Sustainable Huma

ESADE BUSINESS SCHOOL Sant Cugat Campus Master of Research in Management Science MRes 2016-2017

Master thesis: Sustainable Human Resource Management: Towards Better Understanding of “Green” Organizations

Tutor: Professor Jordi Fernandez Trullen Student: Nour Chams

Sustainable Human Resource Management: Towards Better Understanding of “Green” Organizations

A heart from an eternal shapeless tree and a mind in a limitless sea Speechless thoughts dedicate gratefulness to peaceful world Thank you for Education and Life-Experience Thank you for Tutor and Professors Thank you for Family and Friends

2


Table of Contents Abstract.............................................................................................................................. 4 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 5 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 7 Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 8

Conceptualization of Sustainable HRM ...................................................................................8 Antecedents of Sustainable HRM ...........................................................................................11 1. Green Behaviors, Green Competencies, and Green Values...............................................11 2. Collectivist Identity, Green HRM, and Organizational Culture ........................................15

Outcomes of Sustainable HRM ...............................................................................................19 3.1 Benefits of Green Performance ........................................................................................19 3.2 Implementation of Sustainable HRM ..............................................................................22 3.3 Sustainable HRM: From Cross-National Lens ................................................................24

Conclusion and Limitations ........................................................................................... 29 Appendixes ...................................................................................................................... 31 Appendix A: Conceptualization of Sustainable HRM ...............................................................31 Appendix B: Antecedents of Sustainable HRM .........................................................................33 Appendix C: Outcomes of Sustainable HRM ............................................................................35

References ................................................................................................................................. 37

3


Abstract Nowadays, social, ethical and ecological goals and objectives are fostered among firms. Other than economic and financial profit, organizations are developing new targets such as on individual, community, and environmental-friendly operations and performances. One of the disciplines promoting and contributing to “green” organizations is Sustainable Human Resource Management. This master thesis consists of a systematic literature review examining how sustainable HRM is initiating various strategies and practices to succeed in developing a sustainable work-environment. Based on a selection of empirical and conceptual articles, this review identifies the antecedents of sustainable HRM, analyzes the major outcomes of green HRM, and finally highlights sustainable HRM implementation not only at a firm level, but also from cross national lens. Research gaps are identified in the existing literature and potential future directions are suggested for further research opportunities in sustainable HRM field.

Keywords: Sustainable HRM, Green HRM, Social, Ethical and Ecological performances.

4


Introduction Due to the exponential growth of the human economic expansion, the world has suffered from harmful human activities affecting the environment, depleting natural resources and lack of engagement in social actions (Bauman, 2000; Korten, 2001). As a consequence, recent calls are accentuating on the need to increase attention towards the impact of human factor on sustainability management (Pfeffer, 2010; Speth, 2010). For instance, with the increased concerns about social responsibility and sustainability performance, organizations developed new targets and objectives beyond financial benefits such as social and environmental outcomes (Elkington, 1997). Different functional areas of organizations have been reconsidered to fulfill such goals. One of the areas being re-conceptualized is Human Resource Management (HRM). Through green recruitment and selection 1 , green training and development 2 , green performance appraisal and rewards 3 , and green implementation and practices 4 , sustainable HRM is considered as a potential field to introduce sustainability principles in all organizational domains and to promote social and ecological performances. Moreover, HRM is known as humanistic tradition that goes beyond the classic view of organizations as exclusively maximizing economic output and reducing cost (Jabbour and Santos, 2008). The environmental awareness started from a “green movement”, 1 Sustainable HRM is described through its four green functions. Green recruitment and selection is based on “green job description”, where candidates are hired depending on their social and ethical qualifications. 2 Green

training and development consists of providing “green workshops” in order to enhance employees’ knowledge, skills, and competences towards social and ethical matters. 3 Green

performance appraisal reflects employee’s evaluation not only based on their job-related duties, but also for their extra-role behavior and engagement in internal and external volunteering activities. 4

Green implementation and practices consist of continuous follow-up of green decision making process and sustainable strategies adopted, as well as their post-implementation evaluation at both employee’s level and firm performance level for financial, social and environmental outcomes.

5


preaching for ecological and social engagement; whereas sustainable management and practices, of which HRM is an example, translated and operationalized this ideological movement into business. Sustainable HRM objective is to take into consideration the influence of internal and external factors such as social and environmental policies and regulations, governmental and community’s pressures, consumers’ needs and employees’ welfare (Lucio and Stuart, 2011) in order to maximize profit and to generate sustained competitive advantage, while taking into account social, ethical and ecological performances. However, some of the primary obstacles to reach a shared understanding of what sustainability includes, are the terminology used in the research, lack of unified definition and ambiguity in the conceptualization of the framework. The aim of this master thesis is to analyze how HRM departments are developing various strategies and implementing socially and environmentally practices to achieve their objectives. In addition, this study highlights the impacts of the aforementioned practices on the firm’s outcome as a whole. This systematic literature review is divided in four sections: 1) Conceptualization of sustainable HRM, 2) Antecedents of sustainable HRM, 3) Outcomes of adopting social and environmental performances, first at HR level and second at organizational level, 4) Implementation of sustainable HRM with a cross national perspective. The purpose of this study is to reveal the recent findings in the literature and to identify the research gaps and potential research directions. The following section elaborates on the methodology applied to develop this review.

6


Methodology From previous quantitative and qualitative studies conducted in the sustainability HRM research, the following keywords were used in the search engine: sustainable human resource, sustainable human resource management, green human resource, green human resources management, sustainability and HR, green HR, green HRM, sustainable HR and sustainable HRM. Articles published in peer-reviewed journals were selected from the following databases: Web of Science, EBSCO, ProQuest, Business Premier and Google Scholar. The journals cited in this master thesis are: International Journal of Human Resource Management, Journal of Business Ethics, Human Resource Development International, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Human Resource Management Journal, International Journal of Management Reviews, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism5, and International Journal of Production Research. The selection of the journals was based on disciplines and impact factor. The various search fields are as follow: Business, Environmental Studies, Industrial Relations and Labor, Management, and Applied Psychology. The first list consisted of 149 articles. After reading the abstracts, discussions and conclusions of the latter selected studies, the sample was reduced to 101 articles. The aforementioned studies were analyzed and summarized in depth for the theoretical frameworks applied and the methodological design implemented. The aim of this master thesis is to only include articles investigating sustainability HRM as the main studied variable. For this reason, various papers analyzing other social, ethical and ecological concepts such as Corporate Social 5

Two articles were selected form the Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism. The justification of the latter selection is due to the fact that the Hospitality and Tourism sector is considered as one of the most advanced and successful sector in green management and sustainable performance.

7


Responsibility, Organizational Citizenship Behaviors, Corporate Social Performance, Sustainable Operational/Production Management and Sustainable Supply Chain Management were removed from the sample of selected studies. Hence, for the sake of this literature review, the final selection of articles is 55 papers, focusing only on the various conceptualization of sustainable HRM, identifying the antecedents and predictors of green HR and finally revealing the implementation and outcomes of sustainable HRM functions. The latter mentioned findings will be discussed in details in the below sections.

Analysis Conceptualization of Sustainable HRM First of all, it is important to distinguish between strategic HRM and sustainable HRM, since they have different roles in the organization. Developed in the late 1970s and 1980s, the central role of strategic HRM is to focus on financial and economical outcomes of the organization (Frombrun et. al, 1984; Wright and Snell, 1991; Nikandrou and Papalexandris, 2007). On the other hand, sustainable HRM focuses on developing an innovative work place fulfilling internal and external social involvement, increasing awareness and responsibility towards environmental preservation, and improving resource distribution and consumption to promote organizational success in a competitive environment (Ehnert, 2009; Kramar, 2014). The most commonly used definition of sustainability is the one developed by the United Nation World Commission on Environment and Development describing sustainability as “meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (United Nations Documents, 1987).

8


Ehnert et al. (2015) provide a more elaborated framework of sustainable HRM. They state that sustainable HRM is defined as “the adoption of HRM strategies and practices that enable the achievement of financial, social and ecological goals, with an impact inside and outside of the organization and over a long-term time horizon while controlling for unintended side effects and negative feedback”. Two components are induced from Ehnert et al. definition: 1) human or ecological sustainability: acknowledging various paradoxical objectives and goals at different aspects such as economic, ecological and social (Docherty, Kira, & Shani, 2009; Wilkinson et al., 2001; Jackson,

Renwick,

Jabbour,

interconnectedness between

& “HRM

Muller-Camen, systems

and

2011) their

and

2)

internal

multifaceted and

external

environments” as dynamic core of resources’ generation and reproduction (Ehnert, 2009b). Ethnert (2009) clarifies the link between HRM and sustainability as three main interpretations classified as: 1) responsibility-oriented approach based on an open system model including employees’ well-being, community’s prosperity and quality of life balance; 2) the second interpretation is efficiency-oriented and innovation-oriented corporate purposes, similar to the Friedman’s approach focusing on the connection between economic and sustainability outcomes. The latter approach can be interpreted as balancing between profit and cost, while taking into account the change in the environment, advancement of technology and quality of services and products; and 3) the last interpretation is known as substance-oriented approach, which emphasizes the consumption and reproduction of resources for future organizational viability. In accordance with the aforementioned sustainability classification, Ethnert (2009) argues

9


that sustainability performance tackles human responsibility, firm efficiency, and resource allocation. Moreover, Jabbour and Santos (2008) justify the choice of HRM as key factor contributing to sustainability performance for four reasons: 1) HRM is considered as a potential foundation to include the advancement of sustainability in the organization; 2) both HR and sustainability need long-term focus and planning to induce economic outcome; 3) to promote sustainable performance is the new paradigm of HRM; 4) and to enhance the effectiveness of HRM practices by responding to various shareholders’ needs (Jabbour and Santos, 2008). In the same study, the authors elaborate on the relationship between HRM and sustainability by emphasizing on three major aspects of management practices, which are 1) innovation, 2) cultural diversity in organization, and 3) environmental performance. On other hand, Taylor et al. (2012) and Russ (2012) conceptualize sustainable HRM as an integrative component of various HR divisions. Taylor et al. (2012) recognize that HRM role is simultaneously perceived as a means to apply sustainability through HRM policies by directing employees’ mindsets, and as an end through establishment of HRM systems consisting of “social, moral, and economic” aspects of the firm (Ehnert, 2009; Osland et. al, 1999; Taylor et. al, 2012). Russ (2012) identifies a “mutually co-constructive” relationship between three models of HRD and sustainability: strategic, critical and holistic (Bauman, 2000; Beck, 1992; Giddens, 1991). He claims that the link between “eco-modernism” and strategic HRD is accomplished through implementing a learning process of social involvement and activities; the bridging between sustainable development and critical HRD is achieved through enhancing corporate social responsibility performances; and the relationship

10


between “eco-consciousness” and holistic HRD is attained through promoting reflection on moral, ethical and ecological implications (Russ, 2012). HR practices and sustainability performance are two paradigms converging towards a common organizational benefit not only satisfying shareholders’ objectives but also operating in a responsible manner taking into consideration the social welfare. For instance, sustainable HRM can be defined as the “hardware” of the organization, whereas employees are considered to be the engine of the “software” part (Florea et. al, 2012); both are complementary components to achieve sustainability performance. From theoretical perspective, the sustainable HRM topic was assessed from various frameworks such as national culture theory, stakeholder theory, paradox theory, risk society theory, organizational development theory, and signaling theory. However, the ability, motivation, and opportunity AMO theory is the one mostly used in the literature, because it provides a conceptual model clarifying strategies and implications of HR functions to promote sustainable performance. Summary of the conceptualization section of sustainable HRM is provided in a table in Appendix A. The below section will identify the antecedents of sustainable HRM depicted from the sample of selected articles.

Antecedents of Sustainable HRM 1. Green Behaviors, Green Competencies, and Green Values The revised literature reveals that individual characteristics, attributes and behaviors are important predictors to enhance sustainable performances. They are considered as facilitators of the metamorphosis of organizations, to become more socially responsible or to be recognized as “green” organism. The following section consists of

11


three sub-parts elaborating on the antecedents of sustainable HRM at individual level categorized as follow: Green Behaviors (GB), Green Competencies (GC), and Green Values (GV). 1.1 Green Behaviors (GB) In 2015, Norton et al. proposed a conceptual model generating two types of employee’s green behaviors (EGB) classified as required EGB6 and voluntary EGB7. The required EGB are behaviors performed within the context of job duties, also known as task-related EGB; whereas voluntary EGB are similar to organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) consisting of personal and social initiatives towards the internal and the external work environment including activities beyond the firm requirements. The findings of the study suggest a framework founded on “person-environment” interaction, categorization and taxonomy of job performance and self-determination theory, and they identify discrepancies between voluntary and required EGB relatively to “institutional, organizational, leader, team, and employee” level and dependent on context factor. Norton et al. were able to generate a spectrum of EGB with different shades at various firm’s levels (Norton et al., 2015). 1.2 Green Competencies (GC) Various scholars conducted both qualitative and quantitative studies to define and identify green competencies and to investigate their impact on sustainable HRM. Green 6

Required EGB also know as task-related green behaviors are performed within the context of employees’ required job. 7

Voluntary EGB are green behaviors involving individual initiative that exceeds organizational expectations such as developing environmental interests, engaging in environmental programs, lobbying and activism, and encouraging others to be involved in social events.

12


competencies can be described as identifying and developing employees’ green skills and talents to generate environmental friendliness, sensitivity towards social concerns, and alignment between individual and green consumerism. Environmental competency defined by Kim and Choi (2005) reflects “ an individual’s general orientation toward the environment and an individual’s concern level as to environmental issues”. Tantawi et al. (2009) explain green competency development as a process of determining “what people know about the environment”, “how they feel about it” and “what actions they take and efforts they exert to improve the environment protection” (Tantawi et al., 2009). Generally, environmental or green competency is an individual attitude reflecting human concern about ecological preservation (Lee, 2009). Subramanian (2016) categorizes green competencies in an articulated way, by providing a clear classification of natural green competencies (NGC) versus acquired green competencies (AGC). The combination of the two natural and acquired competencies constitutes the effective green competency (EGC). Based on Roberts’ competencies’ framework (Roberts, 1997), he contributes to the aforementioned findings by differentiating two types of green competencies: natural GCs8 described as underlying traits derived through individual observations; whereas acquired GCs 9 are perceived as green knowledge and skills accumulated through experiences. The results show that acquired competencies are stronger predictors of green performance than natural competencies and that they have higher contribution to initiate green behaviors. Hence, human resources managers might focus on identifying 8

Natural GCs, described as personal’s underlying traits and individual’s dimensions, are derived from observations and mentoring received at the formative stages of green behavior of immediate social group interaction and networking. 9

Acquired GCs are green knowledge and skills, developed through the accumulation of previous individual experiences on environmental issues, which strengthens the individual’s conviction and affection towards behaving in an eco-friendly manner.

13


employees with acquired GCs and offer various green workshops and trainings to develop acquired GCs in order to guarantee better green performance (Subramanian et al. 2016). 1.3 Green Values (GV) In addition to green behaviors and green competencies, converging individual and organizational values and compatibility of leadership traits with the work-environment are crucial predictors of sustainable HRM. Leadership styles were analyzed in the literature to identify which leadership type facilitates the implementation of sustainable practices. Robertson and Barling (2013) find that transformational leadership plays the role of a catalyst in promoting employees’ pro-social behaviors. For instance, sharing actively environmental values, tackling sustainable concerns and encouraging employees to encompass in social relationships are aspects positively associated with proactive behaviors (Robertson and Barling 2013; Ramus, 2002). For example, Florea et al. (2012) conducted a study assessing the relationship between values and sustainability. Altruism, empathy, positive norm of reciprocity, and private self-effacement are considered as a set of individual values showing positive effect on effective HR practices and advancing sustainability management (Florea et al., 2012). At a micro level, both social values and green behaviors are associated with a higher predisposition towards engagement and involvement in social activities, and moral concerns. The aforementioned individual traits are antecedents of sustainable HRM inducing positive outcomes achieved in a progressive manner from personal contribution, through organizational framework towards better environment.

14


2. Collectivist Identity, Green HRM, and Organizational Culture

Both employers and employees show concern towards green attributes and environmental friendly practices (Renwick et al., 2015). Employers are implementing green practices, for example “employee branding” in order to improve the hiring process leading to more responsible and aware workforce (Renwick et al., 2013). An interconnected organizational-employees’ fit is perceived as an essential factor contributing to advance sustainable HRM. Thus, in the following sub-sections, firm’s identity, green HRM functions, and organizational cultural will be identified as predictors enabling the “greening” process of organizations. 2.1 Collectivist Identity Previous studies elaborate on the organizational factors as antecedents of sustainable management: organizational identity and stakeholder pressure. Li et al. (2012) conduct an empirical analysis investigating the relationship between firm’s identity, HRM and performance in sustainable development. The authors assess the impacts of three types of orientations on performance: individualistic, relational and collectivistic. They state that firm’s size is positively correlated to firm’s sustainable performance. Large firms perform better than small firms due to governments’ supervision and higher availability of financial and technological resources. Both collectivistic and relational firm’s orientations have direct and moderating effects on sustainable performance. Collectivistic identity positively moderates the relationship between HRM and performance on sustainability; whereas relational orientation has negative direct effect on sustainable performance (Li et al. 2012). The major conclusion of the study is that large and collectivistic firms tend to be more socially responsible and involved in moral activities

15


vis-à-vis the general benefit of society and environment. However, the authors clarify the outcome of the study and provide explanation concerning the sample and the industry style. The sample consists of manufacturing Chinese companies. They build on the fact that China is known as a country where connections and business relations are crucial in the corporate operations and where there is little attention to environmental protection. The latter argument provides evidences that these practices where justified by strong inter-relationship between government and organizations, which might be the reason behind mitigating the punishment of social and ecological mistreatment towards the environmental pollution (Li et al., 2012).

These practices might be perceived as

discriminated constraints slowing the advancement of sustainable implications among firms. 2.2 Green HRM The green recruitment and selection process is an essential function in firms through integrating green criteria in the job description and informing the potential candidate of mission and values of the organization. As for training and development, managers are relying on this crucial task to foster green competencies and green talents. Proenvironmental attitudes require the development of green talents and skills (Fernandez et al., 2003) to increase engagement in social and ecological activities. Through sustaining learning organization system and by providing extensive workshops and encouraging involvement in volunteering activities, the purpose of training is to induce knowledge and awareness of sustainable performance and to acknowledge the twofold benefit on both individual and societal levels.

16


As for enhancing employees’ motivation towards sustainable practices, this managerial aspect is accomplished through green performance appraisal and reward systems. Previous studies showed that environmental rewards and recognition have significant positive influence on employees’ willingness to participate in eco-initiatives (Renwick et al., 2013). For example, green performance appraisal and green pay reward can be attained based on employee’s performance not only in reference to job description but also through extra-social behaviors and fulfillment of various needs. Customization of rewards and benefits are based on individualized demands taking into account industry and sector components. Knowledge management, communication and HR planning are tactics implemented by organizations through HR in order to facilitate the process. Wagner (2013) empirically proves the existence of positive correlation between environment management systems EMS and HR. The study demonstrates that work satisfaction is a stronger predictor of EMS implementation than employees’ recruitment/retention factor (Wagner, 2013). Zibbaras and Coan (2015) conclude that reward systems and environmental training are keystones to enhance environmental sustainability and to encourage proactive behaviors. Previous studies confirm that social compensations and public rewards are more effective than monetary and private rewards; adopting negative appraisal techniques and punishments have adverse effect on environmental advancement (Jackson et al., 2010). Personalized and individually designed reward systems show higher effectiveness on environmental management, since the perception of the reward value varies between employees (Govindarajulu and Daily, 2014, Fernandez et al., 2003).

17


2.3 Organizational Culture In order to increase environmental management opportunities, scholars conclude that there is a growing need for human resource management to focus on employees’ relationships, engagement, and involvement, and to create a supportive organizational culture promoting sustainable performance. Quantitative findings reveal that employee’s involvement improves environmental management by efficient resource usage (Florida and Davison, 2001); reducing waste (May and Flannery, 1995); and minimizing pollution from workplaces (Denton, 1999; Kitazawa and Sarkis, 2000). Del Brio and his co-authors empirically assess and investigate HRM factors perceived as tool to achieve environmental action-based competitive advantages at three levels: individual, managerial and organizational. The results indicate that 1) environmental managerial involvement contributes to the environment performance by 16%; 2) The strategic integration of environmental organizational management explains 8% of the achievement of environmental action-based competitive advantage of the firm; 3) Employees’ motivation and involvement in environmental activities explain respectively 8% and 10% of the achievement of environment action-based competitive advantage (Del Brio et al. 2007). These statistical values reveal that the highest contribution to environmental practices is achieved by accommodating an organizational culture of involvement, participation and engagement. The latter organizational indicator can generate a synergetic effect on both the implementation process and the yield of social performance.

Dubois and Dubois (2012) explain that in order to achieve successful environmental sustainability, organizations need to embed the changes at multi-level of the firm. The

18


effort should be exerted internally and externally, through developing and adopting sustainable vision and strategies, through employees’ behaviors and attitudes, and through organization’s social systems (Dubois and Dubois, 2012). Pro-active leadership, innovative culture, flexible structure and transparent reporting are essential components to create environmental sustainability (Ramus and Steger, 2000). An innovative culture is built on employee’s creativity and fair treatment among workers, innovative technological management system, de-centralization, and vertical communication with interdependent relationships. The implementation of sustainable management consists of an evolutionary process of environmental learning management (Jabbour et al., 2010).

To assure consistent

environmental training, organizations should detect adequate needs among employees and identify workers’ readiness and consensus to adopt sustainable knowledge and practices (Zibbaras and Coan, 2015). Summary of the antecedents of sustainable HRM is provided in a table in Appendix B.

Outcomes of Sustainable HRM 3.1 Benefits of Green Performance After identifying the antecedents of sustainable HRM, this section elaborates on the various outcomes of this social practice. First of all, adopting sustainable HRM is perceived as a competitive advantage and an added value of the firm to satisfy shareholders’ values from different perspectives. From one side, scholars claim that the green HR strategy can be a successful tool to attain both financial and social targets; and from another side, organizations are implementing this new approach as a response to external pressure exerted from government, public and private communities, and

19


customers. To emphasize on the latter argument, Renwick et al. (2013) investigate the link between sustainable HRM and organizational performance. They show that sustainable HRM positively impacts the financial goal of the firm, employees’ well-being and the organizational objectives as a whole (Renwick et al., 2013; O’Donohue and Torugsa, 2015). One of the emergent issues on the agenda of sustainability management of business leaders, CEOs and managers is the environmental performance. Defined by Judge and Douglas (1998), environmental performance reflects the “firm’s effectiveness in meeting society’s expectations with respect to concern for natural environment” (Judge and Douglas, 1998). Some of the measures applied to evaluate green performance are waste reduction, pollution management, and recycling activities (Lober, 1996). In 2014, Paille reveals that sustainable HRM contributes to develop better green performance through staff support and organizational attributes (Paille et al., 2014). Sustainable HRM can have direct and indirect outcomes on employees and organization. The direct HRM effect is reflected by policies and practices influencing employees’ behavior through performance management system (rewarding and penalizing); whereas indirect HRM effect is the approach promoting organizational commitment, job satisfaction and employees involvement (Harvey et al., 2013). At firm level, Guerci et al. (2015) differentiate three types of organizational climates: benevolent, principled and egoistic. As defined by Martin and Cullen (2006), the egoistic climate leads employees to behave based on their self-interest, thus maximizing their personal utility and organizational profit. The well-being of the others is the motive behind the employees’ behaviors in benevolent climate, thus employees tend to act based on utilitarian view to

20


maximize the overall good; whereas the principled climate induces employee’s behavior based on formal and informal “rules and norms of conduct within the organization” (Guerci et. al, 2015). The findings reveal that the ability-enhancing practices such as recruiting, selection and training, and the opportunity-enhancing practices such as job design and employee involvement have positive influence on two ethical climates: benevolent and principled. The motivation-enhancing practices have positive impact on egoistic climate and negative effect on principled climate. The main conclusion of this research is that benevolent and principled climates are the result of adopting green HRM. To build on the previous statement, the authors state that sustainability factor is described as ethical framework essential to maximize the impact of HRM towards developing ethical climate in organizations (Guerci et al., 2015). In 2012 and 2013, two articles conducted by Gully et al. and Salazar et al. emphasize on the effect of green recruitment and green training. Gully et al. (2013) generate a model clarifying the “role of desire for significant impact” through work on the company environmental responsibility values on “personal-organization” fit, organizational attraction and job pursuit intentions. The results highlight the consequence of recruitment advertisements, specifically through communicating firm’s social and environmental engagement. The abovementioned factor has an impact on job seekers’ perception towards “personal-organization” fit, which has a positive association between organization’s attractiveness and job applicants (Gully et al. 2013). One of the advanced sectors in green development and sustainable performance is the hotels’ management and tourism industry. The nature of the business service aspect triggers the merge of social achievement and managerial operations as cost minimization

21


and waste management, employees’ engagement and fulfillment of customers’ value. Several certifications, training programs and license qualifications were developed to legally classify hotels and firms as sustainable organisms. The literature consists of studies identifying essential HR practices as attributes of green hotel and incentives behind transforming the hospitality management corporate field into a socially responsible sector. Scholars identify three main motives as initiators of green practices: regulatory pressure (Chan & Wong, 2006; Kirk, 1995, 1998; Tzschentke et al., 2004); financial benefits (González and León, 2001; Iwanowski and Rushmore, 1994) and positive public image (Cortés et al., 2007; Kirk, 1995, 1998; Tzschentke et al., 2004). To elaborate more on green HRM and overall performance, Kim and Choi (2013) examine the relationship between green practices from employees’ perspective. On individual level of analysis, the results show that the overall performance of green hotels was considered as less important as perceived by employees. The findings of the study support the positive relationship between the perception of green strategies and employees’ commitment (Kim and Choi, 2013). To increase employees’ attachment to their job, companies are encouraged to increase their involvement in green management. Hence, the benefits of green practices can be recognized as win-win situations for employees, company and environment leading to an overall harmony inside and outside the organization. 3.2 Implementation of Sustainable HRM The purpose of sustainable HRM is to implement the recommended green practices but also to evaluate the outcomes of this new approach of HRM. The literature review focuses on the sustainability content; however there are still difficulties and challenges

22


facing this organizational change. In 2014, Russ classifies the barriers encountered by HR sustainability practices in three categories focusing on the evaluation of sustainability as: 1) external factors consist of linking external partnerships, funding and support of organizations; 2) organizational factors consist of internal partnerships, organization’s mission and leadership; and 3) program-specific factors consist of alignment of both program and organizational missions, administrative support and developmental evaluation (Russ, 2014). Jackson and Seo (2010) mentioned four barriers to green HRM known as: 1) apathy defined as lack of engagement and lack of knowledge, 2) skepticism and externalizing responsibilities, 3) complexity known as multi-level of analysis: individual, organizational, political-economic, social-cultural and ecological systems, 4) confusing terminology seeking to establish consensus among researchers necessary to have a better conceptualization of sustainability in order to avoid misunderstanding and to increase careerism for work integrity (Jackson and Seo, 2010). To elaborate more on the implementation processes, Guerci and Carollo (2016) wrote a conceptual paper examining the paradoxical aspect of sustainable HRM. They identify six propositions of green HRM, which can be potential topics for future research direction: 1) formalization, 2) standardization, 3) promoting ability, 4) motivation, 5) opportunity, and 6) role of HR managers. These obstacles in sustainable HR operationalization, illustrate the ambiguity and complexity of the conceptualization of this framework (Guerci and Carollo, 2016). In their study, Guerci and Pedrini (2013) noticed the lack of consensus between HR managers and sustainability managers. They claim that HR managers tend to focus more on competencies development as sustainability-driven change processes; whereas sustainable managers consider that

23


practice-related factors are more fundamental for sustainability performance. They provide a solution to overcome the difficulties in acquiring sustainable HRM. A unified definition and consensus between human resources management and sustainability management are precedents to build an integrative and cooperative teamwork towards common vision and target. In contrast to other research analysis, the strength point of the latter studies is the authors’ contribution to the HR literature by clarifying possible barriers in implementing sustainable practices (Guerci and Pedrini, 2013; Guerci and Carollo, 2016). 3.3 Sustainable HRM: From Cross-National Lens To have a broader perspective, some studies in sustainable HRM were conducted at cross-national level reflecting various performances, implementations and outcomes. They clarified whether HRM differ at cross-national level and provided evidences in order to test if similarities in sustainable HRM practices outweigh differences, so a combined vision of the interrelation between HR and environmental management can be acknowledge in research and in business implications. An empirical study examines the relationship between corporate environmental responsibilities CER, employer’s reputation and employee’s commitment in multinational companies (MNCs), operating in developed economies (Germany and USA) and in emerging economies (China and India). The authors find a positive correlation between green technology and products, green recruitment and evaluation, and green communication with firm’s reputation and employees’ commitment. The findings do not reveal any drastic differences in CER between developed and emerging countries. Differences in economic markets do not reflect any relevant influence on the signaling effect of corporate environmental

24


responsibilities CER. Only green communication is considered as an influential tool of employer’s reputation for Germany and USA. The results of the study are justified by the fact that due to globalization, the corporate cultural values are converging towards one social paradigm, which is the main reason behind mitigating the differences in business performances at cross-national level (Dogl and Holtbrugge, 2013). To further illustrate on sustainability HRM and market economic structures, Ehnert et al. (2015) conduct a study comparing liberal market economies (LMEs) and coordinated market economies (CMEs). The liberal market economies LMEs (Anglo-Saxon countries such as US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand) are shareholder-driven and associated with long-term shareholder pressure; whereas the coordinated market economies CMEs (such as northern Europe and Japan) are stakeholder-driven and associated with short-term shareholder pressure. The findings indicate that the international differences between MNCs from LMEs and CMEs are not remarkably significant on sustainable performance. The results reveal that organizations report equally on sustainability activities on both “green matters” as operational consideration and “people matters” as employee consideration. However, the social disclosures are more focused on the internal indicators of sustainable performance more than the external ones. The authors explain that firms tend to report on “labor decent work” as intra-organizational factor more than on reporting about societal factor such as

“human rights” (Ehnert et al., 2015). To reflect upon these results,

integrating both internal and external social responsibilities within the HR tasks, can be a “signaling attribute” to assure the achievement of financial and sustainable purposes. Hence, organizations with green HR tend to develop a sustained competitive advantage

25


perceived by various business and social agents as an added value between competing firms. In 2016, Haddock-Millar and his colleagues conduct a comparative case study in the food industry assessing the green HRM in multi-national companies MNCs in UK, Germany and Sweden. The importance of the study is that it emphasizes on the various positioning and implementation strategies of environmental performances in different departments of the firm. In UK, the HR division plays the major role in sustainability development; in Sweden the social and environmental responsibilities moved from supply chain department to the communication team; and in Germany, the environmental management tasks take part of the corporate social responsibility agenda. Only UK Ltd and Sweden Ltd implement the “Green Champion” initiative, which is known as “specialist knowledge and people with energy, passion, persistence and right attitude towards the environment” (Head office staff member, Sweden Ltd). As for the similarities, MNCs across the three subsidiaries reflect a commitment towards environmental sustainability, but also they reveal some lack of environmental indicators enabling the firms to improve their environmental performances (Haddock-Millar et al., 2016; Paille et al., 2014). Despite the differences in green implementation techniques, enclosures of environmental practices and operationalization of sustainable performance i.e. enhancement of employees’ welfare, brand image of the company, and offering sustainable benefits to customers, the end-result of green HRM at cross-national level is to generate an opportunity for organizations to preform in a better environment. As mentioned previously, the globalization paradigm minimizes the disparity of sustainable HR practices between developing and developed countries. The most common difference

26


between the market economies is the assignment of the department that should be responsible of sustainability management and the strategic prioritization of the sustainable agenda towards workforce, society and environment. Summary of the outcomes of sustainable HRM is provided in a table in Appendix C. To recapitulate, several predictors of sustainable HRM were identified as fundamental tasks of HR: Green Recruitment is achieved by selecting socially responsible employees not only accomplishing firm’s benefits, but also achieving the benefits of the overall environment; Green Training is applied through environmental learning and development of knowledge, skills and competencies promoting social and eco-friendly behaviors and attitudes; Green Performance Appraisal and Reward System is implemented through ethical and civic engagement, participation in intra- and interorganizational activities, and by providing an innovative work-atmosphere aiming to fulfill both individual-interest and organizational collective objectives. The major outcomes of sustainable HRM are at both individual and organizational levels. Involvement, commitment, engagement and retention of employees’ are the consequences of implementing this social practice; whereas at firm level, the outcomes have an impact on economical and financial performances, on organizational reputation, and company’s attractiveness; thus, these characteristics are perceived as sustained outcomes supporting firm’s viability and credibility.

Further empirical analyses and conceptual research are required to advance the sustainable HRM field. In particular, development of an evaluation construct is needed to measure the post-implementation outcome of green HRM and to assess the advantages of

27


the sustainability practices and to determine the level of worthiness of this organizational transformation. From the methodological aspect, quantitative research designs and longitudinal studies estimating the effect of sustainable HRM on various aspects of the firm might be replicated taking into consideration different samples and contexts (demographic, culture, industry and sector) in order to mitigate the threat to external validity of the statistical findings. For example, a multidisciplinary study connecting three managerial paradigms, sustainable HRM, CEOs and Board structure and composition, is a potential empirical analysis to address the effect of sustainable HRM and Corporate Governance on financial performance, risk assessment and tax alleviation. In addition, the HR literature lacks experimental research studies assessing causal relationships between sustainable HRM and other factors. For instance, the latter research design is considered an opportunity for future directions to identify the existence of cause-effect relationship between green competencies inducing green behaviors and sustainability performances. From a conceptual framework, there is a need to mitigate the ambiguity and the complexity of sustainability concept in general and sustainable HRM in particular. A unified definition and a combined theory generation could be a future direction to advance the research findings in sustainable HRM.

28


Integrative Model: Summary of the Analysis

Conclusion and Limitations The limitation of this master thesis is the number of articles chosen to develop this literature review. This limited selection is due to the novelty of the topic, however it reflects and combines major findings from different perspectives, and it clarifies the link between various components elaborating on sustainable HRM. Competitiveness, legitimation and ecological responsibility are the motives behind this organizational change (Bansal and Roth, 2000). This transformation is described as a paradigm shift towards “green” management, a metamorphosis generating dual objectives at social and financial levels (Harris and Tregidga, 2012). The end result of this review is a reflective concern on two aspects: research and practice. In the research area, although sustainable

29


development is becoming more articulated nowadays, however agreement among scholars is still a necessity to further advance the research development in sustainable HRM field; various theoretical frameworks were depicted in the literature, but there is still a lack of a “combined” theory explaining the whole phenomenon from socioeconomical and behavioral prospects. As for practical implications, the benefits of green organizations for government, social communities, and customers were aforementioned and clearly identified; however the added value of this transformation at employee level is still not translated in the business field and Trade Union. Although research studies claim that sustainability HRM is promising for employees’ well-being such as safety, health status, stress level, burnout, working hours, promotions, and reward system, but in fact employees are active participants in this organizational change, yet they are less benefiting from sustainable HR performance. This fact triggers a skeptical thought towards the motives of green organizations, which leads to reflect upon the following rhetorical question: what are the intentions behind “greening organization”: is it an embedded system obligation or a step further towards social cohesiveness?

30


Appendixes Appendix A: Conceptualization of Sustainable HRM Authors & Year Bourdeau and Ramstad (2005)

Findings Paradigm shift towards talentship and sustainability: the HC BRidge Decision Framework composed of: efficiency, effectiveness, and impact.

Gaps & Future Research Unclear insights of the talent implications in the shifting process and the evaluation of the strategic success.

Jabbour et al. (2008)

Multidimensional model linking HRM and organizational sustainability through: innovation management, cultural diversity and continuous improvement of environmental management. Presentation a list of questions in the greening of strategic HRM for scholarships and Identification of barriers facing sustainability development: apathy, complexity, confusing terminology and careerism.

Further investigation of research methods of survey in order to enhance the robustness of the results. Variables to be included: company size, industry, and country of its headquarters.

Renwick et al. (2012)

Based on AMO theory, a conceptual review providing clear evidences supporting the positive impact between employee involvement EI and environmental management EM.

Lack of research differentiating effective and ineffective EI initiatives; impact of EM on selection criteria and selection process; personality and antecedents of green leadership; role of emotions in EM; least knowledge on the motivation of employees to become involved in EM via performance appraisal and reward management systems; impact of GHRM as a whole on environmental outcomes; research gap of the Asian economic development.

Taylor et al. (2012)

Review of 5 articles clarifying the role of HRM as a means towards achieving sustainability strategies; Highlight new areas to be explored by scholars and practitioners.

Novel HRM approaches and practices in companies experimenting with new governance structures; need for empirical studies that examine the link between strategic approach to sustainability and the way a company designs its HRM systems; industry type; new conceptualization of HRM and elaboration on the best outcomes for and from employees towards sustainable HRM.

Jackson and Seo (2010)

Assessing the intersection between HRM and environmental sustainability as opportunity to address a real world problem connecting HRM to other disciplines by creating knowledge at multilevel complexities.

31


Russ (2012)

Florea et al. (2012)

Devins and Gold (2014)

Kramar (2014)

Russ-Eft (2012)

Renwick et al. (2016)

Three HRD models: strategic, critical and holistic; model of social change and learning from within based on three conclusions: need of practice based approach, engagement in the organizational micro-interactions and metaphysical orientation including issues of power and ethical choices Relating employees' values and organizational sustainability; intrinsic factors of employees' mindset are consequential of organizational actions and identification of values and relating them to effective HRM practices. STMD as tool to understand ecosystem skills by moving towards pluralist, collective and multi-voiced approaches to improve sustainable development Differentiation between sustainable HRM and strategic HRM; generation of two models: 1- adapted and extended from Ehnert, 2009 acknowledging both negative and positive outcomes on different stakeholders 2- factors influencing implementation of HR policies. Elaborate on a theoretical model connecting HRD with programme evaluation leading to sustainable HRD programmes; evaluation as a learning opportunity

Conceptual paper; models need to be supported empirically; intentions behind doing good? And what is good?

Contemporary literature on GHRM based on AMO theory; Agenda for future research.

Research to comprehend job candidates understanding of company environmental credentials (green job descriptions); PMA metrics to understand employees accountability for EM performance; green training effect on employees behaviors, environmental outcomes and evaluate green learning; HR managers role on ES; determinants of EGB; individual traits; HRM practices to implement ES; empirical investigation of green work life balance; Marxist social and employment relation's theory to understand Trade Union behavior,

Inventory of all values that can impact organizational sustainability; include two constructs: organizational culture and organizational structure.

Conceptualization and measurement of talents; role of STMD in small organizations; uncover of "hidden knowledge" through STMD. Create appropriate measures for individual organization and cascaded down to all employees (design, performance indicators and rewards); shift from knowledge development to integrating the findings into practical implications in the workplace.

Development of instruments or assessment tools measuring the effect of the external and internal findings identified in the study; cultural and international applicability of the model,

32


Appendix B: Antecedents of Sustainable HRM Authors & year Del Brio et al. (2007)

Jabbour et al. (2010)

Dubois and Dubois (2012)

Li et al. (2012)

Ji et al. (2012)

Harvey et al. (2013)

Findings Human factor as key success for company environmental activity; positive impact between employees' motivation, management involvement and strategic integration with achieving environmental action based competitive advantage Model on evolution of the HRM contribution to the environment management in the case studies: through systematic contribution and rewards dimensions; demand for environmental learning management. Recommending a list of HR functions both transformational and traditional HR for design and implementation to facilitate the embeddedness of ES initiatives; the degree of organizational commitment towards ES embeddedness impact HRM intervention and contribution. Moderation effect of organizational identity on performance in sustainable development; collectivist orientation have positive effect on SP and relational have negative effect; positive relation between firm size and SP. Employee training has positive direct effect on firm's performance in sustainable development; evidences supporting the relationship between firm's environment attitude and its performance. Direct effect HRM: hard HRM, performance management system and training; Indirect effect HRM: soft HRM, job satisfaction, commitment and involvement.

Gaps & Future Research Joint influence of human factors such as other facets of the firm (suppliers, clients, R&D activities) on environmental performance.

Comparative case studies between small and large companies

Generalization from specific behavior changes to the wide range of relevant behaviors; positive deviance on ES behavior change for both organizational and employee levels.

Comprehensive measurement of sustainable performance (environment/donation) for better test the effect of collectivistic identity.

Assessment of firm’s sustainability performance: differentiation between environment preservation and donation, charity and education activities. Duplicate study in other industries; Complexity of managing employment relationship under increased pressures and enabling employees to meet range of targets that might be contradictory.

33


Wagner (2013)

Norton et al. (2015)

Zibarras and Coan (2015)

Subramanian et al. (2016)

Positive relationship between EMS implementation, work satisfaction and recruitment and staff benefits; work satisfaction benefits are strong predictor of EMS; increased interrelation between EMS and work satisfaction as driver for strategic integration of sustainability related issues. Comprehensive perspective on required and voluntary employees' green behaviors EGB, antecedents, moderating and mediating factors; conceptual multi-level framework based on person-environment, job performance and motivational perspectives. Organizations are implementing some of the HRM practices to promote proenvironmental behavior; larger organization have higher HR implementation in relation to team, organization-based and individual incentives; transformational leadership transfer environmental values, model desirable behaviors and motivate employees; importance of the vision and mission of the organization towards proenvironmental behaviors; cultural shift promoting sense of belonging to community.

Causal model integrating different disciplines such as psychology, sociology and management theory; integrating individual and firm level analyses; indirect effect between integrating HR and EMS.

Acquired GC more positively related with individual GC and green behavior; AGC to identify individual green performance potential.

Influence of competence on green culture and performance; BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, and China).

Identification of personal and contextual antecedents influence of EGB and EGB effect on employees, coworkers, teams and leaders; crosslevel processes. Assessment of contextual factors at institutional, organizational, leader and team levels. Quantitative evaluation of HRM practices on successful EMS implementation; exploration of the specific role of HR managers in the implementation of these practices; analyze the perspective of all employees; investigate which factors contribute the most to make green HRM a success such as type of incentives and reward systems, training contents, and organizational context; differentiation between green and non-green practices.

34


Appendix C: Outcomes of Sustainable HRM Authors & year Gully et al., 2013

Findings Communicating’s firm’s social and environmental engagement has an impact on job seeker’s perception about organization by influencing personalorganization fit which has a positive link to organization’s attractiveness for job applicants. Ability enhancing practices and opportunity enhancing practices positively related to benevolent and principled ethical organizational climates; motivation enhancing practices positively relate to egoistic climate; sustainability as key factor to balance green HRM practices and ethical climates. Significant level of consensus between HR and sustainability managers; HR management is considered as a means and an end for developing corporate sustainability; sustainability practices may reinforce corporate HR through increasing employee sensitivity towards social issues; convergence between the two trends; HR managers focus on development of competencies whereas sustainability managers focus on practice related factors; they do not fully share the same vision.

Gaps & Future Research Replication of study in different job contexts; Identify additional factors influencing organizational attractiveness.

Guerci and Carollo (2016)

HR practices are implemented by organizations for 2 reasons: fulfill the explicit commercial requirements imposed by public administrations and to take advantage of public resources; 8 Paradoxes in GHRM system: objectives, boundaries, formalization, standardization' promoting ability, motivation and opportunity, role of HR managers.

Investigate the association of organizational, institutional and cultural factors with green HRM paradoxes; other list of paradoxes perceived by other actors of the organization; identify the coping strategies to overcome the 8 HR related paradoxes.

Kim and Choi, 2016

Positive relationship between the perception of green strategies and employees’ commitment; Green practices a win-win-win situations for employees, company and environment.

Interaction effect of green perceptions and other antecedents; link green practices and employees in the hotel industry: motivational factors, communication and designing green training.

Guerci et. al, 2015

Guerci and Pedrini (2013)

Cause effect relationship between HRM practices and ethical climate; Longitudinal study to clarify the interventions towards establishing positive ethical climates; other countries and different institutional settings.

Replication in different countries, firm size, industry; exploration of the perception on the contribution of HR to sustainability driven change on different organizational actors such as trade unions, NGOs, and local communities; test of the impact of the consensus on the strength of HR management and on its effectiveness of sustainability driven change.

35


O'Donohue and Torugsa 2016

Moderating effect of GHRM between proactive environment management and financial performance in small firm; similar findings in large firms.

Dogl and Holtbrugge (2012)

Green technology and products have the highest impact on environmental reputation, followed by green communication and green recruitment and evaluation; positive relationship between environmental reputation and employee commitment in developed economies more than in the emerging ones; cultural differences are less significant for the signaling effects of CER activities; globalization leads to a convergence of cultural values in business context.

Ehnert et al. (2016)

World’s largest organizations focus on internal dimensions of sustainable HRM more than the external ones; they report more on labor and decent row indicators; little international differences between MNCs from liberal market economies LMEs and coordinated market economies CMEs (national regulatory influences through GRI reporting).

Lack of indicators to measure sustainable HRM prelevance; further combination of both qualitative and quantitative research to understand the international differences between countries or cultures in sustainable HRM; need of redesigning of HR functions and operations for performance review to incorporate sustainability criteria; examine the integration and coordination mechanism between external and internal aspects of sustainable HRM (for reporting); Integration between sustainable HRM and supply chain employment concern; focus on human rights of labor related categories influencing employees in supply chain

Identify similarities and differences MNCs approaching GHRM in European context; positioning and alignment of HR function and environmental objectives vary; Both Sweden and UK achieve the Green Champion position however through different paradigm: UK through managers shifts by training whereas Sweden was at frontline employees; German developed CSR strategic approach at senior head office level; important findings is "shading the green" typology as a spectrum of environmental involvement.

Examine strategic, operational and managerial roles in environment performance and the hierarchical influences of GHRM; demonstrate the effective outcomes on employee's level.

Millar (2016)

et

al.

Quasi-experimental longitudinal study for causality and generalizability; multi-industry sample; further studies taking into account the role of employees in contributing to the effectiveness of proactive environment management in small firms. Assess the convergence of corporate governance systems and cross-national differences; other geographical areas; investigate the interaction effects between these CER activities; affective, cognitive and behavioral processes of individual perception of CER activities.

36


References10 1. Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717–736. 2. *Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. 3. *Beck, U. (1992). The risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage Publications. 4. *Chan, S. W., & Wong, C. K. (2006). Motivations for ISO 14001 in the hotel industry. Tourism Management, 27(3), 481–492 5. *Claver-Cortés, E., Molina-Azorín, J. F., Pereira-Moliner, J., & López-Gamero, M. D. (2007). Environmental strategies and their impact on hotel performance. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(6), 663–679. 6. Elkington, J. (1997), Cannibals With Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of the 21st Century, Oxford: Capstone. 7. Devins, D., & Gold, J. (2014). Human Resource Development International Reconceptualising talent management and development within the context of the low paid. Human Resource Development International, 17(5), 514–528. http://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2014.954191 8. Dögl, C., & Holtbrügge, D. (2014). Corporate environmental responsibility, employer reputation and employee commitment: An empirical study in developed and emerging economies. International Journal of Human Resource Management. 25(12), 1739–1762. http://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.859164 9. *Ehnert, I. (2009a). Sustainability and human resource management: Reasoning and applications on corporate websites. European Journal of International Management, 3, 419–438. doi:10.1504/ EJIM.2009.028848 10. *Ehnert, I. (2009b). Sustainable human resource management: A conceptual and exploratory analysis from a paradox perspective (contributions to management science). Heidelberg: Springer. 11. *Ehnert, I., Parsa, S., Roper, I., Wagner, M., & Muller-Camen, M. (2015). Reporting on sustainability and HRM: a comparative study of sustainability reporting practices by the world’s largest companies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(1), 88–108 http://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1024157 10

The list of references including * consists of the articles assessed for the content analysis of this master thesis.

37


12. *Del Brio, J. A., Fernandez, E., & Junquera, B. (2007). Management and employee involvement in achieving an environmental action-based competitive advantage: An empirical study. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 491-522. 13. *Denton, D.K. (1999). Employee involvement, pollution control and pieces to the puzzle. Environmental Management and Health, 10, 105–111. 14. *Dogle, C., & Holtburgge, D. (2013). Corporate environmental responsibility, employer reputation and employee commitment: an empirical study in developed and emerging economies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(12), 1739-1762. 15. *Dubois, C. L., & Dubois, D.D. (2012). Strategic HRM as social design for environmental sustainability in organization. Human Resource Management, 51(6), 799-826. 16. *Fernandez, E., Junquera, B., & Ordiz, M. (2003). Organizational culture and human resources in the environmental issue. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 634 – 656. 17. *Florea, L., Cheung, Y. H., & Herndon, N. C. (2012). For All Good Reasons: Role of Values in Organisational Sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 393-408. 18. *Florida, R. and Davison, D. (2001). Gaining from green management: environmental management systems inside and outside of the factory. California Management Review, 43, 64–84. 19. *Frombrun, C.J., Tichy, N.M., and Devanna, M.A. (1984), Strategic Human Resource Management, New York: John Wiley & Sons. 20. *Giddens, A. (1991). The consequences of modernity. Stanford, CA: Standford University Press. 21. *Gonzaléz, M., & León, C. J. (2001). The adoption of environmental innovations in the hotel industry of Gran Canaria. Tourism Economics, 7(2), 177–190. 22. *Govindarajulu, N., and Daily, B.F. (2004). Motivating Employees for Environmental Improvement. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 104, 364– 372. 23. *Guerci, M., & Carollo, L. (2016). A paradox view on green human resource management: insights from the Italian context. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5192(April), 1–27.

38


http://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1033641 24. Guerci, M., Longoni, A., & Luzzini, D. (2016). Translating stakeholder pressures into environmental performance – the mediating role of green HRM practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 27(2), 262–289. http://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1065431 25. Guerci, M., Montanari, F., Scapolan, A., & Epifanio, A. (2016). Green and nongreen recruitment practices for attracting job applicants: exploring independent and interactive effects. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(2), 129–150. http://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1062040 26. *Guerci, M., & Pedrini, M. (2013). The consensus between Italian HR and sustainability managers on HR management for sustainability-driven change – towards a “strong” HR management system. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(13), 1787–1814. http://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.860388 27. *Guerci, M., Radaelli, G., Siletti, E., Cirella, S., & Rami Shani, A. B. (2015). The impact of human resource management practices and corporate sustainability on organizational ethical climates: An employee perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(2), 325–342. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1946-1 28. *Gully, S. M., Phillips, J. M., Castellano, W. G., Han, K., & Kim, A. (2013). A mediated moderation model of recruiting socially and environmentally responsible job applicants. Personnel Psychology, 66, 935–973. doi:10.1111/peps.12033 29. Guo, W.-F., Zhou, J., Yu, C.-L., Tsai, S.-B., Xue, Y.-Z., Chen, Q. Wu, C.H. (2014). Evaluating the green corporate social responsibility of manufacturing corporations from a green industry law perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 53(2), 665–674. http://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.972525 30. *Haddock-Millar, J., Sanyal, C., & Müller-Camen, M. (2016). Green human resource management: a comparative qualitative case study of a United States multinational corporation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(2), 192–211. http://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1052087 31. Harris, C., & Tregidga, H. (2012). HR managers and environmental sustainability: strategic leaders or passive observers? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(2), 236–254. http://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.561221 32. *Harvey, G., Williams, K., & Probert, J. (2013). Greening the airline pilot: HRM

39


and the green performance of airlines in the UK. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(1), 152–166. http://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.669783 33. *Iwanowski, K., & Rushmore, C. (1994). Introducing the eco-friendly hotel. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administrant Quarterly, 35(1), 34–38. 34. *Jabbour, C. J. C., & Santos, F. C. A. (2008). The central role of human resource management in the search for sustainable organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(12), 2133–2154. http://doi.org/10.1080/09585190802479389 35. *Jabbour, C. J. C., Santos, F. C. A., & Nagano, M. S. (2010). Contributions of HRM throughout the stages of environmental management: methodological triangulation applied to companies in Brazil. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1049–1089. http://doi.org/10.1080/09585191003783512 36. *Jackson, S. E., & Seo, J. (2010). The greening of strategic HRM scholarship. Organization Management Journal, 7(4), 278–290. http://doi.org/10.1057/omj.2010.37 37. Ji, L., Huang, J., Liu, Z., Zhu, H., & Cai, Z. (2012). The effects of employee training on the relationship between environmental attitude and firms’ performance in sustainable development. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(14), 2995–3008. http://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.637072 38. *Judge, W. Q., & Douglas, T.J. (1998). Performance Implications of Incorporating Natural Environmental Issues into the Strategic Planning Process: An Empirical Assessment. Journal of Management Studies, 35(2), 241-262 39. *Kim, S.-H., & Choi, Y. (2013). Hotel Employees’ Perception of Green Practices. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 14(2), 157–178. http://doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2013.782220 40. *Kirk, D. (1995). Environmental management in hotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 7(6), 3–8. 41. *Kirk, D. (1998). Attitudes to environmental management held by a group of hotel managers in Edinburgh. Hospitality Management, 17(1), 33–47. 42. *Kitazawa, S. and Sarkis, J. (2000). The relationship between ISO 14001 and continuous source reduction programmes. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 20, 225–248. 43. Korten, D.C. (2001). When corporations ruled the world. San Francisco, CA:

40


Barrett-Koehler. 44. *Kramar, R. (2014). Beyond strategic human resource management: is sustainable human resource management the next approach?. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(8), 1069–1089. http://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.816863 45. Lee, K. (2009). Gender differences in Hong Kong adolescent consumers’ green purchasing behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26, 87–96. doi:10.1108/07363760910940456 46. *Li, J., Tang, G., & Chen, Y. (2012). Firms’ human resource in information system and sustainable performance: does their organizational identity matter?. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(18), 3838–3855. http://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.665074 47. *Lober, D. J. (1996). Evaluating the environmental performance of corporations. Journal of Managerial Issues, 8(2), 184–205. 48. Lucio, M.M., &Stuart, M. (2011). The state, public policy and the renewal of HRM. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(18), 39913671. 49. Mandip, G. (2012). Green HRM : People Management Commitment to Environmental Sustainability. Research Journal of Recent Sciences, 1, 244–252. 50. *Martin, K. D., & Cullen, J. B. (2006). Continuities and extensions of ethical climate theory: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(2), 175– 194. 51. *May, D. R., & Flannery, B. L. (1995). Cutting waste with employee involvement teams. Business Horizons, 38, 28–38. 52. *Nikandrou, L., and Papalexandris, N. (2007). The Impact of M&A Experience on Strategic HRM Practices and Organisational Effectiveness: Evidence From Greek Firms. Human Resource Management Journal, 17(2), 155–177. 53. *Norton, T.A., Parker, S. L., Zacher, H., & Ashkanasy, N.M. (2015). Employee Green Behavior: A Theoretical Framework, Multilevel Review, and Future Research Agenda. Organization & Environment, 28(1), 103-125. 54. *O’Donohue, W., & Torugsa, N. (2015). The moderating effect of “Green” HRM on the association between proactive environmental management and financial performance in small firms. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1–23. http://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1063078

41


55. *Osland, J., Drake, B., & Feldman, H. (1999). The stewardship of national and human resources. In C. Dempsey & R. Butkus (Eds.), All creation is groaning (168–192). Minneapolis, MN: Liturgical Press. 56. *Paillé, P., Chen, Y., Boiral, O., & Jin, J. (2014). The Impact of Human Resource Management on Environmental Performance: An Employee-Level Study. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(3), 451–466. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1732-0 57. Pfeffer, J. (2010). Building sustainable organizations: The human factor. The Academy of Management Perspectives 24(1), 34–45. 58. Preuss, L., Haunschild, A., & Matten, D. (2009). The rise of CSR: implications for HRM and employee representation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(4), 953–973. http://doi.org/10.1080/09585190902770893 59. *Ramus, C. A. (2002). Encouraging innovative environmental actions: What companies and managers must do. Journal of World Business, 37, 151–164. doi:10.1016/S1090-9516(02) 00074-3 60. Ramus, C. A., & Steger, U. (2000).The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental policy in employee “eco-initiatives” at leading-edge European companies. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 605–626. 61. *Renwick, D. W. S., Redman, T., & Maguire, S. (2013). Green Human Resource Management: A Review and Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(1), 1–14. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.14682370.2011.00328.x 62. *Renwick, DW., Jabbour, C. J., Muller-Camen, M., Redman, T. & Wilkinson, A. (2015). Contemporary developments in Green (environmental) HRM scholarship. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(2), 114-128. 63. Roberts, G. (1997). Recruitment and selection: A competency approach. London: IPD. 64. *Robertson, J. L., & Barling, J. (2013). Greening organizations through leaders’ influence on employees’ pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 176–194. doi:10.1002/job.1820 65. *Russ-Eft, D. F. (2014). Human resource development, evaluation, and sustainability: what are the relationships? Human Resource Development International, 17(5), 545–559. http://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2014.954190 66. Vidal-Salazar, M. D., Cordon-Pozo, E., & Ferron-Vilchez, V. (2012). Human resource management and developing proactive environmental strategies: The

42


influence of environmental training and organizational learning. Human Resource Management, 51, 905–934. 67. Scully-Russ, E. (2012). Human resource development and sustainability: beyond sustainable organizations. Human Resource Development International, 15(4), 399–415. http://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2012.707529 68. Shen, J. (2011). Developing the concept of socially responsible international human resource management. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(6), 1351–1363. http://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.559104 69. Shen, J., & Benson, J. (2014). When CSR Is a Social Norm: How Socially Responsible Human Resource Management Affects Employee Work Behavior. Journal of Management, 42(6), 0149206314522300-. http://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314522300 70. Speth, J.G. (2010). Towards a new economy and a new politics. Solutions 1(5), 33–41. 71. Stalcup, L. D., Deale, C. S., & Todd, S. Y. (2014). Human Resources Practices for Environmental Sustainability in Lodging Operations. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 13(4), 389–404. http://doi.org/10.1080/15332845.2014.888508 72. *Subramanian, N., Abdulrahman, M. D., Wu, L., & Nath, P. (2015). Green competence framework: evidence from China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1–22. http://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1047394 73. Sudin, S. (2011). Strategic Green HRM : A proposed model that supports Corporate Environmental Citizenship. 2011 International Conference on Sociality and Economics Development, 10, 79–83. 74. Tantawi, P., O’Shaughnessy, N., Gad, K., & Ragheb, M. A. S. (2009). Green consciousness of consumers’ in a developing country: A study of Egyptian consumers. Contemporary Management Research, 5, 29–50. 75. *Taylor, S., Osland, J., and Egri, C. (2012). ‘Guest Editors’ Introduction: Introduction to HRM’s Role in Sustainability: Systems, Strategies, and Practices. Human Resource Management, 51, 789–798. 76. Thite, M. (2013). Human Resource Development International Ethics and human resource management and development in a global context: case study of an Indian multinational. Human Resource Development International, 16(1), 106– 115. http://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2012.737691

43


77. *Tzschentke, N., Kirk, D., & Lynch, P. A. (2004). Reasons for going green in serviced accommodation establishments. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(2), 116–124. 78. *United Nations Documents. (1987). Report of the world commission on environment and development: Our common future. Retrieved April 22, 2012, from http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm#I. 79. *Wagner, M. (2013). “Green” Human Resource Benefits: Do they Matter as Determinants of Environmental Management System Implementation?. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 443–456. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1356-9 80. *Wright, P.M., and Snell, S.A. (1991). Toward an Integrative View of Strategic Human Resource Management. Human Resource Management Review, 1(3), 203–225. 81. *Zibarras, L.D., & Coan, P. (2015). HRM practices used to promote proenvironmental behavior: a UK survey. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(16), 2121-2142. Books 1. Dresner Simon. (2008). The Principales of Sustainability. Earthscan. 2. Martinez Michael. (2014). American Environmentalism. Taylor & Francis Group. 3. Undp. (2011). United Nations Human Development Report 2011 A Better Future for All. Human Development. http://doi.org/10.2307/2137795 4. BlackBurn William (2007). The Sustainability Handbook: The Complete Management Guide To Achieving Social, Economic and Environmental Responsibility. Eartnscan in the UK and USA.

44