4.5 Review

Eco-innovation in hospitality research (1998-2018): a systematic review

Journal

Publisher

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/IJCHM-01-2019-0002

Keywords

Hospitality industry; Eco-friendly practices; Systematic review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose Theoretical and empirical developments in academic literature have not been able to keep pace with the growing industry focus on eco-innovation and green hospitality practices. This paper aims to address this gap and provide an up-to-date review of research on eco-innovative practices in 13 leading hospitality journals over the past two decades, 1998-2018. Design/methodology/approach A systematic review that incorporates the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses flow diagram is used to guide the data selection for this paper. The paper analyzes 403 studies published in 13 established hospitality journals to identify homogeneous research themes. Findings A unified conceptual framework is proposed by identifying seven research domains under eco-innovative practices. Even though research attention on green practices has increased in recent years, the development of conceptual frameworks, appropriate measurement scales and theoretical support for eco-innovative practices is warranted. Originality/value To the knowledge of the authors, this is the first systematic analysis of hospitality research on eco-innovative practices that reviews such a large number (403) of studies spanning the past two decades (1998-2018). The most recent review by Kim et al. (2017) covered 146 green research studies published between 2000 and 2014; whereas, out of 403 studies reviewed in this study, 231 (57per cent) have been published between 2014 and 2018. This trend is indicative of the fast-evolving nature of sustainability research and the need for an up-to-date systematic review of recent literature in the field.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available