IND = indi­
Note: Estimates are based on bootstrapping with 5000 resamples; n = 442; *p < vidualism, PD = power distance, UA = uncertainty avoidance; n = 442; †p <
0.05, **p < 0.01. 0.10, **p < 0.01.

9
M.N. Ibrahim et al. Tourism Management 95 (2023) 104690

Fig. 3. The moderating effects of national culture on the relationship between institutional pressures and stakeholder issue salience.

Fig. 4. The moderating effects of national culture on the relationship between institutional pressures and external CSR.

Table 6
Multi-group analysis results.
Hypothesis Path Path Coefficient Path Coefficient Difference P-value Difference (Two-tailed) Supported

UK EG Henseler’s MGA Permutation Test

H8a IP → MI − 0.04ns − 0.22ns 0.17 0.261 0.186 No/No

H8b IP → SIS 0.35*** 0.57*** − 0.21 0.026 0.006 Yes/Yes
H8c IP → DS 0.03ns 0.22* − 0.18 0.170 0.061 No/No
H8d IP → CSR − 0.02ns 0.38*** − 0.40 0.000 0.000 Yes/Yes
H8e MI → DS − 0.12† 0.21† − 0.33 0.026 0.005 Yes/Yes
H8f MI → CSR − 0.31*** 0.00ns − 0.32 0.001 0.003 Yes/Yes
H8g SIS → DS 0.13ns 0.20* − 0.06 0.581 0.278 No/No
H8h SIS → CSR 0.15ns 0.12ns 0.03 0.758 0.389 No/No
H8i DS → CSR 0.16** 0.22** − 0.05 0.501 0.267 No/No

Note: nUK = 228, nEG = 214; †p < 0.10, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001; The significance of Henseler’s test is achieved when the p value remains either above 0.95
or below 0.05.

managers’ perceived threats and/or opportunities (Dutton & Jackson, The nonsignificant mediating effect of managerial interpretation goes
1987). We found that perceived threats positively influenced discre­ against the logic that interpretation channels the external environment
tionary slack, contradicting Sharfman et al.’s (1988) proposition that into organisational actions (Dutton & Duncan, 1987). Our moderation
threats force enterprises to hold slack resources, and running counter to analysis of national culture indicated that the effects of institutional
Sharma (2000) who found that discretionary slack is a significant pre­ pressures on both stakeholder issue salience and external CSR were more
dictor of managerial interpretation. Our results also support that pronounced in higher levels of collectivism, power distance and uncer­
stakeholder issue salience is a positive determinant of discretionary tainty avoidance. These results are consistent with Kang et al. (2016),
slack, complementing previous research that focused on just one aspect who found that enterprises operating in countries with these cultural
of salience, such as urgency (Dutton, Stumpf, & Wagner, 1990). Mana­ attributes are more likely to engage in CSR and attend to stakeholder
gerial interpretation negatively affected external CSR, confirming demands.
Sharma (2000). By contrast, stakeholder issue salience and discretionary Our MGA results indicated that both countries exhibited significant
slack were both positive predictors of external CSR, supporting previous variations concerning four hypotheses. One notable difference was that
research (Chiu & Sharfman, 2011; David et al., 2007). of the effect of institutional pressures on external CSR; whereas for Egypt
Our mediation analyses revealed that stakeholder issue salience and this was positive, it seemed to be non-existent in the UK. Another
discretionary slack sequentially mediated the indirect relationship be­ interesting distinction was that while British managers perceived CSR
tween institutional pressures and external CSR. Although these indirect issues as threats to their enterprises, their Egyptian counterparts iden­
relationships were neither proposed nor tested in previous studies, our tified them as opportunities. These observations are consistent with the
work extends Li and Lu (2020) who focused on legitimacy perceptions as arguments that countries differ in their composition of institutions and
a mediator between governmental initiatives and CSR, and comple­ their treatment of stakeholder groups and strategic issues (Song & Kang,
ments Berrone et al.’s (2013) approach that tested slack as a moderator 2019). The findings are also consistent with Gupta et al.’s (2020) find­
influencing institutional pressures on organisational eco-innovation. ings that stakeholder engagement strategies vary based on the local

10
M.N. Ibrahim et al. Tourism Management 95 (2023) 104690

institutional context. Below, we discuss the theoretical contributions Shaw, & Page, 2011). These explanations are also in line with the
and practical implications of these findings, followed by the study lim­ feedback given by our respondents (see C1 and C7 in Appendix H). In
itations and suggestions for future research. terms of the sensemaking literature, noticeable differences were
observed in the signal of MI → external CSR between Egypt and the UK.
5.1. Theoretical contributions This observation is in line with Schneider and De Meyer’s (1991) find­
ings that cultural differences cause variations in whether individuals
The current research makes several theoretical contributions. First, it perceive the same issues as potential threats or opportunities, and sub­
adds to the emerging micro-institutional inquiry and CSR micro- sequent variations in their strategic actions.
foundations literature, answering the calls for integrating individual
cognition, sensemaking and behaviour into the study of institutional 5.2. Practical implications
environment and corporate responsiveness (Basu & Palazzo, 2008;
Schilke, 2018). To date, the literature has mainly adopted a macro-level The findings of this study are of practical relevance for the managers
lens to investigating the direct linkage between institutional pressures of hospitality and tourism enterprises. First, managers should regularly
and corporate actions (Li & Lu, 2020), and this gap is more obvious in and actively exchange information with institutional constituents (e.g.,
the tourism literature (De Grosbois & Fennell, 2022). In an attempt to trade associations, NGOs and competitors) to scan for any uncertain
address these voids, we theoretically suggested, and empirically environmental changes that could potentially affect their capabilities,
confirmed, that stakeholder issue salience and discretionary slack were social legitimacy or competitiveness. Second, top management teams
both significant mechanisms that sequentially mediate institutional are advised to make plausible interpretations of strategic issues that can
pressures on external CSR. These findings provide initial support for influence the everyday operations of their enterprises, thus fostering
Durand et al.’s (2019) willingness and ability logic, which suggests that organisational communication, learning and adaptation. Third, we
enterprises acting in socially responsible ways may first account for issue prompt managers to crystallise stakeholder issue salience as a sorting
salience and, then, for the resources necessary for implementing stra­ criterion in the formal organisational routines and procedures to effec­
tegic CSR initiatives. Taken together, stakeholder issue salience and tively process stakeholder issues and build sustainable stakeholder re­
discretionary slack manifest the dynamic nature of managerial lationships. Research documents that if an enterprise does not respond
decision-making when determining which, and for whom, CSR actions well to the CSR issues raised by its stakeholders, this may worsen its
should be initiated. Second, this study contributes to the strategic relationships with those stakeholders, and it would suffer a decline in
cognition literature, taking an initial step in empirically investigating profit from the opportunities offered by them (Barnett, 2007). Thus,
the salience of stakeholder CSR issues. This is distinct from the extant managers should accurately estimate the legitimacy-power-urgency a
literature that primarily focused on the salience of stakeholders rather stakeholder deserves and be fully aware of the consequences of any
than the salience of their issues (Wang et al., 2020). Methodologically, misperception or inattention to the issues raised by key stakeholder
unlike previous qualitative studies (Cantrell, Kyriazis, & Noble, 2015), groups. Fourth, managers are urged to expand their slack by seeking
we add to the quantitative research by adapting Agle et al.’s (1999) scale alternative external sources via their social and business networks,
of stakeholder salience to measure stakeholder issue salience in the particularly in resource-scarce contexts and crisis periods (e.g.,
context of tourism CSR. Third, we enrich the resource-based view of the COVID-19). Fifth, managers are advised to set their enterprise’s CSR
firm by demonstrating the mediating role of discretionary slack in strategy in motion with the local institutional context and stakeholder
bridging all the indirect pathways to external CSR. This observation was composition.
justified by our respondents’ quotes (see C2, C3 and C5 in Appendix H of This study further offers several policy implications. First, policy­
the Supplementary Material section), which were voluntarily given by makers should create an enabling environment for hospitality and
them at the end of our survey. It is worth noting that slack was a para­ tourism enterprises through monetary (e.g., tax-reductions and long-
mount driver for external CSR in both countries, supporting Ortiz-de-­ term funding schemes) and non-monetary (e.g., softening laws, envi­
Mandojana et al.’s (2016) claim that, regardless of the national ronmental monitoring and eco-knowledge/innovation) incentives to
institutional setting, firms’ resources are fundamental to their sustain­ assist them in their dealings with any potential threats and/or scarce
able management practices. resources that may hinder their adoption of CSR practices. Second, local
Our study offers important insights into cross-cultural CSR research, governments are recommended to actively support trade associations
which remains scant in the tourism literature (Song & Kang, 2019) and and facilitate geographical clustering, coopetition and networking be­
in the mainstream management scholarship (Farooq et al., 2017). By tween businesses for capacity building and industrywide knowledge
conducting the study across two culturally distinct countries, we evi­ exchange. Third, tourism MSEs in the UK need to be fiscally supported
denced that national culture can be a source of variation in the influence by the government and industry associations, especially during the
of the institutional environment on the extent to which managers COVID-19 recovery period, as recommended by our respondents (see C4
perceive stakeholder issue salience and external CSR. Nevertheless, and C6 in Appendix H). Fourth, given the stringent institutional stimulus
since our study was conducted between only two countries, our of the Egyptian institutions, policymakers are urged to heighten the
moderation results warrant interpretation with caution. Our MGA en­ institutional arrangements that target enterprises’ social performance,
riches cross-cultural research. In terms of the institutional inquiry, our as suggested by our participants (see C8 and C9 in Appendix H). In turn,
findings indicated that IP → external CSR was significant in Egypt and it would be possible for Egypt’s 2030 vision of sustainable development
non-existent in the UK. There are three plausible explanations for this to advance at a faster pace. Fifth, policymakers are advised to be aware
observation. First, variations in CSR across different countries emanate of cultural sensitivities when (re)designing institutional plans that target
from the historical and long-standing differences between their in­ enterprises. Given that local cultural systems influence institutions and
stitutions (Matten & Moon, 2008). Second, business policies in emerging market conditions as well as the expectations of individuals and societies
economies, as in Egypt, are primarily shaped by decentralised govern­ about corporate governance, labour rights and public health (Matten &
ments and highly-powered local industry associations, which together Moon, 2008), policymakers should glocalise the standards and regula­
force enterprises to comply with their compulsory codes of conduct (Li & tions of CSR to effectively fit the domestic needs of stakeholders and
Lu, 2020). Third, given that the UK sample is skewed towards micro and businesses in their home country. Sixth, external stakeholders can
small enterprises (MSEs), we suspect that they prefer to consider benefit from our insights into better communicating their demands (see
stakeholders rather than institutional pressures. This assumption is C10 in Appendix H), and finally, policymakers should encourage
fuelled by the idea that MSEs, compared to their large counterparts, are stakeholders to push enterprises to participate in sustaining the
normally far away from large-scale institutional sanctions (Thomas, destinations.

11
M.N. Ibrahim et al. Tourism Management 95 (2023) 104690

5.3. Limitations and future research their competitiveness, growth and survival. We affirm the need for
policymakers to offer substantial (non)financial support for those en­
Our study has a number of limitations that point to potential di­ terprises, such that the sustainability of destinations can be guaranteed.
rections for future research. First, the convergent validity of the mana­ As a long-term consequence, today’s global social challenges, such as
gerial interpretation construct (Sharma, 2000) had a relatively low score poverty, climate change and water scarcity, might be partially resolved.
of AVE. This limitation may be due to its first-time application in the
tourism literature, and/or the fact that interpretation is naturally tricky
to be tested deductively (Bundy et al., 2013). Therefore, future research Declaration of competing interest
could develop this measure by deriving further items/indicators from
the strategic interpretation literature (Jackson & Dutton, 1988). Second, The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
our approach was oriented only toward external stakeholders. It would interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
be interesting to extend our perspectives to internal CSR, focusing on the the work reported in this paper.
treatment of employees within enterprises. Third, future research is
encouraged to seek other variables, such as organisational identity and Acknowledgements
firm communication, which could further bolster the micro-foundations
of CSR. Fourth, since we used a cross-sectional design, causality cannot The researcher, Mohamed Nageh Ibrahim, is funded by a full
be warranted. Hence, potential value is seen in using experiments to scholarship [Bureau ID: MM27/19] from the Egyptian Ministry of
advance our understanding in this domain. Furthermore, Hofstede’s Higher Education and Scientific Research represented by The Egyptian
cultural values we used may be neither representative of the population Bureau for Cultural and Educational Affairs in London. This work is also
nor indicative of the population’s heterogeneity (Kang et al., 2016). partially financed by Portuguese Funds provided by FCT –Foundation
Therefore, future research can use self-reported scales for measuring for Science and Technology (Portugal) through project UIDB/04020/
these cultural dimensions. Finally, qualitative, longitudinal and 2020.
multi-level analyses are much-needed to yield a richer description of our
findings (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). For example, researchers can conduct Appendix A. Supplementary data
a longitudinal examination of how enterprises’ actual CSR engagement
has changed post the COVID-19 pandemic. Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tourman.2022.104690.
6. Conclusion
References
The cross-fertilisation between institutional theory and the literature
on organisational sensemaking, stakeholder salience and slack resources Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An
has theoretically enriched our understanding of the manifestation of the investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO
values. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 507–525.
micro-institutional inquiry into CSR. Our conceptual model offers a Aguinis, H. (2011). Organizational responsibility: Doing good and doing well. In
more realistic view of how managers discuss, interpret, make sense of S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp.
and act on the institutional environment calling for externally-directed 855–879). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social
CSR actions. Our empirical results point out that hospitality and responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4),
tourism enterprises are driven not only by institutional pressures, but 932–968.
also by managerial interpretations of CSR issues in terms of stakeholder Atuahene-Gima, K., Slater, S. F., & Olson, E. M. (2005). The contingent value of
responsive and proactive market orientations for new product program performance.
salience and potential losses and/or gains, and then by the extent of Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(6), 464–482.
discretionary slack available to support CSR decisions. The study’s re­ Bacq, S., & Alt, E. (2018). Feeling capable and valued: A prosocial perspective on the link
sults showed a degree of variability between Egypt and the UK, adding between empathy and social entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing,
33(3), 333–350.
novel perspectives to the cross-cultural CSR research. We hope that this
Barnett, M. L. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial
study paves the way for scholars and practitioners to advance CSR in the returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3),
global tourism industry in the post-COVID-19 era. 794–816.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Author contributions Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: A process model of
sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 122–136.
Mohamed Nageh Ibrahim: Conceptualisation, Investigation, Meth­ Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., Gelabert, L., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2013). Necessity as the
mother of ‘green’ inventions: Institutional pressures and environmental innovations.
odology, Data curation, Data Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Strategic Management Journal, 34(8), 891–909.
Writing – review & editing; Albert Nsom Kimbu: Conceptualisation, Bourgeois, L. J., III (1981). On the measurement of organizational slack. Academy of
Methodology, Writing – review & editing; Manuel Alector Ribeiro: Management Review, 6(1), 29–39.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-
Conceptualisation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Impact statement Bundy, J., Shropshire, C., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2013). Strategic cognition and issue
salience: Toward an explanation of firm responsiveness to stakeholder concerns.
Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 352–376.
This study offers insightful implications for the tourism research Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An
community and real-life enterprises in both developed and emerging institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management
Review, 32(3), 946–967.
regions of the globe. We advance understanding of the emerging micro- Cantrell, J. E., Kyriazis, E., & Noble, G. (2015). Developing CSR giving as a dynamic
institutional and organisational sensemaking streams in the domain of capability for salient stakeholder management. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(2),
CSR. Cross-cultural CSR research is expanded by conducting our work in 403–421.
Chan, E. S., & Wong, S. C. (2006). Motivations for ISO 14001 in the hotel industry.
two culturally distinct countries (Egypt and the UK), enriching inter­
Tourism Management, 27(3), 481–492.
national tourism management scholarship. Our findings offer robust Chattopadhyay, P., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G. P. (2001). Organizational actions in
evidence for managers that their interpretations of salient CSR issues response to threats and opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5),
matter for yielding favourable strategic outcomes. Crucially, hospitality 937–955.
Chen, J. J., Ko, S. I., Li, L. S., & Yang, F. X. (2021). Are better-connected CEOs more
and tourism enterprises need to develop their slack resources and socially responsible? Evidence from the US restaurant industry. Tourism Management,
establish strong networks with external stakeholders, thereby ensuring 85, 104–304.

12
M.N. Ibrahim et al. Tourism Management 95 (2023) 104690

Chiu, S. C., & Sharfman, M. (2011). Legitimacy, visibility, and the antecedents of Hofstede Insights. (2022). Compare countries. Retrieved from https://www.hofstede-
corporate social performance: An investigation of the instrumental perspective. insights.com/product/compare-countries/.
Journal of Management, 37(6), 1558–1585. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: the mind (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lawrence Erlbaum. Jackson, S. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1988). Discerning threats and opportunities.
Colwell, S. R., & Joshi, A. W. (2013). Corporate ecological responsiveness: Antecedent Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(3), 370–387.
effects of institutional pressure and top management commitment and their impact Jang, S., Park, J. S., & Choi, Y. T. (2022). Organizational resource and resilience in
on organizational performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(2), 73–91. tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 93, Article 103322.
Crilly, D., & Sloan, P. (2012). Enterprise logic: Explaining corporate attention to Kang, K. H., Lee, S., & Yoo, C. (2016). The effect of national culture on corporate social
stakeholders from the ‘inside-out. Strategic Management Journal, 33(10), 1174–1193. responsibility in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary
Crossland, C., & Hambrick, D. C. (2011). Differences in managerial discretion across Hospitality Management, 28(8), 1728–1758.
countries: How nation-level institutions affect the degree to which CEOs matter. Li, S., & Lu, J. W. (2020). A dual-agency model of firm CSR in response to institutional
Strategic Management Journal, 32(8), 797–819. pressure: Evidence from Chinese publicly listed firms. Academy of Management
Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation Journal, 63(6), 2004–2032.
systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284–295. Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A. (2002). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the
David, P., Bloom, M., & Hillman, A. J. (2007). Investor activism, managerial US: Insights from businesses’ self-presentations. Journal of International Business
responsiveness, and corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28 Studies, 33(3), 497–514.
(1), 91–100. Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for
De Grosbois, D., & Fennell, D. A. (2022). Determinants of climate change disclosure a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of
practices of global hotel companies: Application of institutional and stakeholder Management Review, 33(2), 404–424.
theories. Tourism Management, 88, Article 104404. McGahan, A. M. (2021). Integrating insights from the resource-based view of the firm
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional into the new stakeholder theory. Journal of Management, 47(7), 1734–1756.
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Miller, G. (2001). Corporate responsibility in the UK tourism industry. Tourism
Review, 48(2), 147–160. Management, 22(6), 589–598.
Durand, R., Hawn, O., & Ioannou, I. (2019). Willing and able: A general model of Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder
organizational responses to normative pressures. Academy of Management Review, 44 identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts.
(2), 299–320. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.
Dutton, J. E., & Duncan, R. B. (1987). The creation of momentum for change through the Nadkarni, S., & Barr, P. S. (2008). Environmental context, managerial cognition, and
process of strategic issue diagnosis. Strategic Management Journal, 8(3), 279–295. strategic action: An integrated view. Strategic Management Journal, 29(13),
Dutton, J. E., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Categorizing strategic issues: Links to 1395–1427.
organizational action. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 76–90. Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N., Aguilera-Caracuel, J., & Morales-Raya, M. (2016). Corporate
Dutton, J. E., Stumpf, S. A., & Wagner, D. (1990). Diagnosing strategic issues and the governance and environmental sustainability: The moderating role of the national
investment of resources. In R. Lamb, & P. Shrivastava (Eds.), Advances in strategic institutional context. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
management. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 23(3), 150–164.
Egyptian Ministry of Finance. (2021). Egypt 2030 vision. Retrieved from https://mof.gov. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Boston: Pitman.
eg/en/About/5fbd28790f63030007fec9bb/5fe3763a7bfc600007cbce92. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
El Akremi, A., Gond, J. P., Swaen, V., De Roeck, K., & Igalens, J. (2015). How do biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
employees perceive corporate responsibility? Development and validation of a remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
multidimensional corporate stakeholder responsibility scale. Journal of Management, Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Roldán, J. L., Jaafar, M., & Ramayah, T. (2017). Factors
44(2), 619–657. influencing residents’ perceptions toward tourism development: Differences across
EL Ghoul, S. E., Guedhami, O., & Kim, Y. (2017). Country-level institutions, firm value, rural and urban world heritage sites. Journal of Travel Research, 56(6), 760–775.
and the role of corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of International Ribeiro, M. A., Adam, I., Kimbu, A. N., Afenyo-Agbe, E., Adeola, O., Figueroa-
Business Studies, 48(3), 360–385. Domecq, C., et al. (2021). Women entrepreneurship orientation, networks, and firm
Farooq, O., Rupp, D. E., & Farooq, M. (2017). The multiple pathways through which performance in the tourism industry in resource-scarce contexts. Tourism
internal and external corporate social responsibility influence organizational Management, 86, Article 104343.
identification and multifoci outcomes: The moderating role of cultural and social Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS
orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 60(3), 954–985. GmbH. http://www.smartpls.com.
Fassott, G., Henseler, J., & Coelho, P. S. (2016). Testing moderating effects in PLS path Schilke, O. (2018). A micro-institutional inquiry into resistance to environmental
models with composite variables. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(9), pressures. Academy of Management Journal, 61(4), 1431–1466.
1887–1900. Schneider, S. C., & De Meyer, A. (1991). Interpreting and responding to strategic issues:
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with The impact of national culture. Strategic Management Journal, 12(4), 307–320.
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), Sharfman, M. P., Wolf, G., Chase, R. B., & Tansik, D. A. (1988). Antecedents of
39–50. organizational slack. Academy of Management Review, 13(4), 601–614.
Freeman, R. E., Dmytriyev, S. D., & Phillips, R. A. (2021). Stakeholder theory and the Sharma, S. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of
resource-based view of the firm. Journal of Management, 47(7), 1757–1770. corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4),
Garay, T. G., & Font, X. (2013). Corporate social responsibility in tourism small and 681–697.
medium enterprises evidence from Europe and Latin America. Tourism Management Song, H. J., & Kang, K. H. (2019). Implementing corporate social responsibility strategies
Perspectives, 7, 38–46. in the hospitality and tourism firms: A culture-based approach. Tourism Economics,
George, E., Chattopadhyay, P., Sitkin, S. B., & Barden, J. (2006). Cognitive underpinnings 25(4), 520–538.
of institutional persistence and change: A framing perspective. Academy of Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Gioia, D. A. (1993). Strategic sensemaking and
Management Review, 31(2), 347–365. organizational performance: Linkages among scanning, interpretation, action, and
Gupta, K., Crilly, D., & Greckhamer, T. (2020). Stakeholder engagement strategies, outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(2), 239–270.
national institutions, and firm performance: A configurational perspective. Strategic Thomas, R., Shaw, G., & Page, S. J. (2011). Understanding small firms in tourism: A
Management Journal, 41(10), 1869–1900. perspective on research trends and challenges. Tourism Management, 32(5), 963–976.
Gyapong, E., & Afrifa, G. A. (2021). National culture and women managers: Evidence Ting, H., Fam, K. S., Hwa, J. C. J., Richard, J. E., & Xing, N. (2019). Ethnic food
from microfinance institutions around the world. Business & Society, 60(6), consumption intention at the touring destination: The national and regional
1387–1430. perspectives using multi-group analysis. Tourism Management, 71, 518–529.
Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., & Figge, F. (2014). Cognitive frames in corporate UNWTO. (2020). Tourism highlights. Retrieved from https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/boo
sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. k/10.18111/9789284422456.
Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 463–487. Uyar, A., Karaman, A. S., & Kilic, M. (2021). Institutional drivers of sustainability
Hair, J. F., Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least reporting in the global tourism industry. Tourism Economics, 27(1), 105–128.
squares structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wang, Y., Font, X., & Liu, J. (2020). Antecedents, mediation effects, and outcomes of
Henseler, J. (2018). Partial least squares path modeling: Quo vadis? Quality and Quantity, hotel eco-innovation practice. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 85,
52(1), 1–8. Article 102345.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing Wang, C., Li, G., & Xu, H. (2019). Impact of lifestyle-oriented motivation on small
discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the tourism enterprises’ social responsibility and performance. Journal of Travel
Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. Research, 58(7), 1146–1160.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Testing measurement invariance of Wangrow, D. B., Schepker, D. J., & Barker, V. L., III (2015). Managerial discretion: An
composites using partial least squares. International Marketing Review, 33(3), empirical review and focus on future research directions. Journal of Management, 41
405–431. (1), 99–135.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C., & Sinkovics, R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path World Bank. (2022). World bank country and lending groups. Retrieved from https://datah
modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing, 20(1), elpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country
277–320. -and-lending-groups.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific
Journal of Management, 1(2), 81–99.

13
M.N. Ibrahim et al. Tourism Management 95 (2023) 104690

Mohamed Nageh Ibrahim is a PhD Researcher in the School Dr Manuel Alector Ribeiro is a Senior Lecturer in Tourism
of Hospitality and Tourism Management, University of Surrey, Management at the School of Hospitality and Tourism Man­
UK. His research interests include corporate social re­ agement, University of Surrey, UK; a Senior Research Fellow
sponsibility (CSR), leadership, organisational resilience and within the School of Tourism and Hospitality Management at
entrepreneurship. the University of Johannesburg, South Africa: and visiting
Associate Professor at the Faculty of Economics, University of
Algarve, Portugal. His current research draws widely on social
impacts assessment, emotional aspects of consumption and
consumer behaviour.

Dr Albert N. KIMBU ([email protected]) is a Reader and

Head of Department of Tourism and Transport in the School of
Hospitality and Tourism Management, University of Surrey,
UK. He is also a Senior Research Associate, School of Tourism
and Hospitality, University of Johannesburg, South Africa. He
researches stakeholder networks, development-led tourism
entrepreneurship, gender mainstreaming and gendered entre­
preneurial pathways in tourism for inclusive development in
emerging destinations.

14