critical research on sustainabilityt in hrm · 2018-08-29 · green hrm practices ... since...

CRITICAL RESEARCH ON

SUSTAINABILITYT IN HRM

Word count: 18.354

Oksana Bastrykina Student number: 01300745

Promotor: Prof. dr. Alex Vanderstraeten

Master’s Dissertation submitted to obtain the degree of:

Master of Science in de Bestuurskunde en het Publiek Management

Academiejaar: 2017- 2018

I

CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT PERMISSION I declare that the content of this Master’s Dissertation may be consulted and/or reproduced, provided that the source is referenced. Name student: Oksana Bastrykina Signature:

I

DUTCH SUMMARY

Momenteel is er geen overeenstemming over wat een 'duurzame organisatie' is. Er zijn

verschillende standpunten en diverse theorieën over dit concept, maar het blijft een uitdaging om

'duurzaamheid' of 'duurzame ontwikkeling' om te zetten in praktische middelen die helpen om

duurzaamheid te integreren in het beleid van organisaties. (Ehnert, 2014).

De HRM Cockpit is een instrument dat ontwikkeld is om de kloof tussen theorie en praktijk op te

vullen. De HRM Cockpit concentreert zich op het in kaart brengen van een strategisch en

duurzaam beleid in de organisatie. De HRM Cockpit wil aandacht schenken aan bredere

maatschappelijke doelstellingen zoals respect voor de mens en zijn omgeving. De HRM Cockpit

biedt een praktisch hulpmiddel en referentiekader aan voor het implementeren en monitoren van

een duurzaam HRM (Vanderstraeten & Banic, 2015).

Het doel van het onderzoek is om het HRM Cockpit model verder te ontwikkelen en om

wetenschappelijk bewijs te leveren ter ondersteuning hiervan. Om dit doel te bewerkstelligen, is

er een uitgebreid literatuuronderzoek uitgevoerd.

De onderzoeksvraag is “Is HRM Cockpit een effectief en een geschikt instrument om een

duurzame strategie te implementeren?”. In het onderzoek zullen er een aantal aspecten worden

geanalyseerd om de onderzoeksvraag te beantwoorden. In het eerste hoofdstuk geven wij een

definitie aan “duurzaamheid” en de gerelateerde concepten. Hoofdstuk 2 gaat over de voordelen

van sustainability voor de organisaties. Hoofdstuk 3 is gewijd aan de sustainability processen en

de factoren die de processen kunnen beïnvloeden. In het volgende hoofdstuk zullen wij de

sustainablility strategie en de implementatiemodellen bespreken om te weten welke input van

organisaties nodig is om duurzaam te worden. Hoofdstuk 5 gaat over de methoden om

duurzaamheid te meten en de vergelijking van die methoden met HRM Cockpit. Het laatste

hoofdstuk bespreekt de verschillen tussen HRM Cockpit en andere Sustainable HRM-modellen.

Op basis van de geanalyseerde artikelen, stellen wij dat HRM Cockpit een zeer effectief, nuttig en

geschikt instrument is voor organisaties die streven naar duurzaamheid. Het bevat alle cruciale

elementen van duurzaamheid, biedt de nodige instrumenten en analyse-indicatoren om een

duurzaam beleid te implementeren.

II

FOREWORD

This Master’s dissertation is a closing chapter of my education in Ghent University. Those were

exciting years, full of emotions, adventures, new friends and new places. I would like to thank my

parents for making all of this possible and making me feel their support even through all the

distance between our countries. Also, I want to thank all of my friends for helping me to believe

in myself and reminding me to take a break once in a while. Special thanks are in place for my

partner Ted van Osch for proofreading this dissertation and for always being caring, supportive,

optimistic and patient during this challenging and stressful time. Last but not least, I would like to

express a deep gratitude to Prof. Dr. Alex Vanderstraeten and to Victoria Van Oss for their

guidance, useful advice and feedback during this period.

III

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dutch summary .............................................................................................................................................................. I

Foreword ....................................................................................................................................................................... II

Table of contents ......................................................................................................................................................... III

List of used abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................. V

List of tables and figures .............................................................................................................................................. VI

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................ 1

1. Introduction to the subject ................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Research questions ............................................................................................................................................... 2

3. The structure of the dissertation .......................................................................................................................... 2

HRM COCKPIT ............................................................................................................................................................... 4

1. HR Value Chain. ..................................................................................................................................................... 4

2. HRM Strategic Mapping ........................................................................................................................................ 5

3. HRM Cockpit .......................................................................................................................................................... 6

1. “Input” ............................................................................................................................................................... 7

2. “Process” ........................................................................................................................................................... 8

3. “Success” ........................................................................................................................................................... 8

4. “Impact” ............................................................................................................................................................ 9

5. “Society” ............................................................................................................................................................ 9

METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................................... 10

CHAPTER 1. DEFINITIONS OF SUSTAINABILITY– “IMPACT”. ...................................................................................... 15

1. Definitions ........................................................................................................................................................... 15

2. Related concepts ................................................................................................................................................. 19

2.1 Corporate Social Responsibility ..................................................................................................................... 19

2.2 Strategic HRM ............................................................................................................................................... 21

2.3 Sustainable HRM ........................................................................................................................................... 22

2.4 Green HRM .................................................................................................................................................... 24

3. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................................... 25

CHAPTER 2. “OUTPUT” AND BENEFITS OF SUSTAINABILITY ..................................................................................... 25

CHAPTER 3. PATH FOR SUSTAINABILITY – “PROCESS” .............................................................................................. 27

1. Role of leadership ............................................................................................................................................... 27

2. Role of employees ............................................................................................................................................... 28

3. Role of incentives ................................................................................................................................................ 28

4. Coopetition and cooperation .............................................................................................................................. 29

5. Teaching and training .......................................................................................................................................... 29

IV

6. Technological innovation .................................................................................................................................... 30

7. Ability-motivation-opportunity theory ............................................................................................................... 30

8. Green HRM practices .......................................................................................................................................... 31

8.1 Green recruitment ........................................................................................................................................ 31

8.2 Green training ............................................................................................................................................... 32

8.3 Green management of organisational culture .............................................................................................. 32

8.4 Green empowerment and participation ....................................................................................................... 32

8.5 Green performance management and appraisal .......................................................................................... 33

8.6 Green reward ................................................................................................................................................ 33

9. HRM and CSR....................................................................................................................................................... 34

9.1 Contributions of CSR into HRM and HRM into CSR ....................................................................................... 34

9.2 Typology of CSR-HRM perspectives .............................................................................................................. 36

9.3 High-Performance Work Systems ................................................................................................................. 38

10. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................................... 38

CHAPTER 4. STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MODELS FOR SUSTAINABILITY- “INPUT” .................................. 39

1. Five stages of sustainability ................................................................................................................................. 39

2. Six-steps implementation framework ................................................................................................................. 40

3. S2AVE .................................................................................................................................................................. 40

4. CSM Cycle ............................................................................................................................................................ 40

5. Sustainable service-oriented business model ..................................................................................................... 41

6. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................................... 41

CHAPTER 5. SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES AND REPORTING ...................................................................................... 42

1. Presenting Measuring and reporting models and standards .............................................................................. 42

2. Global Reporting Initiative .................................................................................................................................. 44

3. The Balanced Scorecard ...................................................................................................................................... 45

4. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................... 46

CHAPTER 6. OTHER SUSTAINABLE HRM MODELS VS. HRM COCKPIT ....................................................................... 47

1. Sustainable HRM model based on the Balanced Scorecard ................................................................................ 47

2. Respect Openness Continuity (ROC) model for Sustainable HRM ...................................................................... 49

3. Comparison and conclusions............................................................................................................................... 51

CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................................. 52

Literature list ............................................................................................................................................................... 55

V

LIST OF USED ABBREVIATIONS

HR- Human Resource

HRM – Human Resource Management

GHRM- Green Human Resource Management

CSR- Corporate Social Responsibility

CSP - Corporate Social Performance

PMS - Performance Management Systems

EP- Environmental Performance

PMA – Performance Management and Appraisal

CEO- Chief Executive Officer

HPWS - High-Performance Work Systems

CSM - Corporate Sustainability Management

GRI - Global Reporting Initiative

BSC – Balanced Scorecard

ROC – Respect Openness Continuity

TBL (3 P’s) – Triple Bottom Line (People, Planet, Profit)

VI

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Figures:

Figure 1. HRM Value Chain (Vanderstraeten et al., 2015) 5

Figure 2.HRM Strategic Map. (Vanderstraeten et al., 2015) 6

Figure 3. Visual HRM Cockpit. (Vanderstraeten et al., 2015) 7

Fugure 4. The fundamentals of corporate sustainability (Hahn et al., 2015) 18

Fugure 5. HRM Roles (Jamali et al., 2015). 23

Figure 6. Conceptual model connecting critical GHRM practices for maximized EP.

(Masri et al., 2017)

31

Figure 7. The general framework of Sustainable BSC. (Kalender et al., 2016). 46

Figure 8. Sustainable HRM model based on the Balanced Scorecard (Tabatabaei et al.,

2017)

49

Tables:

Table 1. Results of NVivo analysis – Subjects and number of articles 13

Table 2. Results of NVivo analysis – Subjects and authors 13-15

Table 3. Typology of CSR–HRM perspectives. (Voegtlin et al., 2016) 37

Table 4. Measuring and reporting models and standards 43

Table 5. Sustainability categories and aspects in the GRI guidelines. (Urbaniec, 2015). 44

Table 6. Affinities between GRI indicators and HRM dimensions. (Jamali et al., 2015). 45

Table 7. The Respect Openness Continuity (ROC) Model of Sustainable HRM. (De Prins

et al. 2014)

50

1

INTRODUCTION

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE SUBJECT

Nowadays the world faces an unstable economic, social and ecological climate. A new way of

working is needed to adequately react to the challenges of the changing world. (Kramar, 2014).

Sustainable Human Resource Management (HRM) focuses on those challenges and searches for

solutions. Sustainable HRM goes beyond traditional HRM methods and presents itself as a

transformative approach, which helps to integrate sustainable practices in every sphere of an

organisation (Schroeder, 2012). Next to the traditional organisational interests, Sustainable HRM

underlines the importance of well-being and social value creation (De Prins et al., 2013).

Researchers did not yet come up with a universal definition of a “sustainable organisation”, but

most of them highlight similar trends, which organisations need to follow on their road to

sustainability. It is no longer possible for organisations to merely focus on profit. A lot of research

has been done to prove this fact and it resulted in different theories explaining the significance of

social and ecological sustainability. From the instrumental point of view the idea of ecological and

social sustainability is based on the belief that organisations must limit their negative impact on

the ecological and social environment in order to support the viability of the organisation.

According to Elkington’s Triple Bottom Line framework (1997), which includes three elements

of sustainability, namely “People, Planet and Profit”, organisations have to think further than

maximising their profit, and carry responsibility towards society and ecology (People and Planet).

Only if the organisation concentrates the efforts on all of the three components (3 P’s) it can call

itself “sustainable”. (Elkington, 1997).

Even though there is certainly a consensus about a crucial role of organisations in this process, it

is still a challenge to conceptualise “sustainability” and consequently, to develop a practical tool,

which could be useful to integrate sustainability in HR policy (Ehnert, 2014).

The HRM Cockpit is an instrument designed by Professor dr. Alex Vanderstraeten and his team

(2015) to fill in the gap between theory and practice. The HRM Cockpit is meant to activate

strategic and sustainable HR policy in organisations. HRM Cockpit wants to implement those new

tendencies in HR to bring attention to broader social goals, such as respect for people and

environment. HRM Cockpit presents a practical tool and a frame of reference for implementing

and monitoring a Sustainable HRM. HRM Cockpit allows the organisation to choose a desired

path and to connect indicators to measure the success of each element on the chosen way. This

instrument was designed specifically for public and social profit sector. Although this does not

2

necessarily mean that it cannot be successfully used by private organisations (Vanderstraeten &

Banic, 2015).

2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This master’s dissertation is part of a bigger academic research on Sustainable HRM led by

professor Alex Vanderstraeten. It is meant to help to develop the HRM Cockpit instrument and to

provide more scientific evidence to support it. In order to achieve this goal, a literature study of

the latest articles on the subject was implemented. Not to go too deep into history, to keep the

instrument up-to-date with the latest trends, only articles of maximum 5 years old were used for

the research. The aim was to find as much information as possible on different characteristics,

measures, levels, frameworks, standards etc. of sustainability and Sustainable HRM. The studied

information is supposed to contribute to the development of the instrument and to provide evidence

for the usefulness and effectiveness of the chosen elements of the Cockpit.

Therefore, the main research question is:

Is HRM Cockpit an effective instrument to implement a Sustainable HRM in organisations?

In order to answer this broad question, the articles were analysed to find the answers to the

following sub questions:

What are the conditions for an organisation to be classified as “Sustainable”? How can we measure

Sustainability? What are the ways to become more Sustainable? How can we implement

Sustainable practices through HRM?

3. THE STRUCTURE OF THE DISSERTATION

The dissertation will begin with the description of the HRM Cockpit and its elements. After that

we will move to the methodology of the performed research. In the following chapters we will

connect the evidence from the articles with the HRM Cockpit elements. The Cockpit presupposes

the movement from right to left: Impact-Output-Process-Input. Since sustainability is the final goal

of Sustainable HRM and, therefore, what it aims to have an impact on, we need to first find out

what exactly sustainability is. That is why the following part of the dissertation- chapter 1, will

begin with the definitions of sustainability and of the related concepts to see what we are striving

to achieve with Sustainable HRM. Chapter 2 will cover the effects of sustainable practices and

discuss how beneficial sustainability is for the company. This leads us to the chapter 3, which

describes the sustainable processes, the conditions and the ways to achieve the desired outcomes.

3

After all of that, the organisation needs to form a sustainability strategy and choose methods and

systems to implement it (the Input), hence in chapter 4 we will take a look at the different theories

on this subject offered by the researchers. HRM Cockpit presupposes choosing the indicators to

measure the effectiveness of the process, therefore chapter 5 will provide an overview of the

existing indicators and measuring systems and a comparison of those to the measurement system

of HRM Cockpit. Chapter 6 will discuss the other Sustainable HRM models, offered by the authors

of the analysed articles, which will be compared to HRM Cockpit. In the end of the dissertation

we will discuss the conclusions of the analysis, the limitations and propositions for the future

researches.

4

HRM COCKPIT

HRM Cockpit is an instrument developed by professor Alex Vanderstraeten and his team in 2015.

It is based on the data collected through a research of scientific literature and an analysis of policies

and strategies of different organisations. The two main concepts that this instrument is centred

around are Strategic Mapping (Norton & Kaplan, 2000) and Value Chain Thinking (Guest, 1997).

Those original concepts were adapted to the HRM context and lead to a creation of HRM Value

Chain and HRM Strategic Map. (see Figure 1 and 2).

1. HR VALUE CHAIN.

The HR Value Chain combines different aspects of HR. It provides a visual representation of how

different HR elements influence each other and how they affect the success of the whole

organisation. For those reasons the HR Value Chain was chosen as an inspiration to create the

logic for the HRM Cockpit. Let us take a closer look on the elements of the Value Chain.

(Vanderstraeten et al., 2015)

- Economic pressure and institutional pressure. The economic pressures are technology,

competition, market state, etc. and social, legal and industrial relations.

- Organisational configuration. The organisation’s structure, culture and history function as

a filter for the external influence and the strategy decides how exactly will the organisation

handle them.

- HR strategy. The strategy creates short- and long-term strategic goals, which have to

correspond to the organisational strategy.

- HR systems and practices. HR systems and practices form the concrete application of the

HR.

- Employee perception, attitudes and competency. HR practices and intentions often deviate

from how the employees see and interpret them, so they need communication, education

and evaluation.

- The role of the supervisor/manager. Managers serve as a controlling and evaluating

instrument and influence how the HR systems and practices are communicated

- Employees’ behaviour. The desired behaviour and the way the employees perform is what

the HR is aiming to form.

- HR output. The outputs include both HR results (like high job satisfaction, involvement

and motivation) and specific employee outputs (productivity, quality and speed of

performed work).

5

- Organisational output. HR and employee output influences the success of the organisation

in the short- and long-term. This includes both financial and non-financial results.


Value chain makes it clear that the positive results of the HR systems and practices can be

supported by constantly providing a feedback. This feedback can only be successful when the

information is available for everyone and is connected to the HR strategy and policy. All those

elements of the Value Chain provide a crucial contribution to the creation of the HRM Cockpit.


Figure 1. HRM Value Chain (Vanderstraeten et al., 2015)

2. HRM STRATEGIC MAPPING

The next concept is an HRM Strategic Map. The original concept was created by Kaplan & Norton

(2000). In our case it was applied to HRM and is a visual representation of the strategy. It brings

out the critical success factors which help to reach organisational goals. It shows the links between

the causes and the results and helps to achieve the desired outcomes. It also helps the organisation

to realise which aspects and factors influence each other and in what way. Strategic map is a

dynamic instrument that evolves together with the mission, vision, goals and capacity of the

organisation. The identification of the success factors starts with the establishing of the final goals

and strategy of the organisation. Next, the organisation has to select the output factors which can

possibly bring a substantial contribution to achieving those goals. After that it is time to select the

6

HR processes which influence the HR output. Those are the ways of the implementation of the HR

policy and HR systems in the organisation. All of this leads to the necessary HR input in the form

of the HR policy, HR capacity and the existing HR systems and practices, that create the basis for

the HR processes. In other words, the strategic map gives the answer to the question which HR

input is needed to realize the sustainable HR strategy and to achieve the core goals of the

organisation. (Vanderstraeten et al., 2015).

Figure 2.HRM Strategic Map. (Vanderstraeten et al., 2015)

3. HRM COCKPIT

The HR Value Chain and the HR Strategic Map were put together in the HRM Cockpit. It

visualises how the organisational goals connect to the employee behaviour and how the HRM

policy and practices influence this. The HRM Cockpit serves as instructions for the HRM on how

it can influence employees to achieve the desired organisational outcomes. Each element is

provided by the validated questionnaires and measures that help HR to collect information and

evaluate their policy. (Vanderstraeten et al., 2015).

The Visual HRM Cockpit is presented in Figure 3. Now we will take a look at each of the

components.

7

Figure 3. Visual HRM Cockpit. (Vanderstraeten et al., 2015).

1. “ INPUT”

-HR capacity. HR needs the necessary knowledge, qualities and attitudes to solve the HR related

issues.

-HR strategy and policy. The effective implementation begins with a clear vision of the future of

the organisation. HR takes care of the necessary involvement of the employees in the organisation.

The HR managers create the HR strategy and design the plan for the application of the strategy.

This involves developing the HR instruments, methods and systems which contribute to the

organisational success.

-HR systems, practices and instruments. HR systems are the integration of the related HR practices

and the instruments are the exact methods and techniques that are used by HR. For example: HR

system- Recruitment and selection; involved HR practices- interviews, assessment; instruments-

IQ tests, scenarios for the assessment, etc.

(Vanderstaeten et al., 2015)

8

2. “PROCESS”

This involves management processes and HR actions in the organisation. The core processes are

the performance and talent management, leadership and organisational development and

communication. The focus is made on the elements that have a strategic and sustainable character.

(Vanderstraeten et al., 2015).

-Performance and talent management include: inflow and outflow of the employees; management

of the performance of the employees; talent development of the workers.

-Leadership. Leaders such as managers and directors of the organisation play a pivotal role in the

implementation of the HR policy. They have a strong influence on the behaviour of the employees.

They have to be in accordance with the goals of the HR policy to be able to promote the desired

behaviour.

-Organisational development and communication. Implementation of a strategic and sustainable

HRM is impossible without changing and developing the culture and the structure of the

organisation. Basing on the HR policy, HR decides which organisational design is needed to

support performance of the employees.

(Vanderstraeten et al., 2015).

3. “SUCCESS”

According to Vanderstaeten et al. (2015), HR Success forms the first group of HR-output and it is

composed of:

-Organisational design highlights what is important for the organisation and how employees

should act. So, the important question here is how the organisational structure and culture

facilitates the work of the employees to achieve the organisational goals and forms their mindset;

- Sustainable behaviour of the employees includes the actual ways the employees behave, which

shows their mindset. The employees must realise the impact their behaviour has on the strategical

goals and sustainability of the organisation and the must know how they can contribute to it;

-Competences of the employees. Talent management leads to the creation of certain internal

competences of the employees. Judging by the workers talents, HR develops the strong

characteristics of the employees and harmonizes them with the core competences of the

organisation.


9

4. “ IMPACT”

In case al the previous steps are successfully implemented, the HR and the employees create the

desired impact on the organisation. Looking at the impact through the sustainability concept, the

impact on Performance (financial and non-financial results), People and Planet is highlighted.

-Performance. A sustainable organisation will first of all take care of achieving the long-term

results. The specific nature of the social profit sector means that not only financial results are

important. The creation of social value is central for these organisations. Financial results (profit)

support the existence of the organisation and satisfaction of the stakeholders. Non-financial results

are about development of the well-being of the society;

- People. This dimension highlights the extent to which the organisation realizes an HR outcome

in the area of well-being, growth and development of the employees. A sustainable organisation

will provide room for personal development, attention to health and safety at the workplace and

respect of labour rights;

-Planet. A sustainable organisation will pay attention to the impact it has on the environment. It

strives to be environmentally conscious in daily activities, so that it has as little impact as possible

on the air, water, soil and biodiversity.


5. “SOCIETY”

To present the model completely it should be placed into a broad society context. An organisation

is an independent entity that functions in an entirety of other organisations and people. All those

surrounding elements have to be taken into account by the HR policy. (Vanderstaeten et al., 2015)

Filling in the HRM Cockpit has to be performed from right to left. It is a dynamic process that

brings contributions to the whole organisation. The 5 steps that are needed for the use of the HRM

cockpit are:

1. Involve the most important stakeholders to the development of the HRM cockpit.

2. Think in terms of the Value chain and the impact (impact, output, throughout and input).

3. Start with the organisational strategy.

4. Work from right to left by building the HRM Cockpit

5. Draw a Strategic map with the help of a defined path. (Once the input and the success

factors are defined, you draw a path from left to right. It makes it clear which way should

10

be taken in order to have an impact on the 3 P’s and the organisational strategy. The defined

path leads to the end of the strategic mapping and begins the immediate implementation of

the sustainable HR strategy.)


METHODOLOGY

Sustainable HRM is a relatively new field and it lacks a transparently defined concept. That is why

a fundamental theoretical review has advantages in comparison to other ways of research. It is

crucial to collect and analyse available information to form an insight on the subject. Qualitative

research is therefore necessary to understand the new concept. Due to being deeply involved, the

researcher gets an insider vision of the field. This way the researchers can notice issues, which

could be missed by scientific more positivistic researches. Qualitative analysis can play an

important role in searching for possible relationships, causes, effects in dynamic processes.

Qualitative analysis covers all the biases and contradictions, which reflect social reality.

(Denscombe, 2010).

However, literature research hides obstacles for the researchers. According to Van Thiel (2014),

there is a danger of selectivity and subjectivity of data collection. The researcher chooses himself

which information to use. This can influence the objectivity of the research and lead to conclusions,

based on a personal opinion and intuition. (Van Thiel, 2014),

For this dissertation, a qualitative approach was used, and more precisely - a systematic review.

A systematic review aims to provide a complete, exhaustive summary of current literature relevant

to our research question. Instead of making conclusions based on a single study, a systematic

review gives an opportunity to analyse numerous resources to find the answers. By studying large

numbers of resources, a systematic review helps to track the latest developments and tendencies.

Systematic review leads to more reliable conclusions than studies based on a limited amount of

resources. This method also helps to identify limitations and gaps in the previous studies and

introduce them for future researchers. (De Regge, 2017).

The first step was to decide where we can find the needed information. There are numerous

databases available online, which can help us with this task. The choice fell onto Web of Science

since it can serve as a multidisciplinary source, and EBSCO as it is a big database with articles

from business and management fields. Google Scholar was also used, since it helps to find articles

unavailable in open access via Web of Science or EBSCO. (De Regge, 2017)

11

Now let us move to what we are going to search for. Since HRM Cockpit is a new instrument and

it is meant to be used by organizations in modern conditions, it must be able to keep up with all

the recent trends, developments and challenges. To not go too deep into history, to keep the

instrument fresh and up-to-date with the latest trends, only articles of maximum 5 years old were

used for the research. Any types of information were interesting for us- starting from articles in

scientific journals and finishing with books or dissertations.

Finally, we need to choose how we will search for the information. The keywords that we are going

to use can influence the whole outcome of the search process, therefore they must be chosen very

carefully.

The keywords used for the research are:

Sustainability, Corporate Sustainability, Green HRM, Green Human Resource Management,

Sustainable HRM, Sustainable Human Resource Management, Corporate Social Responsibility,

Socially Responsible HRM, Socially Responsible Human Resource Management.

Filters, that were applied:

Language-English

Year-2012,2013,2014,2015,2016,2017

Categories- Management, Business, Economics, Public Administration

The resources were gathered via EndNote and checked for relevance to form an inclusion set. This

assessment was conducted via PRISMA method (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic

Reviews and Meta-Analyses). (De Regge, 2017). It maps out information about the number of

records identified in the literature searches, the number of studies included and excluded, and the

reasons for exclusions (such as duplicates, relevance, eligibility). The use of checklists like

PRISMA is likely to improve the reporting quality of a systematic review and provides substantial

transparency in the selection process of papers in a systematic review. (Moher & Liberati, 2009).

The end results of the search via Web of Science and EBSCO were 2930 articles. Afterwards, by

using the PRISMA method, we were able to find the most relevant sources for our research. First,

the duplicates were removed, which left us with 2574 articles. Then, after screening the titles for

relevance, the total number was brought down to 436 articles. After that, an analysis of the articles’

abstracts must be performed to verify the content for valuableness, which enabled us to limit the

number to 174 articles.

12

As the final step the content was analysed via NVivo, that helped to connect the data with our

research questions, and draw conclusions about similar trends and ideas in different sources. In

order to do this, the contents of each article were coded in the following Nodes:

“Sustainability definition”:

with Child Nodes: “Dimensions” and “Standards”

“Strategies and guideline for sustainability”:

With Child Nodes: “Triple Bottom Line”, “Stages of sustainability”, “Use of incentives”;

“Measures of sustainability”:

With Child Nodes: “Balanced Scorecard”, “Reporting”

“Corporate Social Responsibility”

“HRM and Sustainability”

With Child Nodes: “HRM and CSR”, “Sustainable HRM”, “Strategic HRM”

“Green HRM”:

With Child Nodes: “green empowerment and participation”, “green management”, “green

performance”, “green recruitment”, “green reward”, “green training”;

“Benefits of sustainability”

The Open codes were used for the main Nodes. Those are descriptive codes, as they describe what

comes up in the research material. Those codes help to identify and note all the subjects and trends

that appeared in the articles during its analysis, therefore they also could be named “themecodes”.

The Child Nodes are thematic codes, which were formed by the Axial coding, as this is a process

of relating the codes to each other and forming a category or a concept. After the categories were

formed they can be compared to each other and checked for relationships and connections-this

process is called a “selective coding”. The results of the coding process can now be used for the

detailed description of the analysed subjects and to answer the research questions and draw

conclusions. (Voets, 2018).

In result of the research and NVivo analysis 2 tables were composed to provide the visual overview

of the main tendencies in the articles. The whole scope of the articles could be divided according

13

to 8 main subjects that were covered by them. Table 1 shows how many articles were dedicated to

each subject and Table 2 refers you to which authors discussed those subjects in their works.

Table 1. Results of NVivo analysis – Subjects and number of articles (Own elaboration)

Subject Number of articles

Definition of Sustainability 32

Triple Bottom Line 28

Strategies for Sustainability 66

Measures and reporting 43

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) 42

HRM and Sustainability 58

Green HRM 26

Benefits of Sustainability 17

As we can see from Table 1, the most trending subjects in analysed articles are strategies for

Sustainability (66 articles mentioning this) and connections between HRM and Sustainability (58

articles). Next two popular subjects are CSR and sustainability reporting and measures-42 and 43

articles. Those articles unfortunately did not directly discuss HRM so they are less relevant for this

research. However, they do discuss crucial ideas which can and should be connected to HRM

practices. “Green HRM” seems to have a small number of articles covering the subject (26),

although some of the practices mentioned there are technically identical to those mentioned in

“Sustainable HRM”. This situation might appear due to the lack of a universally accepted

definition of “Sustainability” and the existence of many terms for the same concept.

Table 2. Results of NVivo analysis – Subjects and authors (Own elaboration)

Subject Authors

Definition of

Sustainability

Kalender & Vayal (2016), Tasleem & Khan(2017), Svensson & Høgevold (2016), Fadhilah

& Ramayan (2012), Kramar (2014), Biggemann & Williams (2014), Høgevold & Svensson

(2012), Vildåsen & Keitsch (2016), Reilly & Hynan (2014), Skare & Golja (2012),

Appelbaum & Calcagno (2016)-parts 1, 2, 3; Venkatraman & Nayak (2015), Schuler &

Rasche (2017), Goyal & Rahman (2013); Turnbull & Williams(2015); Schulz & Flanigan

(2016); Asif & Searcy (2013); Urbaniec (2015); Saufi & Daud (2016); Wagner (2012); Gupta

& Aggarwal (2016); Longoni & Cagliano (2016); Ahern (2015); Deaconu &Ghenu (2016);

Radu (2012); Guerci & Carollo (2016); Bekmezci (2015); Isil & Hernke (2017).

Triple Bottom Line Svensson & Høgevold (2016); Høgevold & Svensson (2015); Wagner & Avasilcai (2015);

Fadhilah & Ramayah (2012); Kramar (2014); Biggemann & Williams (2014); Reilly &

14

Hynan (2014); Venkatraman & Nayak (2015); Venkatraman & Nayak (2015b); Bonsón &

Bednárová (2015); Asif & Searcy (2013); Saufi & Daud (2016); Harris & Tregidga (2012),

Ahern (2015), Guerci & Radaelli (2015); Radu (2012); Buller & McEvoy (2016);

Kocmanova & Simanaviciene (2015); Jitmaneeroj (2016); Savaneviciene & Stankeviciute

(2017); Stankeviciute & Savaneviciene (2013); Shirahada & Kosaka (2012); Passalidou

(2016); de Prins & Van Beirendonck (2014); Segers & Isil (2017); İyigün (2015); Hahn &

Figge (2015).

Strategies for

Sustainability

Tasleem & Khan (2017); Svensson & Høgevold (2016); Butnariu & Avasilcai (2014);

Fabdilah & Ramayah (2012); Kramar (2014); Biggemann & Williams (2014); Schaltegger

& Hansen ( 2016); Høgevold & Svensson (2012); Dahlmann & Branicki (2017); Dhanda

(2013); Vildåsen & Keitsch (2017); Christ & Burritt (2017); Reilly & Hynan (2014);

Appelbaum & Calcagno (2016)-parts 2 and 3; Venkatraman & Nayak (2015); Schuler &

Rasche (2017); Bonsón & Bednárová (2015); Brockhaus & Amos (2017); Montiel &

Delgaddo-Ceballos (2014); Schulz & Flanigan (2016); Asif & Searcy (2013);

Suriyankietkaew (2016); Urbaniec (2015); Saufi & Daud (2016); Eccles & Perkins (2012);

Harris & Tregidga (2012); Ahern (2015); Guerci & Radaelli (2015); Wolf (2013); Radu

(2012); Degato (2017); Hall & Wagner (2012); Guerci & Pedrini (2014); Schaltegger &

Burritt (2015); Baumgartner (2014); Buller & McEvoy (2016); Dutta &Lawson (2012);

Kocmanova & Simanaviciene (2015); Bekmezci (2015); Tregidga & Milne (2014); Walker

& Ni (2015); Jitmaneeroj (2016); Venkatraman & Nayak (2015b); Savaneviciene &

Stankeviciute (2017); Alazzani & Hassanein (2017); Sugiyama & Shirahada (2012); Strand

(2014); Balaceanu & Apostol (2012); Stankeviciute & Savaneviciene (2013); Baumgartner

& Winter (2014); Kairouz & Hokayem (2016); Aragon-Correa & Marcus (2017); Adams &

Jeanrenaud (2016); Passalidou (2016); de Prins & van Beirendonck (2014); Vitari & David

(2017); Xing & Starik (2017); Wagner (2015); McElroy & Van Engelen (2012); Abdelmotaal

& Abdel-Kader (2016); Isil & Hernke (2017); Høgevold & Svensson (2015); Garay & Font

(2017); Iyigün (2015); Hahn & Figge (2015).

Measures and

reporting

Kalender & Vayvay (2016); Svensson & Høgevold (2016); Vavra & Bednarikova (2012);

Butnariu & Avasilcai (2015); Reilly& Hynan (2014); Skare & Golja (2012); Celma &

Martinez-Garcia (2014); Appelbaum & Calcagno (2016); Venkatraman & Nayak (2015);

Goyal & Rahman (2013); Gnanaweera & Kunori (2018); Bonsón & Bednárová (2015);

Montiel & Delgado-Ceballos (2014); Garg (2017); Schulz & Flanigan (2016); Vigneau &

Moon (2015); Asif & Searcy (2013); Suriyankietkaew (2016); Morgeson & Aguinis (2013);

Urbaniec (2015); Alonso-Almeida & Llach (2014); Bučiūnienė & Kazlauskaitė (2012); Li &

Ngniatedema (2017); Radu (2012); Schaltegger & Burritt (2015), Escrig-Olmedo & Muñoz-

Torres (2017); Antonini & Larrinaga (2017); Whiteman & Walker (2013); Albu & Dumitru

(2013); Kocmanova & Simanaviciene (2015); Tabatabaei & Omran (2017); Speziale &

Klovien (2014); Lis (2012); Calu & Negrei (2015); Cohen & Holder-Webb (2012); Jamali

& Dirani (2015); Ehnert & Parsa (2016); Kocmanova & Docekalova (2017); Coutinho &

Domingues (2018); Hansen & Schaltegger (2016); Carnevale & Mazzuca (2014); Sarmah &

Islam (2015); Bala & Bartel (2015)

Corporate Social

Responsibility

(CSR)

Svensson & Høgevold (2016); Kramar (2014); Biggemann & Williams (2014); Amaladoss

& Manohar (2013); Reilly & Hynan (2014); Arnaud & Wasieleski (2014); Skare & Golja

(2012); Chaudhry (2016); Appelbaum & Calcagno (2016); Schuler & Rasche (2017);

Magbool & Amran (2016); Ahen & Zettinig (2015); Berber & Susnjar (2014); Wang & Chen

(2017); Balgiah & Yuliati (2017); Ameer & Othman (2017); Brockhau & Amos ( 2017);

Wilburn & Wilburn (2014); Asif & Searcy (2013); Suriyankietkaew (2016); Supanti &

Butcher (2015); Jamali & Dirani(2015); Morgeson & Aguinis (2013); Urbaniec (2015);

Wagner (2013); Bučiūnienė & Kazlauskaitė (2012); Astara & Beneki (2017); Radu (2012);

Degato (2017); Baumgartner (2014); Aaron (2012); Balaban & Cicioglu (2012); Speziale &

Kloviene (2014); Szczepańska-Woszczyna (2015); Carnevale & Mazzuca (2014); Sarmah

& Islam (2015); de Prins & van Beirendonck (2014); Newman & Miao (2016); Aggerholm

& Trapp (2014); Høgevold & Svensson (2015); İyigün (2015); Aguinis & Glavas (2012).

HRM and

Sustainability

Fadhilah & Ramayah (2012); Kramar (2014); Renwick & Jabbour(2016); Muller-Camen &

Redman (2016); Arnaud & Wasieleski (2014); Voegtlin & Greenwood (2016); Celma &

Martinez-Garcia (2014); Magbool & Amran (2016); Berber & Susnjar (2014); Singh &

Kumar (2013); Rok & Mulej (2014); de Vos & van der Heijden (2014); Ehnert & Harry

(2014); Parkes & Davis (2013); Wagner (2015b); Jamali & Dirani (2015); Morgeson &

15

Aguinis (2013); Lia & Tang (2012); Persson & Agostini (2017); Haddock-Millar & Sanyal

(2016); Zhang & Di Fan (2014); Harris & Tregidga (2012); Antonioli & Mancinelli (2013);

Cohen & King (2017); ); Bučiūnienė & Kazlauskaitė (2012); Zibarras & Coan (2015);

Longoni & Cagliano (2016); Guerci & Radaelli (2015); Rothenberg & Hull (2015); Paille &

Chen (2014); Wolf (2013); Yong & Mohd-Yusoff (2016); Guerci & Pedrini (2014);

Schaltegger & Burritt (2015); Buller & McEvoy (2016); Guerci & Carollo (2016);

Tabatabaei & Omran (2017); Ehnert & Harry (2012); Lis (2012); Ehnert & Parsa (2016);

Szczepańska-Woszczyna (2015); Savaneviciene & Stankeviciute (2017); Dubois & Dubois

(2012); Stankeviciute & Savaneviciene (2013); Kozica & Kaiser (2012); Esfahani & Rezaii

(2017); Passalidou (2016); App & Büttgen (2016); App & Merk (2012); Mazur (2014); de

Prins & van Beirendonck (2014); Mazur (2015); Persson & Shrivastava (2016); Newman &

Miao (2016); Lakshimi & Kennedy (2017); Langwell & Heaton (2016), Savaneviciene &

Stankeviciute (2014).

Green HRM Masri & Jaaron (2017); Renwick & Jabbour (2016); Christ & Burritt (2017); Arnaud &

Wasieleski (2014); Amin-Chaudhry (2016); Cheema & Javed (2017); Dumont & Shen

(2017); Rayner & Morgan (2018); Khurshid & Darzi (2016); Renwick & Redman (2013);

Wagner (2013); Tang & Chen (2018); Haddock-Millar & Sanyal (2016); Aragao & Jabbour

(2017); Zibarras & Coan (2015); Paille & Chen (2014); Yong & Mohd-Yusoff (2016); Guerci

& Carollo (2016); Saifulina & Carballo-Penela (2017); Pinzone & Guerci (2016); Gholami

& Rezaei (2016); Dubois & Dubois (2012); Baumgartner & Winter (2014); Aragon-Correa

& Marcus (2017); O’Donohue & Torugsa (2016); Langwell & Heaton (2016).

Benefits of

Sustainability

Brockhaus & Amos (2017); Suriyankietkaew (2016); Rayner & Morgan (2018); Supanti &

Butcher (2015); Cohen & King (2017); Bučiūnienė & Kazlauskaitė (2012); Astara & Beneki

(2017); Longoni & Cagliano (2016); Li & Ngniatedema (2017); Rothenberg & Eirikur

(2015); Eccles & Ioannou (2014); Wolf (2013); Hall & Wagner (2012); Windolph & Harms

(2014); Ameer & Othman (2012); Yu & Zhao (2015); Abri & Bi (2017).

CHAPTER 1. DEFINITIONS OF SUSTAINABILITY– “IMPACT”.

1. DEFINITIONS

As highlighted by the HRM Cockpit, sustainability is the final goal of organisations, therefore we

need to find out what exactly this concept means and which elements it includes. Only after

defining this goal, we can move to the other elements of the Cockpit to define the steps we need

to take to achieve it. Authors of the studied articles attempt to create a comprehensive definition

to limit the amount of discrepancies between existing concepts and theories. They provide various

definitions and discuss numerous theories striving to explain the concept. There are a number of

related concepts that also need to be defined: concepts like Corporate Social Responsibility,

Sustainable HRM, Strategic HRM, Green HRM, which authors see as being connected to

sustainability of the organisation.

Some authors define sustainability according to the Stakeholders Theory, when sustainability

recognises the interconnection and interaction of stakeholders, organisational systems and sub-

systems, social systems and the environment in which these systems operate. (Kramar, 2014;

Montiel at al.,2014). In accordance with this approach, Dyllick and Hockerts (2002) define

16

corporate sustainability as “meeting the needs of a firm’s direct and indirect stakeholders without

compromising its ability to meet the needs for future stakeholders as well”. (Tasleem et al., 2017).

An alternative way of understanding sustainability is to frame it in terms of businesses operating

in a neoliberal form of capitalism, instead of taking into account stakeholder interests. When this

approach is taken, sustainability gives precedence to the owners, usually the shareholders of

business organisations. According to this theory, managers and executives are primarily

responsible to the owners of the organisation. That responsibility is to conduct the business in

accordance with their desires, which will generally be to make as much money as possible while

conforming to the rules of society. (Kramar, 2014).

Some authors argue that sustainable development is impossible to achieve without taking into

account fiscal sustainability. It helps with making better investment decisions, creating improved

performance metrics, reducing costs and capturing more valuable business data. (Appelbaum et

al., 2016b).

Popular definitions are those provided by reporting agencies such as the definition of The Dow

Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI), which defines the term corporate sustainability as: “a business

approach that creates long-term shareholder value by embracing opportunities and managing risks

deriving from economic, environmental and social developments … corporate sustainability leaders

achieve long-term shareholder value by gearing their strategies and management to harness the

market’s potential for sustainability products and services while at the same time successfully

reducing and avoiding sustainability costs and risks”. (Tasleem et al., 2017).

Finally, the core of mainstream sustainability thinking has become the idea of three dimensions:

environmental, social and economic sustainability (Fadhilah, 2012). This definition is applied since

Brundtland Commission of the United Nations in 1987. This Commission took a broad view of long-

term sustainable development and defined the three dimensions. According to the Commission,

sustainable development is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising

the ability for future generations to meet their own needs”. (Kramar, 2014).

Later this definition was applied to a concept by Elkington (1997) and received the name “Triple

Bottom Line”. It combined three elements of sustainability- People, Planet and Profit. The key for

sustainable development is that resources and opportunities should be widely shared in society.

Where this fails to occur, individuals, communities and ecosystems become vulnerable to external

17

perturbations, to failures in governance, and the social crises. Therefore, global contribution is a pre-

condition for sustainable growth and development. (Skare et al., 2012).

Although, as most theoretical models, Triple Bottom line received some critiques. The controversy

is that the three separate dimensions of the model cannot easily be quantified with similar metrics,

meaning that it is problematic to measure the environmental and social impact in the same way as

financial results. (Schulz et al., 2016). The problem of measuring and aggregating non-financial

impacts creates an issue for using this concept for sustainability reporting. Also, companies might

use this tool merely to improve legitimacy as a response pressure from government or society. The

danger is that firms disclose nothing more than basic information about each bottom line without

integration and without providing information about how they measured the results. (Isil et al.,

2017).

Sharma (2014) agrees with this idea and defines sustainability as “resilience and the longevity of our

ecosystems (which includes minerals, vegetation, oceans, atmosphere, climate, water bodies, and

biodiversity), society (which includes culture, languages, and quality of life), and economy” (Rasche

et at., 2017).

An important concept of sustainability is found in the System theory, which interprets sustainability

as the ability of the human system to adapt to the ecological system. The solution to sustainability is

to adopt a holistic view to analyse the qualities that appear from interactions within the whole, instead

of dividing the system into elements. A new paradigm is suggested where Earth’s life-support

systems is the basis for all human activity. (Vildåsen et al., 2017).

Hahn et al., (2015) provide a model which can be used to summarize the basic concepts of

sustainability (Figure 4). The dimension of change includes economic, social and environmental

values and it is strongly linked to societal interests. The level of change shows the systemic nature

of sustainability, and the intersection between the ecological, economic and social dimensions. The

context has fundamental implications. The model shows that short-term profit orientation creates a

hinder to a long-term investment. It also reflects spatial elements such as the division of activities

between developed and under-developed regions. This model is appropriate since it takes into

account different levels of analysis-individual, organizational and systemic. It provides a tool to

analyse the underlying tensions of bringing sustainability to the business level. (Vildåsen et al.,

2017).

18

Fugure 4. The fundamentals of corporate sustainability (Hahn et al., 2015).

There are different views on the three dimensions. Proponents of “strong sustainability” claim that

there are fundamental differences between them. Natural capital represents a unique contribution to

societal welfare which cannot be substituted by human or financial capital. Natural capital cannot be

understood through quantitative techniques since there are qualitative differences between

ecosystem services and their influence on social systems. ‘Weak sustainability” treats the three forms

interchangeably with the assumption that the aggregated amount of capital is to be allocated in an

optimal manner. In other words, this position makes it possible to conduct trade-offs between social,

environmental and social values. (Vildåsen et al., 2017).

The tree pillars are also combined in other broader definitions like Szekely and Knirsch’s (2005)

definition, that calls for the need to balance the three CS pillars and then list 10 different dimensions

to be sustained: (a) economic growth, (b) shareholder value, (c) prestige, (d) corporate reputation,

(e) customer relationships, (f) product quality, (g) ethical business practices, (h) sustainable jobs

creation, (i) value creation for all the stakeholders, and (j) attention to the need of the underserved.

Although, this definition might seem overwhelming to people trying to use it to measure company’s

sustainability. (Montiel et el., 2014).

19

2. RELATED CONCEPTS

2.1 CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

CSR is closely related to Sustainability. Some authors even consider these two concepts as

synonyms, as they agree that CSR is about integrating the Triple Bottom Line into the company’s

activities. (Amaladoss et al., 2013; Reilly et al., 2014; Arnaud et al., 2014). Although, other authors

also mentioned that CSR is only a micro aspect of sustainable development. (Skare et al., 2012).

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development defines CSR as ‘the continuing

commitment by businesses to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while

improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community

and society at large’. The European Commission defines CSR as ‘a concept whereby companies

integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with

their stakeholders on a voluntary basis’. These definitions show that the concept of CSR is about

integrating the triple bottom into a multistakeholder dialogue on a voluntary basis (Amaladoss et al.,

2013).

Corporate social responsibility is seen as an intelligent investment, bringing benefits both to the

company, and to the entire community. It improves the relationship with the community, influences

the target audience, places the company on a higher position in society, gives a better reputation to

the company, increases client loyalty, and motivates employees. It is essential for long-term

prosperity and represents a vital connection with society. (Radu, 2012).

CSR programs aim to promote sustainability in organisations. CSR promotes sustainable

performance in People-Planet-Profit dimensions. The role of managers in this process is

emphasized by numerous researches, as the formation of sustainable strategies depend on their

decisions. (Skare et al., 2012; Arnaud et al., 2014). Still, the actual added value of CSR and the

identification of the distribution of this value is difficult to assess, due to the lack of a commonly

accepted measurement system and differences in how the contributions to each of the 3P’s

dimensions can be calculated. (Biggemann et al., 2014). The existence of CSR programs alone

does not guarantee the achievement of company’s sustainability strategies. The programs have to

be integrated into strategy and culture of the organisation and transferred into everyday activities.

The communication and integration of the CSR programs within all the departments is crucial.

(Biggemann et al., 2014; Ahen et al., 2015)

20

2.1.1 SHARED VALUE CONCEPT

Amin-Chaudhry (2016) discusses in his article the “shared value” concept. This concept deliberates

the motivation of organisations to follow CSR programs. It is stated that companies and society are

interconnected and their well-being and success depends on each other. That is why companies

follow the “shared value” principle, as they want to create value for both the society and their own

business. If the CSR is a part of their business and a source of opportunity and a competitive

advantage, it leads to a better management and performance. In order to assess the created shared

value, companies need to: - identify the social goals; - develop a business case; - track the progress;

- measure the results and focus on a new shared value. This process provides positive reinforcement

and therefore supports the financial investment and a creation of additional social values. (Amin-

Chaudhry, 2016).

2.1.2 SEVEN STAGES OF CSR

Amin-Chaudhry (2016) also provides an overview of the seven stages of CSR:

1. window dressing- at this stage companies redesign the corporate reporting style;

2. cost containment – organisations begin to develop energy efficiency programs;

3. stakeholder engagement- firms start to use balanced scorecards to engage stakeholders;

4. measurement and reporting- growth of measurement and reporting initiatives;

5. sustainability reporting- assessment of sustainable development of companies adds to other

reports;

6. transparency- measurement and reporting are made in an open manner;

7. accountability – companies become accountable for their actions.

2.1.3 CORPORATE SOCIAL PERFORMANCE

Arnaud et al., (2014) discuss the Corporate Social Performance (CSP) model that analyses CSR

of the organisation at three levels- institutional, organisational and individual and assesses the

social outcomes. The institutional level includes principles of social legitimacy, the organisational

level involves public responsibility and individual level analyses managerial discretion. This

framework provides the analysis of principles that can help to give the right direction to managerial

decisions. The authors emphasize the importance of the third level – individual level, as the policy

choices and the way of their implementation mostly depends on the managerial decisions. It is the

21

managers responsibility to form the strategy that will lead the company towards socially

responsible outcomes. (Arnaud et al., 2014). In order to come up with the right decisions,

managers have to act according to the following moral principles: - ensuring dignity and respect

of human lives; - providing people with autonomy and the right to self-determination; -being

honest; -honour loyalty and commitment; -treat everyone fairly; - promoting humaneness by

avoiding evil actions; - the actions should be directed towards the greatest good for the society.

(Skare et al., 2012).

2.2 STRATEGIC HRM

The attention of HRM has shifted towards the strategic level in the 90s when researchers of that

time introduced a vertical link with the organizational strategy. This means that the HRM strategy

and HRM practices have to be in sync with the strategy of the organization. Organisations started

to realise that they are not isolated and independent and they have to coexist with other

organisations and the environment. Therefore, the Strategic approach of HRM emerged, which

started paying attention to externalities and introduced the link with other external organizational

and environmental factors. A horizontal relationship with other functional management practices

is also of importance for Strategic HRM. This alignment can be used in in a context of coordination

with other functional domains (marketing, finances)- the first level of horizontal alignment, but

also it deals with different HRM systems and applications to make them internally consistent - the

second level of alignment. The strategic role of HRM is to become a strategic partner of the top

management and the outcome of it is the HRM strategy. (Vanderstraeten, 2014)

Three theoretical approaches to strategic HRM can be identified. The first one implies that there is

“one best way” of HRM, which can improve business performance. This is also called the “best

practice” approach, that states that certain practices and policies will always result in improved

performance. The aim for organisations is to identify what these practices are and use them. The

second approach is the “contingency” theory or “fit approach”, which aligns employment policies

and practices with the organisational strategy and goals. This approach assumes, that different types

of HR strategies suit for different types of business strategies. The third approach is the “resource-

based view” of the organisation. According to this theory, neither of the mentioned two approaches

is sufficient, since every organisation is unique, therefore the HR policy and practices will be unique

for each organisation. (Rok et al., 2014)

According to Rok et al. (2014) all the models can be divided to “hard” or “soft” ones. People are

seen as resources by the supporters of the hard approaches. Those resources should be managed

22

like any other resources of the company. They have to be cheap and used to achieve competitive

advantage of the organisation. Soft HRM approaches are more humanist, as they treat employees

as assets. The central principles of those approaches are the development of employees,

communication, motivation and performance. Employees should be led, not managed or

controlled. (Rok et al., 2014)

2.3 SUSTAINABLE HRM

With the appearance of the new economic, social and ecological external challenges in the world,

new organisational sustainable goals appeared. HRM helps the organizational leaders to introduce

those new goals into the organizational strategy. For that reason, some authors see Sustainable

HRM as a synonym to Strategic HRM. The key objective of Sustainable HRM is to contribute to

organisational performance by introducing sustainable strategies and effectively motivate human

resources to act more sustainable. HRM does this by coordinating the HRM policy with the

sustainable goals of the organisation, which is the goal of Strategic HRM as well. (Ehnert, 2009).

Others see Sustainable HRM as only a part of Strategic HRM or as an extension of it, since

Strategic HRM might include broader goals than just sustainability. (Martin-Alcazar et al., 2005;

Kramar, 2014).

Finally, it is also considered as a totally new and individual approach, which appeared to replace

the old Strategic HRM. This approach recognises the impact people management policies have on

human, ecological and financial outcomes. Sustainable HRM does not preclude the aspects of

Strategic HRM. Strategic HRM is more concentrated on the alignment and coordination of the

strategy within the organisational unities and systems, while Sustainable HRM focuses on

development of human and social capital to achieve organisational sustainability goals. (Kramar,

2014).

The connection of sustainability and HRM is described in a number of terms, such as sustainable

work systems, HR sustainability, sustainable management of HRM, sustainable leadership,

sustainable HRM. All of them acknowledge human and social organisational outcomes and admit

the existence of an impact of HRM results on the organisational success. (Kramar, 2014).

Kramar (2014) discusses the main goals of sustainable HRM, which include balancing efficiency

and sustainability in the long term; sustaining and developing human and social resource base;

assess negative effects of HR activities on the HR base and sources.

23

Researchers actively discuss the role of HRM in promoting and achieving Sustainability. HRM

affects corporate performance through the management and control of employee behaviours.

(Arnoud, 2014). Sustainable behaviour could be promoted by fostering desired attitudes through

empowerment of initiatives among employees. (Renwick et al., 2016).

The roles that HRM can play are specified in the research of Jamali et al. (2015). They provide the

description of four roles HRM plays in organisations and those roles can be used in implementing

sustainability practices. They see HRM through four dimensions: processes (system), people, future

strategy (strategic focus) and day-to-day operations (operational focus). The intersection of those

dimensions forms the main HRM roles. (Figure 5).

Fugure 5. HRM Roles (Jamali et al., 2015).

-The first role is the Strategic Partner. Its focus lays on coordinating HRM strategy with the

organisational strategy and applying it.

-The second role is the Administrative Expert. The role of HRM here is to design, deliver and

communicate HR functions effectively through employees. This is a traditional role, that adds value

to businesses, reduces costs and improves efficiency.

Strategic Partner

Change Agent

Administrative Expert

Employee Champion

Strategic Focus

People System

Operational Focus

24

-Employee Champion is the third role, which is based on maximization of commitment of employees

boosting their contribution towards desired outcomes. To guarantee the excellent performance, HR

provides employees with sufficient resources to meet all their needs.

-The final role is the Change Agent. The task of HRM here includes innovation and transformation

of the organisation by developing plans in response to the challenges of the changes, while at the

same time staying loyal to the traditional culture and values of the organisation.

(Jamali et al., 2015).

This model is not meant exclusively for sustainability policies, but it can be used to explain the roles

and functions of HRM in implementing any strategy, as it allows to choose the objectives and

practices for any desired outcomes.

2.4 GREEN HRM

Green HRM is understood as a part of Sustainable HRM, but it focuses only on corporate

environmental protection activities (Wagner, 2015). Several authors (Masri et al., 2017; Renwick

et al., 2016; Christ et al., 2017; Arnaud et al., 2014; Amin-Chaudhry, 2016; Cheema et al., 2017;

Dumont et al., 2017 and others) state that the formation of Green HRM (GHRM) results from the

connections between HRM and Environmental Management. It enhances the organisation’s

environmental performance by involvement and commitment of employees to environmental

values. The studies about making organisations environmentally friendly through the use of HRM

started in the 1990s. The study of Masri et al. (2017) claims that employees are more motivated to

support green practices, if they receive monetary and non-monetary rewards and if their managers

encourage them to participate by acting in accordance to those green practices themselves. With

the active involvement of employees comes the establishment of a green culture on the

organisation. Performance Management Systems (PMS) direct the performance of employees

towards the environmental goals and ensures the effectiveness of GHRM. To become

environmentally sustainable, the company needs to adopt measuring systems to measure resource

usage and waste. HRM should integrate environmental programs into PMS by proposing

environmental goals, monitoring performance and providing evaluation and feedback by using

green work ratings, which should be included in employees’ appraisals records. (Masri et al.,

2017).

25

3. CONCLUSIONS

Basing on the research, we can conclude that most of the authors agree, that in order to be sustainable,

companies need to take care of Planet, People and Profit. Some of them (Gupta et al., 2016) highlight

the importance of environment over the other elements and identify the concept of sustainability as

a synonym for environmental management; some (Longoni et al., 2016) only focus on environment

and society without highlighting the profit element – bi-dimensional approach; and some (Vildåsen

et al., 2016; Montiel et al., 2014; Kramar, 2014; Isil et al., 2017) say that all three elements are

interconnected and equally vital and only by including these elements in everyday practices a

company can become truly sustainable. HRM Cockpit is based on the same three elements, thus we

can state that if organisations choose the 3 P’s as the outcome for their practices and be active in all

three elements, they can become sustainable.

CHAPTER 2. “OUTPUT” AND BENEFITS OF SUSTAINABILITY

The HRM Cockpit elements, emphasizing the HR Success, are organisational image and mindset,

behaviour and competences of the employees.

Employees have to develop a sustainability mindset, which is an understanding of how natural

environment is interconnected and how your own values, approaches and actions can produce the

greater good for the society. There are three elements of this process:

1. The Knowing: educating yourself about ecology

2. The Being: being a part of the ecosystem

3. The Doing: connecting to the society by developing social sensitivity and being innovative.

(Cohen et al., 2017)

The authors of the articles do not explicitly discuss HR Success as a separate element, but they

view it through the prism of the organisational benefits. Most authors agree on the fact that

engagement in sustainable practices and green behaviours brings benefits to the company. (Rayner

et al., 2018; Bučiūnienė et al., 2012; Eccles at al., 2014). Those include: increased profitability and

customer satisfaction; improved relationships with the local community and public; marketing

advantage over competitors. (Supanti et al., 2015). Bučiūnienė et al. (2012), Ameer et al, (2012)

correspondingly state that sustainability practices have a confirmed positive effect on the financial

outcomes of the organisation in terms of Return on Assets, profit and cash flow, since it cuts

organisational costs and leads to new commercial opportunities and better performance outcomes.

26

Sustainability as well affects the relationship with other stakeholders like investors, bankers,

suppliers, making the organisation more attractive and reliable for them (Longoni et al., 2016).

They state that sustainability practices improve the image of the company, making it more attractive

for customers and for new employees, therefore influencing the company’s return on sustainability

investments (Brockhaus et al., 2017; Magbool et al., 2016).

Suriyankietkaew’s (2016) research provides a statistical evidence that most of the sustainability

practices positively affect customers satisfaction. A sustainable and responsible image of the

company also makes the workers more motivated, engaged and committed, leading to a better

performance and, therefore, better results and a competitive advantage. (Singh et al., 2013; Longoni

et al., 2016). Workers of the companies that actively engage in sustainable activities are more

motivated and more productive in comparison to the less responsible and sustainable organisations.

According to a research, when employees are satisfied with their company’s sustainability

commitment, their engagements goes up to 86 per cent and when the employees are unsatisfied with

the activities, this number goes down to only 37 per cent being fully engaged. (Singh et al., 2013).

Researchers state that it is problematic for many organisations to integrate sustainability strategies

into their business. This incorporation to the core of the organisation is crucial for any business. If

the implementation is active only in the peripheral, the outcomes will never be as beneficial. The

higher costs and the pressure it brings may lead to abandonment of those sustainable practices if

they were not thoroughly integrated into the organisational culture. Companies need to give it time

to achieve sustained competitive advantages. (Schroeder, 2012).

However, some researches indicate that there is insufficient evidence of sustainable practices

affecting financial performance of organisations. (Astara at al., 2017; Wolf, 2013). Others obtained

mixed results and state that the effect of sustainable practices depend on the industry sector, region

and the size of a company (Rothenberg et al., 2015). Similarly, Li et al. (2017) state that the results

are diverse and that small firms benefit from sustainable practices more than large organisations.

The opposite evidence comes from the research of Abri et al. (2017), who claim that sustainability

does not significantly improve financial performance, especially not in small or medium

organisations. This can be due to the higher costs organisations need to spend on sustainability

practices, for example, to train employees and provide other benefits and development opportunities

for them, to adopt new technologies, to design new strategies and incorporate changes. (Eccles et al.,

2014). Small firms have less opportunities to withstand those costs.

27

The previous image of the organisation also plays a crucial role, because if consumers already had a

negative attitude towards the organisation’s practices, the new sustainability programs might be seen

as an insincere and a fake attempt to “greenwash” the image, therefore leading to an even worse

perception. (Brockhaus et al., 2017)

CHAPTER 3. PATH FOR SUSTAINABILITY – “PROCESS”

HRM Cockpit states that the three important elements of the sustainable process are performance

and talent management of the employees, leadership and organisational development and

communication. The authors of the analysed articles agree on the main elements, highlighting the

role of leadership, managers and HR managers (Strand, 2014; Guerci et al., 2014, Xing et al.,

2017), training (Baumgartner, 2013; Arragon-Correa, 2017), technological innovation (Adams et

al., 2016; Degato, 2017; Hall et al., 2012), use of incentives (Dahlmann et al.,2017; Abdelmotaal

et al., 2016), role of the employees (Eccles et al.,2012; Wolf, 2013), which corresponds to the

aforementioned elements of the HRM Cockpit. However, they also discuss the roles of other

elements, such as involvement into coopetition and cooperation (Christ et al.,2017; Appelbaum et

al.,2016c), which is not explicitly mentioned in the HRM Cockpit.

In the following part we will have a look on those elements and also discuss a separate group of

researches, dedicated to Green HRM practices. Those practices correspond to the elements of the

sustainability process, mentioned in the HRM Cockpit and include: green management of

organisational culture, green recruitment and selection, green performance management and

appraisal, green training and development, green empowerment and participation and green

reward and compensation.(Masri et al., 2017). Even though the authours only discuss these

practices with regard to the environmental sustainability, we may conclude that their use can be

expanded to the other two dimentions of the Triple Bottom Line.

Another element, that is not emphasized in the HRM Cockpit, is how HRM can cooperate with

CSR and how those two concepts influence each other. According to some authors (Arnoud, 2014,

Bučiūnienė et al., 2012, Berber et al., 2014, Voegtlin et al., 2016), HRM and CSR are deeply

interconnected and this connection needs to be used during sustainable process to achieve the

desired goals. The relationships between HRM and CSR will also be discussed in this chapter.

1. ROLE OF LEADERSHIP

Strand (2014) talk about connections between strategic leadership and corporate sustainability,

that come together with the appearance of top management team (TMT) positions with dedicated

corporate sustainability responsibilities. Those positions are often called ‘‘Chief Sustainability

28

Officers’’ and they have found their way into biggest companies of the world. However, the

existence of those positions alone does not automatically guarantee sustainability of a company.

(Strand, 2014)

Xing et al., (2017) discuss a not-standard view on business and leadership. They discuss the effects

of Taoist philosophy on sustainability. Taoist leaders understand that employee green behaviours

cannot be forced. That is why leaders should adopt Wu Wei, which requires leading with the flow

of nature. This way the employees do not feel coerced and their sustainable and “green” behaviour

will come naturally and spontaneously. Although Taoism strives to minimize the coercive role of

leaders, it never eliminates it altogether. Taoist leaders “transform” their will into their

subordinates' own perceptions. (Xing et al., 2017)

2. ROLE OF EMPLOYEES

According to Eccles et al. (2012), sustainable strategy requires behavioural change within

employees, therefore personal engagement is vital. Sustainable companies are more likely to have

a clear strategy for engaging employees, as they recognize and believe in reasons for a change.

Basing on their research, 90% of the sustainable companies implement large-scale change

successfully, compared to 50% for the traditional companies. Sustainable companies apply their

strategy by: - communicating the influence of the employees contribution, - highlighting the

connection between this contribution and the sustainability goals, - enabling cross-functional

communication and idea exchange. The company has to value the contributions, align actions with

values, and honour the commitments. (Eccles et al., 2012).

Wolf (2013) agrees with the importance of employees in sustainable development. According to

her, managers need to do more than just public sustainability reports. Sustainable management

involves the development of new skills and competences of employees. Employees have unique

knowledge of the company, which helps them to define and adopt the appropriate organizational

structures. The organizational areas of particular relevance are: -clear responsibility assignment, -

experience and qualification of employees in sustainability; -application of appropriate

manufacturing technologies; - adaptation of organizational structure. (Wolf, 2013).

3. ROLE OF INCENTIVES

Dahlmann et al. (2017) and Abdelmotaal et al. (2016) investigate the role of incentives in

improving sustainable performance. Incentives are known to encourage actors to act towards

desired outcomes, as they highlight the tasks that are pivotal for goal achievement. Providing

incentives as a part of a sustainable strategy orients all the stakeholders towards a desired outcome

29

of performance improvement. Dahlmann et al. (2017) propose that “greater inclusiveness of

incentive beneficiaries leads to greater alignment across different hierarchical levels that

strengthen organizational decision-making and operational coordination processes.” They use

“agency theory” as a basis for their ideas about incentives. This theory proposes that incentives

should be provided not only to the top agents of the organization, but to all levels of the existing

hierarchy. This is supposed to create a greater alignment with the interests of the principal.

However, this could potentially lead to distracting and distorting impacts caused by the differences

in statuses. This might reduce efficient information processing and coordination of effort.

(Dahlmann et al., 2017).

4. COOPETITION AND COOPERATION

Another significant way to influence the implementation of sustainable practices is getting

involved into coopetition. According to Christ et al. (2017), exploring and reducing tensions

between competitive strategy and cooperation in striving towards sustainability can lead to

reduction of unsustainability. Coopetition involves using competitive and cooperative strategies at

the same time. Competition is seen as a business driver, however, the idea of importance of

collaboration is becoming more widely considered. Sustainability related coopetition emphasizes

not only economic performance, but also includes environmental and social issues. The most

important factors for success are management commitment, relationship management and

communication management. The functional areas identified with a coopetitive strategy are long-

term outsourcing, supply arrangements, co-production and co-marketing. (Christ et al., 2017).

Appelbaum et al., (2016c) also discuss researches about interaction between companies and other

organizations. They mention merging with other more sustainable companies as a way of boosting

sustainability in your own organization. Coopetition, however, creates a danger of potentially

promoting cartelization and monopolization. (Christ et al., 2017).

5. TEACHING AND TRAINING

Most researchers agree on the fact that any changing initiatives within a company should be

supported by training of the employees. Sustainability-oriented competencies require teaching and

development, especially in companies who strive to become sustainable. According to Aragon-

Correa (2017), sustainability teaching and training has to be: -cross-disciplinary; -broad in scope;

-based in design, implementation, and outcomes; -representative, engaging, and vivid; -inclusive

of issues related to business success and/ or failure.

Baumgartner (2013) talks about a management game called ‘sustainability manager’. His paper

30

presents the key features of this game and describes experiences of its application. It is based on a

business simulation, the aim of which is to model a company using computer technologies. This

tool can be used as a training instrument for sustainability management and can be adapted to

specific training situations. The goal is to provide a knowledge based management game to educate

about competencies of sustainability management. (Baumgartner, 2013)

6. TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION

Attention should be paid to the role of technological innovation in achieving sustainability. A lot

of authors dedicated their papers to this aspect. (Adams et al., 2016; Degato, 2017; Hall et al.,

2012). The study of Degato (2017) identifies different mechanisms and conditions for building

innovation capacity and analyses the relationship between innovation and social-ecological

sustainability. The analysis confirmed the importance of innovation in green governance and in

value chain for sustainability. The kinds of innovation include product upgrading, process

innovation, market innovation, chain upgrading and environmental upgrading. (Degato, 2017)

Hall et al. (2012) state that “Innovation has been widely regarded as a panacea for sustainable

development, but there remains considerable uncertainty about how it will lead to a more

sustainable society”. Their results conclude, that the link between innovation and sustainability

depends on the type of business and innovation. They confirm, that it does help with sustainable

development but only for businesses which are radical enough to enable strong performance

effects on environment. (Hall et al., 2012)

7. ABILITY-MOTIVATION-OPPORTUNITY THEORY

Cheema et al. (2017) discuss a theory, which defines the areas of HRM affecting sustainability –

the Ability-Motivation-Opportunity theory. All the practices enhancing the human capabilities and

increasing the human capital lead to better outcomes. The theory highlights the aspects leading to

higher productivity and increased profits and overall organisational success. Those are “ability”,

“motivation” and “opportunity”. The aspects again correspond to the ones mentioned before. The

first aspect is about attraction of high-performing employees and their development, resulting in

employees having the required skills and having the ability to perform well. The second aspect is

motivating employees to ensure their commitment by use of incentives and effective management.

The last aspect gives opportunities to employees to participate in problem-solving and knowledge-

sharing activities and provides facilities and support. (Cheema et al., 2017).

31

8. GREEN HRM PRACTICES

Masri et al. (2017) provide a model connecting GHRM practices with environmental performance

(EP). The practices are green management of organisational culture, green recruitment and

selection, green performance management and appraisal, green training and development, green

empowerment and participation and green reward and compensation. (Figure 6). Now we will

discuss each practice in more details and provide evidence from the srudies of other authors about

the necessity of those practices.

Figure 6. Conceptual model connecting critical GHRM practices for maximized EP. (Masri et al.,

2017).

8.1 GREEN RECRUITMENT

If the organisation is interested in achieving environmental sustainability, it has to select and

recruit people who are also supporting these values. If the organisation builds an image of an

environmentally responsible company, it will be more attractive for people willing to share this

responsibility. Green recruitment makes sure that new employees will fit within the green culture

and will share the company’s values. (Masri et al., 2017). This process is also called employer

32

branding. Recent recruitment possibilities via Internet allow companies to easily communicate

their interests in environmental programs to future employees via the use of websites. (Cheema et

al., 2017). Job descriptions can be used as a tool to attract the employees with the needed values.

Another side of green recruitment is the process itself that can be performed with the use of modern

technology, making it paperless and therefore more ecological. This can also significantly save the

costs, that earlier had to be spend on traditional forms of advertisements and selection procedures.

(Khurshid et al., 2016).

8.2 GREEN TRAINING

Training the employees is one of the main methods that HRM can use to support environmental

programs. Trainings provide the workers with the necessary knowledge and skills and should

include social and environmental issues at all levels. (Masri et al., 2017). Trainings develop

awareness and understanding of environmental issues and show the ways workers can influence

the environment by their actions. (Renwick et al., 2013; Tang et al., 2018; Aragao et al., 2017;

Zibarras et al., 2015). Green trainings should involve all the employees of the company and include

three elements: awareness enhancement, knowledge management and climate building. (Tang et

al., 2018). Online trainings can also reduce paper consumption thus fulfilling environmental goals

of organisations. (Khurshid et al., 2016).

8.3 GREEN MANAGEMENT OF ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE

Establishment of green organisational culture is the task for top and HR managers. Green HRM is

the main driver of this culture. Defined green culture provides a set of values that reflect the

environmental objectives. This culture should be communicated and accepted by employees to

ensure the achievement of environmental objectives in every department. (Masri et al., 2017).

8.4 GREEN EMPOWERMENT AND PARTICIPATION

HR has to boost employee participation in green practices through empowering them. Employees

should be able to share their thoughts and ideas to feel that they are heard and appreciated. This

helps to form environmental goals. Employees need autonomy to make their own decisions and

be creative. This results in coming up with non-standard ideas and solutions and helps to gather

insider information leading to an improved environmental policy. (Masri et al., 2017; Pinzone et

al., 2016). Ability-Motivation-Opportunity theory, as already mentioned above, explains the need

of employee participation in environmental programs to achieve higher effectiveness and

productivity. (Cheema et al., 2017). When employees are provided with opportunities to

33

participate, it stimulates their level of satisfaction, motivation and commitment. (Tang et al., 2018).

The level of employee involvement is related to the success of environmental programs, therefore

employees should be treated as key stakeholders and be empowered to participate. (Zibarras et al.,

2015). HR department has to be aligned with the overall organisations strategy to achieve

environmental sustainability, which leads to a higher level of participation of employees, since

they can see the clear connection between their actions and the final cause. (Langwell et al., 2016).

8.5 GREEN PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND APPRAISAL

Embedding environmental issues into PMA (Performance Management and Appraisal) is

necessary to go beyond CSR and to progress in achieving environmental objectives. (Renwick et

al., 2016). Environmental performance standards help to measure how successful the

implementation of environmental programs is. (Renwick et al., 2013). HR has to provide feedback

to promote proper values and establish sanctions for violation of the regulations. (Masri et al.,

2017). The green performance appraisal has to aim on improving skills and green behaviour of

employees. The green initiatives from the employees have to be appreciated and reinforced to

stimulate recurrence of such behaviour. (Khurshid et al., 2016). When the employees feel

accountable for their behaviour it provides higher motivation and better performance. (Dubois et

al., 2012).

8.6 GREEN REWARD

Using intrinsic and extrinsic motivators in the form of rewards is proved to enhance employee

green behaviour and performance. (Zibarras et al., 2015; Guerci et al., 2016; Renwick et al., 2013;

Dubois et al., 2012). Green HR can benefit from composing effective compensation systems, as

it helps to avoid undesirable actions and motivate ecologically sustainable performance. The

rewards have to be connected to the results of environmental programs. The rewards could be

monetary-based (such as bonuses), non-monetary based (extra days off), recognition-based

(awards, publicity), positive rewards (feedback). (Masri et al., 2017). There is evidence of the

positive relationship between the total pay of CEOs and other senior managers and the level of

environmental engagement of the company. (Cheema et al., 2017; Renwick et al., 2013).

Tang et al. (2018) also mention the importance of five aspects: clear green vision, green learning

climate, various communication channels, offering green practices and encouraging green

involvement. Green vision includes a creation of green values and culture. A green learning

climate and communication channels makes sure that employees are aware about the

environmental issues and company’s green objectives. Offering participation opportunities and

34

encouraging initiatives and involvement can motivate employees and make them feel important.

To help them realise that they have power to influence the situation, they can be offered to write

newsletters, develop problem solving in groups, brainstorming sessions, setting up green teams

and support their green ideas and initiatives. (Tang et al., 2018).

9. HRM AND CSR

According to numerous researchers (Arnoud, 2014, Bučiūnienė et al., 2012, Berber et al., 2014,

Voegtlin et al., 2016), CSR is deeply connected to HRM. The HRM role is overflown with CSR

related tasks, like introducing ethical standards, attraction of new employees through sustainable

employment practices, motivation to social involvement. HRM practices that encourage CSR

engagement aim to positively affect employee behaviours in order to increase overall organizational

performance. (Arnoud, 2014)

HRM is successful in achieving this goal, as it is able to gain employee support to strengthen

commitment, which is necessary for fruitful application of CSR. The relationship between HRM

and CSR is claimed to be two-fold. On the one hand, HRM is seen as an object of CSR. Organisations

dedicated to being socially responsible, support and develop well-being of their employees and

provide them with desired working conditions. Since HRM is entitled of taking care of the same

aspects, it can be successfully used to channel those CSR initiatives to all of the organisational

departments. On the other hand, it is the role of employees to implements CSR initiatives in their

everyday activities. Those activities are interactions with clients and other stakeholders and it

indicates how socially responsible the organisation is. (Bučiūnienė et al., 2012)

Berber et al. (2014) also highlight HRM as a dimension which is included in CSR practices. The

authors discover the relations between employees and managers as it is a factor leading to successful

CSR application. Aside from recruitment, training, motivation and rewards systems, they highlight

career development, flexible management of working time and job rotation, communication and

information flow, profit-sharing and share ownership schemes, looking after health and well-being

of employees, providing a safe workplace, and a balance between working and family life. (Berber

at al., 2014).

9.1 CONTRIBUTIONS OF CSR INTO HRM AND HRM INTO CSR

Voegtlin et al. (2016) agree that HRM impacts the way CSR is interpreted, developed and transferred

into actions. The organisation’s understanding of CSR practices alters the way of treatment of

employees. Authors provide a description of possible contributions of CSR into HRM and of HRM

35

into CSR. The first dimension the contributions can be highlighted in is Recruitment and selection.

HRM can check potential employees for their sensitivity towards CSR and select employees based

on their fit to the CSR- values. CSR can help to attract the best talents as people value CSR aspects.

CSR can inform HRM selection procedures on issues of diversity and equality. The other dimension

is Appraisal and motivation. HRM can foster commitment to CSR and create a socially-responsible

culture. CSR can help to appraise social HR practices, to motivate employees, foster commitment

and organizational identification. The next prominent contributions are notices in Compensation and

reward system. HRM can develop long-term compensation schemes and search for incentives that

contribute to CSR goals. HRM can reward economic, social and ecological innovations. CSR can

help to define goals HRM can use to incentivise and reward employees. CSR can introduce standards

for decent work. Finally, CSR and HRM influence each other during Training and development.

HRM can inform employees about CSR and help to educate them. CSR can train HRM in developing

socially responsible HR practices. (Voegtlin et al., 2016)

A group of studies join Voegtlin and his fellow researchers in investigation of the relationship

between corporate sustainability practices and organizational attractiveness in the eyes of the future

employees. (Magbool et al., 2016; Rok et al., 2014). Authors notice that one of the main issues for

modern HRM is the shortage of highly skilled employees. They use the Social identity theory

which states that individuals’ identity depends on how they see themselves within a group. People

tend to compare themselves to a lower quality group to make sure they are doing better to boost their

self-confidence. This affiliation also concerns the organization they work for. The reputation of a

company is influenced by their actions concerning social and political issues. Employees will benefit

from positive reputation and suffer from negative reputation. Sustainability is able to improve the

reputation of an organisation. Therefore, companies implementing CSR will help HRM to attract

better employees. Job seekers base their decisions only on the prevailing characteristics of the

company, since not all the information is accurate or complete. This is explainable by the signalling

theory, which suggests that people see the organisation’s performance through the information it

promotes. Therefore, an organisation can choose itself what kind of information they want to send

out to attract employees. The organisation’s commitment to CSR reflects positively on the image

the people receive. (Magbool et al., 2016).

To guarantee the commitments to CSR throughout the whole organisation, the process has to include

non-management workforce - employees. HRM is the department that can contribute to a higher

level of employee involvement. CSR initiatives tend to fail if its implementation lacks the

36

involvement of employees and if socially responsible ideas are not integrated in the culture of the

organisation. (Singh et al., 2013).

Employees leverage and drive such CSR activities as promotion of health and safety of the

workplace, diversity and ethics training, personal development. Employees can participate in CSR

activities through volunteering or providing their skills and expertise to capacity-building projects.

Organisations can incorporate CSR into job designs and descriptions to ensure coordination with the

mission and sustainability strategies. Employees can be motivated to achieve CSR goals through the

use of constant feedback, evaluation and rewards from the management. Within this situation, HR

can perform a functional or a proactive role (or both). The functional role consists of implementation

and management of CSR initiatives for the employees, including providing the assessment of

feedback from employees and offering consultation to managers based on this information. The

proactive role contributes to co-development of the organizational strategy in a socially responsible

direction. It is based on HR interests in creating a responsible culture and responsible leaders through

teaching and developing CSR specialists. Therefore, HRM is believed to be coordinating CSR

practices, involving enhancement of the employment relationship, which is necessary for the

creation of fruitful relationships with stakeholders. This can consequently direct the company

towards a socially responsible behaviour. Singh et al. (2013) state that “armed with a strong and

committed organizational culture reinforced by responsible Human Resource Management

practices, the organizations can achieve heights of success by improved profitability, employee

morale, customer satisfaction, legal compliance and societal approval for its existence.” By actively

using HRM in promotion of CSR values, the organisation can guarantee the orientation of employees

towards those values and the well-being of the whole organisation without adding any extra costs.

(Singh et al., 2013).

9.2 TYPOLOGY OF CSR-HRM PERSPECTIVES

Voegtlin et al. (2016) also provide a typology of CSR-HRM perspectives. (Table 3) The authors

introduce Instrumental CSR-HRM, Social integrative SCR-HRM and Political CSR-HRM.

Instrumental perspective aims at profit maximization. CSR and HRM influence each other to

improve financial performance. Social integrative perspective strives to create value for society,

while integrating economic and ethical concerns into strategy. Relationship between CSR and

HRM is seen as involvement of practices that improve employee well-being, motivation and

overall stakeholder value. Political CSR-HRM fulfil obligations towards society as a political and

economic actor. The strategic priority is to create a proactive political strategy to advance

37

institutional conditions. CSR and HRM addresses power imbalances and employee citizenship

behaviours. (Voegtlin et al., 2016)

Table 3. Typology of CSR–HRM perspectives. (Voegtlin et al., 2016)

Instrumental CSR-

HRM

Social integrative CSR-

HRM

Political CSR-HRM

Theories Economic theory of the

firm Instrumental CSR

and “hard” HRM

approaches

Value creation stakeholder

theory Integrative CSR and

“soft” HRM approaches

Political theories of

democracy. Political CSR

and critical HRM

approaches

Purpose of the

firm

Profit maximization Value creation for society Fulfil obligations towards

society as a political and

economic actor.

Strategic

priorities

Economic

considerations dominate

strategy

Economic and ethical

concerns are integrated into

strategy

Proactive political

strategy to advance

institutional conditions

Role of CSR-

HRM

CSR and HRM can

reinforce each other to

improve firm financial

performance

CSR and HRM can


create benefit for the firm

and its’ stakeholders

CSR and HRM can


help address institutional

deficits

Employees as

stakeholders

Employees as strategic

human resources are

important stakeholders

for firm success

Employees are human

resources and valuable

stakeholders

Employees as citizens

with rights and

obligations towards the

firm and society

Issues of

employee

involvement

CSR-HRM as

involvement practices

that contribute to firm

performance (e.g.

through increasing

employee commitment)

CSR-HRM as involvement

practices that improve at

the same time employee

well-being, motivation and

overall stakeholder value

CSR-HRM as

involvement practices that

address power imbalances

and employee citizenship

behaviour

Power and

conflict of

interests

Multiple actors are

considered relevant

(strategically). In case of

a conflict shareholder

interests dominate.

Multiple actors are

considered relevant

(strategically and morally).

Interests are assumed to be

unitary. They can be

aligned to create shared

value.

Multiple institutions and

actors are considered

relevant. Plurality of

interests that are difficult

to reconcile

Key themes in

CSR-HRM

CSR-HRM and

performance. Micro-

foundation of CSR

through HRM

The role of CSR-HRM in

stakeholder integration. The

role of CSR-HRM in

integrating economic,

social and environmental

activities

CSR-HRM and the

responsibility

implications of changing

employment

relationships. The role of

CSR-HRM in business

(self-) regulation. The

critical role of power and

conflict in negotiating

CSR-HRM aspects

38

9.3 HIGH-PERFORMANCE WORK SYSTEMS

The use of High-Performance Work Systems (HPWS) is believed to be an instrument leading to the

desired HR and CSR outcomes. The HPWS are the HRM systems focused on development of skills,

commitment and productivity of employees. It enhances the performance, high commitment to HRM

and CSR practices, leading to successful financial outcomes of the organisation. It provides evidence

for the idea that good management ensures corporate social responsibility. (Zhang et al., 2014).

Parkers et al. (2013) support this idea, stating that if the management is involved in active modelling

of responsible performance, thorough communication of organisational values and culture within

the employees, together with the dynamic application of HR procedures, they can build socially

responsible organisations.

However, some researches show that in practice the HR managers are not fully involved in CSR

processes yet. The results, provided by Renwick et al. (2016) show a limited extent to which HR

managers undertake initiatives to increase socially responsible behaviour, even if they have

personal “responsible” views and values. They undertake a “passive approach” as they do not see

CSR as a priority of the HR department and they lack the resources to develop those initiatives.

(Renwick et al., 2016)

10. CONCLUSIONS

Since all the strategies should be implemented into practice, the process of implementation plays a

crucial role in affecting the outcomes. Authors conclude, that there are ways to stimulate the active

application of sustainable strategies, namely-using incentives (Dahlmann et al., 2017), involving

leaders and employees in the process (Strand, 2014; Xing et al.,2017; Eccles et al. 2012; Wolf, 2013);

providing training (Baumgartner, 2013; Arragon-Correa, 2017), supporting technological innovation

(Adams et al., 2016; Degato, 2017; Hall et al., 2012), getting involved in coopetition to strive towards

sustainability with the help of collaboration (Christ et al., 2017; Appelbaum et al., 2016c). All of

this can be done with an active involvement of HRM into sustainability policy. The HRM practices

can include training, involvement of employees into sustainability processes, motivation, constant

communication, feedback, assessment and appraisal. (Fadilah et al., 2012).

HRM Cockpit includes almost all of the mentioned elements – leadership (motivation, use of

incentives), performance and talent development (e.g. training) and organisational development (e.g.

innovations), except for getting involved into coopetition with other organisations. HRM Cockpit’s

elements are also consistent with the Ability-Motivation-Opportunity theory (by Cheema et al.,

39

2017); as well as with the discussed Green HRM practices, namely: green management of

organisational culture, green performance management and appraisal, green recruitment and

selection, green training and development, and green reward and compensation green empowerment

and participation, (Masri et al., 2017), which can be coordinated with performance and talent

development and with the role of leader.

However, HRM Cockpit does not explicitly emphasize the connections between HRM and CSR,

whereas these two concepts impact each other greatly. HRM has a significant impact on the

understanding, communicating, developing and enactment of CSR. Accordingly, organisations’

ideas of CSR influence the way of communication and treatment of employees. (Voegtlin et al.,

2016). Therefore, involving both these programs into organisational sustainability strategy and

letting CSR and HRM work together would be beneficial for the company.

CHAPTER 4. STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MODELS FOR SUSTAINABILITY- “INPUT”

Sustainable practices develop differently in organisations. The level of development depends on

how important the company finds this aspect, how motivated the people are to act more sustainable

and which strategies are chosen to achieve the desired level of sustainability. The authors agree

with the HRM Cockpit’s statement about the importance of the integration of HR strategy into

organisational strategy (Svensson et al., 2016; Tasleem et al., 2017). The organisational strategy,

as follows from the Cockpit logic, defines the desired goals and therefore influences the whole

process, policy and practices of the HR. (Vanderstraeten et al., 2015). The HR policy and strategy

needs to be incorporated into all of the practices and departments. Managers have to agree on the

way the strategy can be implemented into the practices. There are different models and theories

explaining how this can be done and why it plays a pivotal role.

1. FIVE STAGES OF SUSTAINABILITY

Depending on the level of integration of sustainability into the strategy, Svensson et al. (2016)

highlight five different stages of sustainability. They suggest that companies may view

sustainability as: -a compliance issue (something forced by law); -a cost to be minimized (only

deserved a minimum amount of spending); -an opportunity to develop and sustain competitive

advantage.

The five different stages are:

“Stage 1. Noncompliance, where an organization does not engage in any sustainable business

practices

40

Stage 2. Compliance, where an organization complies to rules and regulations (minimum legal

requirements) or due to NGO or public pressure

Stage 3. Beyond compliance, when organizations discover the savings and payoffs of going

further than compliance can far outweigh the initial investments

Stage 4. Fully integrated, where sustainability is part of the organization’s strategy

Stage 5. Where organizations are “born” sustainable without passing through the other stages.”

(Svensson et al., 2016)

2. SIX-STEPS IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK

One of the frameworks is the six-steps implementation framework proposed by Tasleem et al.

(2017). It corresponds the sustainable performance with multifaceted managerial dimensions. (See

figure 4). The six steps are:

1. identifying stakeholder’s requirements;

2. establishing enterprise vision and sustainability goals;

3. adopting strategies, systems and standardization;

4. aligning technologies, core capabilities and culture;

5. excelling sustainability performance;

6. progressing sustainable improvement with review and feedback.

3. S2AVE

Tasleem et al. (2017) also discuss other frameworks such as S2AVE (Shareholder and Social

Added Value with Environment Restoration) by Grayson et al. (2008). It emphasizes that

companies can effectively include all the three elements of Triple Bottom Line in their work at the

same time. The 10 steps of S2AVE are:

1. Setting vision for sustainability innovation

2. Considering sustainability an imperative part of strategy

3. Embed sustainability in all business aspects

4. Stressing actions instead of words

5. Implement a committee for managing sustainability

6. Incorporate defined rules

7. Identify and involve stakeholders for support

8. Enhance people power

9. Integration of key networks and alignment of business systems

10. Proper documentation and reporting of sustainability performance

(Tasleem et al., 2017).

4. CSM CYCLE

Another interesting model was created by McElroy et al. (2012), who presented Corporate

Sustainability Management (CSM) Cycle. It is executed in six steps:

41

1. CSM function initiation

2. Identifying stakeholders

3. Establishing performance standards

4. Gauging performance

5. Planning for strategies and interventions

6. Implementation of planned strategies and interventions.

(McElroy et al., 2012)

5. SUSTAINABLE SERVICE-ORIENTED BUSINESS MODEL

Sugiyama et al. (2012) dedicate their paper to a sustainable service-oriented business model

focusing on social capital. Companies need to transform their businesses to more service-centric

ones and create social capital with customers to sustain their businesses. As a result, the following

five strategic elements for corporate sustainability were highlighted:

1. Product (creates the value for customers)

2. Place (the environmental elements)

3. People

4. Perspective (integrates corporate internal and external resources)

5. Program (builds and promotes social capital between customers and employees).

(Sugiyama et al., 2012)

6. CONCLUSIONS

The described theories about the effective sustainability strategies highlight the importance of

integrating it with the organisational strategy. (Svensson et al., 2016; Tasleem et al., 2017). This

is also emphasized by HRM Cockpit under “vertical coordination”. HRM Cockpit includes a

“horizontal coordination” as well, which means that the strategy has to be embedded into all the

practices and departments. (Vanderstraeten et al., 2015). Authors state, that the strategy has to

reflect the mission, vision and goals of the organisation in order to make employees feel their

contribution and responsibility. To help them with this process, the strategy has to be properly

communicated towards employees and managers and the acceptance of it must be ensured.

Tasleem et al. (2017) and McElroy et al. (2012) highlight the importance of involving all the

stakeholders into supporting and implementing the strategy, which, again, corresponds with the

HRM Cockpit guidance towards an effective sustainable strategy. They also agree with the

valuableness of involving managers into sustainability programs to get their support, which it is

stated to be one of the most crucial factors in HRM Cockpit. However, authors provide no

information on the importance of the HR capacity (such as knowledge, qualities and attitudes of

HR), mentioned by HRM Cockpit as one of the elements of the “Input”.

42

CHAPTER 5. SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES AND REPORTING

1. PRESENTING MEASURING AND REPORTING MODELS AND STANDARDS

In order to see how successful the implemented sustainability strategy and practices are, companies

need to evaluate their progress and effects of the outcomes. To do that, a suitable measuring and

reporting framework is essential. It is crucial that such framework includes indicators to measure

sustainability. The effects of company’s practices need to be traced in social and environmental

dimensions and connected to the overall company’s success. HRM Cockpit accentuates the

importance of the measurements process by talking about the significance of choosing Success

factors- factors that the organisation needs to choose itself. For example, if the organisation is

struggling with the low level of involvement of employees, they need to include factors like

motivation, empowerment, respect, etc. After those factors are chosen, the company can select a

number of indicators, which will help them to see how successful their performance is for those

factors. The measurement can be done by the use of interviews and questionnaires.

(Vanderstraeten et al., 2015). Let us see what the other frameworks offered by the authors of the

analysed articles are.

Authors state, that the main issue with creating such a framework is that the indicators for each

three dimensions of sustainability are measured in different units. This makes it harder to connect

and compare the results from different dimensions. The following characteristics should be

existent in the measurement system:

-coordination with organisational strategy;

-defined and transparent purpose;

-it has to be relevant and easy to maintain and simple to understand and use;

-provide fast and accurate feedback;

-link performance with the goals of the organisation;

-stimulate improvement.

(Butnariu et al., 2015).

Many authors describe measuring systems based on the three elements of the Triple Bottom Line

and emphasizing the possible indicators for each dimension. Thus, the possible indicators for the

environmental dimension are: levels of recycling and waste, level of emissions, use of hazardous

materials, energy efficiency, ecological initiatives, etc. Indicators for the social dimension can be:

relationship with employees, retention rates, level of participation, equality and diversity levels,

43

work accidents and illnesses, existence and availability of training programs, etc. Economic activity

can be measured by profitability, return on investments and on capital, debt ratio, cost reduction,

brand value, etc. (Venkatraman et al., 2015; Reilly et al., 2014; Butnariu et al., 2015; Svensson et

al., 2016; Bonson et al., 2015; Schulz et al., 2016).

Basing on the NVivo analysis, the following table was composed. (Table 4) It provides the references

to the authors, depending on which models or standards they mentioned in their articles.

Table 4. Measuring and reporting models and standards. (Own elaboration)

Measuring and Reporting models and standards Authors

DACSI Index Kocmanova et al., (2015)

The Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes Skare et al., (2012)

Kinder, Lydenberg and Domini (KLD) Indices

Montiel et al., (2014) Ethibel Sustainability Index

Calvert Social Index

Global Resporting Index (GRI)

Vigneau et al., (2015); Montiel et al., (2014);

Bonson et al., (2015); Asif et al., (2013); Urbaniec,

(2015); Alonso-Almeida et al., (2013); Calu et al.,

(2015); Ehnert et al., (2016); Jamali et al., (2015)

Toxic Release Inventory scale (TRI) Schulz et al., (2016)

Balanced Scorecard

Kalender et al., (2016); Reilly et al., (2014);

Schaltegger et al., (2015); Tabatabaei et al., (2017);

Hansen et al., (2016)

The Sustainable Economic, Environmental, Social

and Corporate Governance Model (SEESG) Kocmanova et al., (2017)

ISO 26000

Albu et al., (2013) ILP Core Conventions

The Prince of Wales’ Accounting for Sustainability

Project (A4S)

Triple Bottom Line indicators Venkatraman et al., (2015); Reilly et al., (2014);

Butnariu et al., (2015); Svensson et al., (2016);

Bonson et al., (2015); Schulz et al., (2016)

44

2. GLOBAL REPORTING INITIATIVE

We provide a particular attention to GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) as it is currently the most

popular reference. It has become a part of the framework for mandatory sustainability reporting in a

number of countries. GRI has become a global reference and increases its adoption every year

(Vigneau et al., 2015; Montiel et al., 2014; Alonso-Almeida et al., 2013) The GRI reports reach forty

percent of all sustainability reports worldwide. GRI is based on the Triple Bottom Line providing

sets of indicators for each dimension. Opponents of this approach mention that the amount of

proposed indicators is too large, making it complicated and rather expensive for companies to follow.

(Bonson et al., 2015).

Urbaniec (2015) provides a table discussing sustainability categories and aspects in the GRI

guidelines. (Table 5). She states, that there are three categories- environmental, economic and social

and she explains which aspects are connected to those categories.

Table 5. Sustainability categories and aspects in the GRI guidelines. (Urbaniec, 2015).

Category Aspects

Economic Economic performance, market presence, indirect economic impact,

procurement practices

Environmental

Materials, Energy, Water, Biodiversity, Emission, Effluents and waste,

products and services, compliance, transport, overall, supplier

environmental assessment, environmental grievance mechanisms

Soci

al

Labour

Practices and

Decent Work

Employment, labour/management relations, occupational health and

safety, training and education, diversity and equal opportunity, equal

remuneration for women and men, supplier assessment for labour

practices, labour practices grievance mechanisms

Human

Rights

Investment, non-discrimination, freedom of association and collective

bargaining, child labour, forced or compulsory labour, security

practices, indigenous rights, supplier human rights assessment, human

rights grievance mechanisms

Society

Local communities, anti-corruption, public policy, anti-competitive

behaviour, compliance, supplier assessment for impact on society,

grievance mechanisms for impacts on society

Product

Responsibility

Customer health and safety, Product and service labelling, marketing

communications, customer privacy, compliance

45

Authors also talk about relationships between the HRM and reporting and measuring initiatives.

They stated that GRI indicators can be incorporated to HRM policies. (Jamali et al., 2015; Ehnert et

al., 2016). Jamali et al., (2015) provides a visual overview of how GRI indicators are connected to

HRM dimension. (Table 6)

Table 6. Affinities between GRI indicators and HRM dimensions. (Jamali et al., 2015)

GRI Indicator HRM dimension

Labour practices and

decent work

performance

indicators

Employment

Labour/management relations

Occupational health and safety

Training and education

Diversity and equal opportunity

Human rights

performance

indicators

Investment and procurement practices

Non-discrimination

Freedom of association and collective

bargaining

Abolition of child labour

Prevention of forced and compulsory labour

Complaints and grievance practices

Security practices

Indigenous rights

Society performance

indicators

Community

Compliance

We can notice that Jamali et al., (2015), believe that GRI indicators, such as indicators of labour

practices and decent work, human right and society performance are deeply connected with HRM

dimension, which meant that HRM with its actions can have a substantial impact on those indicators.

3. THE BALANCED SCORECARD

The Balanced Scorecard is another popular model among authors of the analysed articles (Reilly et

al., 2014; Kalender et al., 2016; Radu, 2012; Schaltegger et al., 2015; Tabatabaei et al., 2017). They

see it as the most suitable model for measuring sustainability. It provides feedback on the internal

business processes and the external outcomes of those actions. It is not made to create new strategies,

but it can enhance the existing ones leading to its’ effective implementation. It can be used as an

improvement tool for finding the most vital practices and results. The Balanced Scorecard helps to

set goals for key components of performance and to measure the progress on the way of achieving

46

those goals. When parameters of sustainability are included into the Balanced Scorecard, it makes it

suitable and effective to examine sustainable performance and development of the organisation. It

integrates all three dimensions of sustainability and establishes coordination between the strategic

and operative levels of the organisation. Although opponents of this system notice that it is

problematic to link sustainability measures to a company’s financial outcomes and strategies.

(Kalender et al., 2016).

Figure 7. The general framework of Sustainable BSC. (Kalender et al., 2016).

Figure 7 provides the visual representation of the Balanced Scorecard with additional sustainability

parameters – Social and Environmental. It emphasizes the importance of each dimension of

company’s mission and strategy. Since each company has its own perception of sustainability, the

indicators chosen to measure it will be different, depending on the strategy and goals of the

organisation. The number of indicators for each dimension will can also vary in connection with

what the company actually needs to measure. (Kalender et al., 2016).

4. CONCLUSION

Measuring the effects of sustainability practices provides companies with the information about the

influence they have on the environment and society. They see how their actions impact the end

results and gives them a feeling of accountability and responsibility, which in turn stimulates better

47

performance. There are numerous available measuring and reporting models, indexes, indicators

which help organisations to see how sustainable their work is. The most used models are GRI and

Balanced Scorecard. Those models are based on the Triple Bottom Line elements. Authors

emphasize the ways HRM can be involved into composition and implementation of measurement

models. The linkage can be traced in the dimensions of Labour practices and decent work, Human

rights and Society. (Bučiūnienė et al., 2012; Tabatabaei 2017; Ehnert et al., 2016). HR can also be

coordinated with the Balanced Scorecard model, where HRM can contribute to Learning and Growth

dimension by providing trainings and development programs, Environmental dimension by

stimulating and promoting ecological initiatives within employees, Social dimension by promoting

human rights, health and safety of the workplace. HR can also coordinate internal processes of

organisations by controlling and stimulating performance of workers and therefore influence the

economic outcomes of the company. The Balanced Scorecard and the GRI model are similar to the

HRM Cockpit measuring system. They are all based on the Triple Bottom Line and are meant to be

used with a set of indicators to assess the organisation’s success in achieving sustainability goals.

All the models emphasize the role of the organisational mission and strategy. They also include

parameters of sustainability which facilitates the measurement process. However, the GRI’s

indicators are predetermined, whereas the indicators of the Balanced Scorecard and of HRM Cockpit

can vary depending on the organisational strategy and goals, making those two systems more flexible

and easy to use.

CHAPTER 6. OTHER SUSTAINABLE HRM MODELS VS. HRM COCKPIT

Sustainable HRM models are meant to translate the theoretical implications and evidence into

practice of real organisations. This area still lacks research and transparent results of the

effectiveness of such models. A highly limited number of models were discussed in the studied

articles. The ones mentioned by the authors are Sustainable HRM model based on the Balanced

Scorecard (Tabatabaei et al., 2017) and Respect Openness Continuity (ROC) Model (De Prins et

al., 2014). We will discuss both of the models and compare them to HRM Cockpit.

1. SUSTAINABLE HRM MODEL BASED ON THE BALANCED SCORECARD

Tabatabaei et al. (2017) present a Sustainable HRM model based on the Balanced Scorecard

approach (Figure 8).

The first level of this model situates Sustainable HRM within Strategic Management. This again

highlights the importance of coordinating HRM policy with the organisational strategy and of

identifying the path, which the organization should follow. This involves identification of

48

sustainability strategies and sustainability needs. Sustainability strategies should create a clear path

instead of just showing the destination. Tabatabaei et al. (2017) state, that “Sustainable HRM offer

the best capability an organization can have to change, adapt and influence its environment in a way

that maximizes its performance over time.”

The existing sustainability should be compared with the desired sustainability, which will help to

identify the Sustainable HRM gap. The objectives are shaped by the environment and this will

influence the nature of the strategic plan of the organisation, which will in turn influence all the other

strategies. The second level of the model is Sustainable HRM Strategies. The strategies are divided

into four perspectives, including learning and growth, internal processes, stakeholders and value

creation. Those perspectives cover all factors, that have an impact on the performance and that

enable the organisation to develop the future strategy. The proposed model aims to create a balance

between internal and external stakeholders. It helps to develop business processes in accordance

with the sustainable HRM strategies and to achieve Sustainable HRM goals. (Tabatabaei et al.,

2017).

49

Figure 8. Sustainable HRM model based on the Balanced Scorecard (Tabatabaei et al., 2017)

3. RESPECT OPENNESS CONTINUITY (ROC) MODEL FOR SUSTAINABLE HRM

De Prins et al. (2014) came up with a different sustainable HRM model called ‘Respect Openness

Continuity (ROC)’. This model is based on analysis of potential contributions, which strategic HRM

could bring to sustainable HRM. The authors transformed the Triple Bottom Line elements of

Elkington (1997) into ‘Respect, Openness and Continuity’ (ROC).

50

The model reflects the elements of sustainable HRM (see Table 7). Those are:

1. respect for stakeholders and employees (Respect). This element corresponds with “People”

element of the Triple Bottom Line and presupposes providing the employees with autonomy,

allowing them to participate, stimulate their engagement and develop their talents.

2. environmental awareness and outside-in perspective on HRM (Openness). This element resembles

the “Planet” of the 3P’s, but goes a bit further, including not only the environmental issues, but also

issues of complying to laws, governmental regulations, unions, societal standards.

3. a long-term perspective for economic and social sustainability and individual employability

(Continuity). Continuity parallels “Profit” and states that organisations aim to survive over a long

time and HRM has a substantial impact on this process. It brings influence by managing employees

in a way that stimulates their productivity and maximises profits of the organisation.

(De Prins et al. 2014)

Table 7. The Respect Openness Continuity (ROC) Model of Sustainable HRM. (De Prins et al. 2014)

People

Respect

Planet

Openness

Profit

Continuity

Credo “Searching for the

Human in HRM”

“HR from the outside

in” “Long-term scope of HRM”

Th

eory

Mainstream

strategic HR—

perspective revisited

Resource-based view

revisited Strategic fit revisited

Long-term performance/long-

term employment

relationships revisited

Theoretical

antecedents

Ethical and critical HR

theory Institutional and stakeholder theory

Pra

ctic

es Horizontal/thematic

Talent, Engagement,

Empowerment, Health

and Well-being,

Employee participation,

etc.

Diversity, Ageing,

Work-Life balance,

Ecology, Stakeholders,

Labour market, etc.

Employability, Careers,

Succession, Learning

organisations, Workplace

innovation, etc.

Vertical/

transformational

Sustainable recruitment, selection, training, development, compensation, leadership,

change, culture, etc.

51

3. COMPARISON AND CONCLUSIONS

We compared the models according to the important characteristics an effective sustainability

model should possess. As stated by Savaneviciene et al. (2014), a sustainability model should

include drivers of sustainability, characteristics of sustainable HRM (such as coordination with the

organisational strategy, flexibility, knowledge orientation and coordination with the needs of

stakeholders), practices and outcomes of HRM. Basing on the crucial factors, discussed in the

analysed articles, we would like to add the importance of feedback, measurements and rewards.

HRM Cockpit and ROC model (De Prins et al., 2014) are both based on the Triple Bottom Line

of Elkington (1997), which explains the outcomes of the models – effects on “People”, “Planet”

and “Profit”. The model by Tabatabaei et al., (2017) does not explicitly define the outcomes, leaving

the sustainability for personal interpretation. However, its explanation of practices provides a

thorough overview of the processes which characterise the organisation as sustainable. The

processes involve learning and growth, which presupposes knowledge orientation, sustainable

internal processes and stakeholder orientation. HRM Cockpit clearly discusses the crucial

processes as well, such as performance and talent management, leadership and organisational

development making the use of this instrument beneficial for the organisation. All three models

are strong in defining the sustainable practices, emphasizing the role of empowerment, motivation,

sustainable selection processes, work-life balance, innovations, and flexibility. HRM Cockpit and

Balanced Scorecard Model highlight the importance of communication, whereas the ROC model

does not explicitly state that. Communication is proved to play a pivotal role, as it helps employees

to understand and accept the sustainability policy. ROC model also does not discuss the

coordination of the organisational strategy with HRM policy, while it is clearly mentioned as a

crucial factor in the Balanced Scorecard Model and in HRM Cockpit. The drivers of Sustainability

are not clearly mentioned by the models, however they all try to place sustainability in the context

of society, which brings economical, ecological and institutional pressures. Unlike the ROC

models, Balanced Scorecard model and HRM Cockpit do specify the importance of providing

evaluations and feedback, but only HRM Cockpit provides a measurement system and a system to

choose critical sustainability indicators. Taking into consideration all of these factors, we can

conclude, that HRM Cockpit is a unique instrument, which brings all the theoretical evidence into

practice and answers all the needs of organisations willing to become more sustainable.

52

CONCLUSIONS

We would like to finish the dissertation with the quote of Albert Einstein, who once said: “We

cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”

Today his words sound more relevant than ever. This idea emphasizes the need for a dramatic

change in the way organisations work in order to face modern challenges and create a better future

for everyone. HRM Cockpit presents an instrument to implement those changes. It brings theory

into practice, striving to help organisations to become sustainable.

In this Masters dissertation we tried to analyse how suitable and effective HRM Cockpit is for

companies that want to apply a successful sustainability policy. In order to do this, we analysed

171 scientific articles to answer a number of questions and to connect those answers with the HRM

Cockpit method. The questions were:

-What are the conditions for an organisation to be classified as “Sustainable”?

-What are the ways to become more Sustainable?

-How can we measure Sustainability?

-How can we implement Sustainable practices through HRM?

Concerning our first question, most of the authors agree on the fact, that the main condition of

sustainability is being active in all three elements of the Triple Bottom Line- namely, People,

Planet and Profit (e.g. Svensson et al., 2016; Høgevold et al., 2015; Wagner et al., 2015; Fadhilah

et al., 2012; Kramar, 2014; Biggemann et al., 2014; Reilly et al., 2014; Venkatraman et al., 2015).

We can state that HRM Cockpit agrees with those elements of sustainability, since these are the

chosen components of the “HR Impact” and those are the objectives of the sustainability policies.

To answer the second question, we can state, that in order to become more sustainable, companies

need to incorporate the sustainability practices into their strategy and mission and monitor if those

practices are consistently used in everyday activities. The best way for companies to do that is to

actively use HRM in promoting and implementing sustainability. The ways for HR to do that can

vary, but the authors emphasize the following aspects, which HR should actively implement

sustainability in: recruitment and selection (Voegtlin et al., 2016, De Prins et al., 2014); appraisal

and motivation (Voegtlin et al., 2016; Strand, 2014; Xing et al.,2017; Eccles et al. 2012; Wolf, 2013);

compensation and reward system (Dahlmann et al., 2017; Voegtlin et al., 2016; Abdelmotaal et al.,

53

2016); training and development (Voegtlin et al., 2016; Baumgartner, 2013; Arragon-Correa, 2017);

supporting technological innovation (Adams et al., 2016; Degato, 2017; Hall et al., 2012). Same

ideas were implied by the Ability-Motivation-Opportunity model by Cheema et al. (2017) and in the

description of Green HRM practices by Masri et al. (2017).

HRM Cockpit includes all of the mentioned elements – leadership (e.g. motivation, rewards),

performance and talent development (e.g. recruitment, training) and organisational development

(e.g. innovations). HRM Cockpit also specifies the importance of coordination of organisational

strategy with sustainable HRM strategy- the aspect which is claimed by many authors to play a

crucial role (Savaneviciene et al., 2014; Kramar, 2014; Dahlmann et al., 2017; Singh et al., 2013;

Svensson et al., 2016; Tasleem et al., 2017).

The most significant characteristic of HRM Cockpit instrument is that it provides a methodology to

measure the success of sustainability programs. This leads us to the answers to the third question. In

accordance with the most popular and most used measuring systems- GRI and Balanced Scorecard

- HRM Cockpit method is also based on the Triple Bottom Line elements. All these instruments

are presupposing the use of indicators to measure the success rates of sustainability practices. HRM

Cockpit, unlike GRI, is more flexible with the indicators, as they are not predetermined and may

vary depending on the organisational goals. Having these characteristics, HRM Cockpit facilitates

the measurement process and provides HRM managers and top managers with a visual

representation of how effective the performance is in achieving the organisational objectives.

(Vigneau et al., 2015; Montiel et al., 2014; Alonso-Almeida et al., 2013; Bonson et al., 2015;

Urbaniec, 2015; Kalender et al., 2016; Reilly et al., 2014; Radu, 2012; Schaltegger et al., 2015;

Tabatabaei et al., 2017).

To answer our last question, we analysed the other models of sustainable HRM and compared

them to HRM Cockpit. The comparison of HRM Cockpit with ROC-model (De Prins et al., 2014)

and Sustainable HRM model based on the Balanced Scorecard (Tabatabaei et al., 2017) also proves

HRM Cockpit to be a highly effective tool. This conclusion was made basing on the fact, that HRM

Cockpit complies with all the characteristics of an effective sustainability model, provided by

Savaneviciene et al. (2014). This means, that in accordance with HRM Cockpit, Sustainable HRM

program should be coordinated with the organisational strategy, be flexible, knowledge orientated

and coordinated with the stakeholders’ needs. HRM Cockpit describes the required practices to

achieve the desired outcomes, and highlights the importance of feedback, measurements and

rewards.

54

All the analysed resources, drawn conclusions and established characteristics enables us to answer

our main research question. Therefore, we state that HRM Cockpit is a highly effective, useful and

suitable instrument for the organisations aiming for sustainability and success. It includes all the

crucial elements of sustainability, provides the necessary tools and analysis indicators to

implement and assess sustainable policies.

In conclusion, it needs to be mentioned that a great number of researchers concentrate their work

today on the subject of sustainability. This shows that this concept is of high importance for the

modern society. However, some limitations in the previous researches were found. The lack of a

universally accepted definition of sustainability, a variety of terms, describing similar concepts,

stand in the way of creating a clear and defined concept and transferring it into practice. The

environmental dimension is significantly more emphasized in the literature, while “people” and

“profit” dimensions lack scientific proofs and analyses. For the future research it is essential to

provide more insights on the other two dimensions and to create a clearer concept of sustainability.

Bigger of a scope researches with reliable results are necessary to eliminate the disagreements

about the benefits of sustainability and its effects on the financial performance of organisations.

Transparent and univocal results could help to communicate the benefits and convince more

companies to engage in sustainable practices, which is desperately needed to create a better world

for everyone.

55

LITERATURE LIST

Aaron, K. K. (2012). New corporate social responsibility models for oil companies in Nigeria’s

delta region: What challenges for sustainability? Progress in Development Studies, 12 (4), 259–

273.

Abdelmotaal, H., Abdel-Kader, M. (2016). The use of sustainability incentives in executive

remuneration contracts. Firm characteristics and impact on the shareholders’ returns. Journal of

Applied Accounting Research, 17(3), 311-330.

Abri, I. A., Bi, X., Mullally, C., Hodges, A. (2017). Under what conditions does it pay to be

sustainable? Sources of heterogeneity in corporate sustainability impacts. Economics Letters, 159,

15-17.

Adams, R., Jeanrenaud, S., Bessant, J., Overy, P. (2016). Sustainability-oriented Innovation: A

systematic review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18, 180-205.

Aggerholm, H. K., Trapp, N. L. (2014). Three tiers of CSR: an instructive means of understanding

and guiding contemporary company approaches to CSR? Business Ethics: A European Review, 23

(3).

Aguinis, H., Glavas, A. (2012). What We Know and Don’t Know About Corporate Social

Responsibility: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932-968.

Ahen, F., Zettinig, P. (2015). Critical perspectives on strategic CSR: what is sustainable value co-

creation orientation?. Critical perspectives on international business, 11(1), 92-109

Ahern, G. M. (2015). Imagining what underlies corporate sustainability. Journal of Management

Development, 34(4), 494-504.

Alazzani, A., Hassanein, A., Aljanadi, Y. (2017). Impact of gender diversity on social and

environmental performance: evidence from Malaysia. Corporate Governance: The International

Journal of Business in Society, 17 (2), 266-283.

Albu, N., Albu C. N., Dumintru, M., Dumitru, V. F. (2013). Plurality or Convergence in

Sustainability Reporting Standards? Business and Sustainable Development, 15(7).

Alonso-Almeida, M., Llach, J., Marimon, F. (2014). A Closer Look at the ‘Global Reporting

Initiative’ Sustainability Reporting as a Tool to Implement Environmental and Social Policies: A

Worldwide Sector Analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,

21, 318–335.

Amaladoss, M. X., Manohar, H. L. (2013). Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility – A

Case of CSR Communication in Emerging Economies. Corporate Social Responsibility and

Environmental Management, 20, 65–80.

Ameer, R., Othman, R. (2012). Sustainability Practices and Corporate Financial Performance: A

Study Based on the Top Global Corporations. Journal Business ethics, 108, 61-79.

56

Ameer, R., Othman, R. (2017). Corporate social responsibility performance communication and

portfolio management", Managerial Finance, 43 (5), 595-613.

Amin-Chaudry, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility – from a mere concept to an expected

business practice. Social responsibility journal, 12(1), 190-207.

Antonini, C., Larrinaga, C. (2017). Planetary boundaries and sustainability indicators. A survey of

corporate reporting boundaries. Sustainable Development, 25, 123-137.

Antonioli, D., Mancinelli, S., Mazzanti, M. (2013). Is environmental innovation embedded within

high-performance organisational changes? The role of human resource management and

complementarity in green business strategies. Research Policy, 42, 975– 988.

App S., Merk J., Büttgen M. (2012). Employer Branding: Sustainable HRM as a Competitive

Advantage in the Market for High-Quality Employees. Management revue, 23(3), 262-278.

Appelbaum, S. H., Calcagno, R., Magarelli, S. M., Saliba, M. (2016). A relationship between

corporate sustainability and organizational change (part one). Industrial and Commercial

Training, 48(1), 16-23.

Appelbaum, S. H., Calcagno, R., Magarelli, S. M., Saliba, M. (2016b). A relationship between

corporate sustainability and organizational change (part two). Industrial and Commercial

Training. 48(2), 89-96.

Appelbaum, S. H., Calcagno, R., Magarelli, S. M., Saliba, M. (2016c). A relationship between

corporate sustainability and organizational change (part three). Industrial and Commercial

Training. 48(3), 133-141.

Aragao, C. G., Jabbour, C. J. C. (2017). Green training for sustainable procurement? Insights from

the Brazilian public sector. Industrial and commercial training, 49(1), 48-54.

Aragon-Correa, J. A., Marcus, A., Rivera, E., Kenworthy, A. L. (2017). Sustainability

management teaching resources and the challenge of balancing Planet, People and Profits.

Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(3), 469-483.

Arnaud, S., Wasieleski, D. (2014). Corporate Humanistic Responsibility: Social performance

through managerial discretion of the HRM. Journal Business Ethics, 120, 313-334.

Asif, M., Searcy, C., dos Santos, P., Kensah, D. (2013). A review of Dutch Corporate Sustainable

Development Reports. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20, 321-

339.

Astara, O., Beneki, C., Mitoula, R., Kalantonis, P. (2017). Corporate Social Responsibility and

Financial Performance Within the Business Sector in Greece. Kavoura, A., Sakas, D. P., Tomaras,

P. (Eds.), Strategic Innovative Marketing (pp. 337-345). Switzerland: Springer International

Publishing.

Bala, G., Bartel, H., Hawley, J. P., Lee, Y. (2015). Tracking “Real-time” Corporate Sustainability

Signals Using Cognitive Computing. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 27 (2).

57

Balaban, O., Cicioglu, F., Okutan, E. (2012). A Survey Aimed at Role and Importance of

NonGovernmental Organizations in the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Procedia - Social

and Behavioral Sciences, 58, 1174 – 1182.

Balaceanu, C., Apostol, D., Penu, D. (2012). Sustainability and social justice. Procedia - Social

and Behavioral Sciences, 62, 677 – 681.

Balgiah, T. E., Yuliati, E. (2017). Corporate Social Responsibility: Linkage business performance

and social performance. The South East Asian Journal of Management, 11(2), 120-141.

Baumgartner, R.J. (2014). Managing Corporate Sustainability and CSR: A Conceptual Framework

Combining Values, Strategies and Instruments Contributing to Sustainable Development.

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21, 258-271.

Baumgartner, R. J., Winter, T. (2014). The Sustainability Manager: A tool for education and

training on sustainability management. Corporate social responsibility and environmental

management, 21, 167-174.

Bekmezci, M. (2015). Companies’ profitable way of fulfilling duties towards humanity and

environment by sustainable innovation. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 181, 228-270.

Berber, N., Susnjar, G. S., Slavic, A., Baosic, M. (2014) Relationship between Corporate Social

Responsibility and Human Resource Management - as New Management Concepts – in Central

and Eastern Europe. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 25(3), 360–369.

Biggemann, S., Williams, M., Kro, G. (2014). Building in sustainability, social responsibility and

value co-creation. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 29(4), 304-312.

Bonson, E., Bednarova, M. (2015), CSR reporting practices of Eurozone companies. Revista de

Contabilidad – Spanish Accounting Review, 18(2), 182-193.

Brockhaus, S., Amos, C., Fawcett, A. M., Knemeyer, A. M., Fawcett, S. E. (2017). Please clap!

How customer service quality perception affects the authenticity of sustainability initiatives.

Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 25 (4), 396-420.

Bučiūnienė, I., Kazlauskaitė, R. (2012). The linkage between HRM, CSR and performance

outcomes. Baltic Journal of Management, 7(1), 5-24.

Buller, P., McEvoy, G. M. (2016). A Model for implementing a sustainability strategy through

HRM practices. Business and Society Review, 121 (4), 465-495.

Butnariu, A., Avasilcai, S. (2015). The assessment of the companies’ sustainable development

performance. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 1233 – 1238.

Calu, A., Negrei, C., Calu, D.A., Avram, V. (2015). Reporting of Non-Financial Performance

Indicators – a Useful Tool for a Sustainable Marketing Strategy. Amfiteatru Economic, 17(40),

977-993.

58

Carnevale, C., Mazzuca, M. (2014). Sustainability reporting and varieties of capitalism.

Sustainable Development, 22, 361-376.

Celma, D., Martinez-Garcia, E., Coenders, G. (2014). Corporate Social Responsibility in Human

Resource Management: an analysis of common practices and their determinants in Spain.


Cheema, S., Javed, F. (2017). The effects of corporate social responsibility toward green human

resource management: The mediating role of sustainable environment. Cogent Business &

Management, 4.

Christ, K.L., Burritt, R. L., Varsei, M. (2017). Coopetition as a potential strategy for Corporate

Sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26, 1029-1040.

Cohen, E., King, D. (2017). Human resources management: developing sustainability mindsets.

The Business Student’s Guide to Sustainable Management, 261-287.

Cohen, J. R., Holder-Webb, L.L., Nath, L., Wood, D. (2012). Corporate Reporting of Nonfinancial

Leading Indicators of Economic Performance and Sustainability. Accounting Horizons, 26(1), 65–

90.

Coutinho, V., Domingues, A. R., Caeiro, S., Painho, M., Antunes, P., Santos, R., …, Ramos, T.

(2018). Employee-Driven Sustainability Performance Assessment in Public Organisations.


Dahlmann, F., Branicki, L., Brammer, S. (2017). Carrots for Corporate Sustainability: Impact of

incentive inclusiveness and variety on environmenral performance. Business Strategy and the

Environment, 26, 1110-1131.

De Prins, P., Van Beirendonck, L., De Vos, A., Segers, J. (2014). Sustainable HRM: Bridging

theory and practice through the “Respect Openness Continuity (ROC)”-model. Management

revue, 25(4), 263-284.

De Regge, M. (2017). Lecture Het literatuuronderzoek: efficiënt zoeken naar informatie. Gent.

De Vos, A., Van Der Heijden, B. I. (2017). Current thinking on contemporary careers: the key

roles of sustainable HRM and sustainability of careers. Current Opinion in Environmental

Sustainability, 28, 41–50.

Deaconu, A., Ghenu, C. I. (2016). The impact of Sustainable Human Resource Management from

a Romanian perspective. In Tanţău, A., Dima, A. M., Hadad, S. (Eds.), Energy, Climate Change

and Sustainability. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Business Excellence (pp.

163-174). Bucharest.

Denscombe, M. (2010). The Good Research Guide, 4ed. New York.

Degato, D. D. (2017). Innovation and paths to social-ecological sustainability. RISUS-Journal on

Innovation and Sustainability, 8(2).

59

Dhanda, K. (2013). Case Study in the evolution of sustainability: Baxter International Inc. Journal

Business Ethics, 112, 667-684.

Dubois, C. L. Z., Dubois, D. A. (2012). Strategic HRM as social design for environmental

sustainability in organization. Human Resource Management, 51(6), 799–826.

Dumont, J., Shen, J., Deng, X. (2017). Effects of Green HRM practices on employee workplace

green behaviour: The role of psychological green climate and employee green values. Human

Resource Management, 56(4), 613-627.

Dutta, S., Lawson, R., Marcinko, D. (2012). Paradigms for Sustainable Development: Implications

of Management Theory. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19, 1-

10.

Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., Serafeim, G. (2014). The Impact of Corporate Sustainability on

Organizational Processes and Performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835–2857.

Eccles, R. G., Perkins, K. M., Serafeim, G. (2012). How to become a sustainable company.

MITSloan Management review, 54(4), 43-50.

Ehnert, I. (2009). Sustainable human resource management. A Conceptual and Exploratory

Analysis from a Paradox Perspective. Berlin: Physica-Verlag.

Ehnert, I. (2014). Paradox as a lens for theorizing sustainable HRM. In Ehnert, I., Harry, W., Zink,

K.J. (Eds), Sustainability and Human Resource Management. Developing Sustainable Business

Organizations (pp. 247-272). Berlin: Springer.

Ehnert, I., Harry, W. (2012). Recent developments and future prospects on sustainable human

resource management: introduction to the special issue. Management revue, 23(3), 221-238.

Ehnert, I., Parsa, S., Poper, I., Wagner, M., Muller-Camen, M. (2016). 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.

Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals With Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of the 21st Century. Oxford:

Capstone.

Escrig-Olmedo, E., Munoz-Torres, M. J., Fernandez-Izquierdo, M. A., Rivera-Lirio, J. M. (2017).

Measuring Corporate Environmental Performance: A Methodology for Sustainable Development.

Business Strategy and the Environment, 26, 142-162.

Esfahani, S. A., Rezaii, H., Koochmeshki, N, Parsa, S. S. (2017). Sustainable and flexible Human

Resource Management for innovative organizations. AD-MINISTER, 30, 195-215.

Fadhilah, Z., Ramayah, T. (2012). Behind the green doors: What management practices lead to

sustainable innovation? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 65, 247 – 252.

60

Garay, L., Font, X., Pereira-Moliner, J. (2017). Understanding sustainability behaviour: The

relationship between information acquisition, proactivity and performance. Tourism management,

60, 418-429.

Garg, P. (2017). Development of sustainability reporting index (SRI) with special reference to

companies in India. Decision, 44(4), 259-273.

Gholami, H., Rezaei, G., Saman, M. Z. M., Sharif, S., Zakuan, N. (2016). State-of-the-art Green

HRM System: sustainability in the sports center in Malaysia using a multi-methods approach and

opportunities for future research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 124, 142-163.

Gnanaweera, K.A.K., Kunori, N. (2018). Corporate Sustainability Reporting: Linkage of corporate

disclosure and performance indicators. Cogent Business & Management, 5.

Goyal, P., Rahman, Z., Kazmi, A. A. (2013). Corporate sustainability performance and firm

performance research: Literature review and future research agenda. Management Decision, 51(2),

361-379.

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, 27(2), 212-

238.

Guerci, M., Pedrini, M. (2014). The consensus between Italian HR and sustainability managers in

HR management for sustainability-driven change – towards a “strong” HR management system.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25 (13), 1787-1814.

Guerci, M., Radaelli, G., Siletti, E., Cirella, S., Shani, A. B. R. (2015). The Impact of Human

Resource Management Practices and Corporate Sustainability on Organizational Ethical Climates:

An Employee Perspective. Journal Business Ethics, 126, 325-342.

Guest, D. E. (1997). Human resource management and performance: a review and research

agenda. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(3), 263-276

Gupta, S, Aggarwal, A. (2016). Green Practices at the workplace: a step towards Sustainable

development. Pacific Business Review International, 8(8).

Haddock-Millar, J., Sanyal, C., Muller-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.

Hahn, T., Figge, F. (2015). Tensions in Corporate Sustainability: Towards and integrative

framework. Journal Business Ethics, 127, 297-316.

Hall, J., Wagner, M. (2012). Integrating Sustainability into Firms’ Processes: Performance Effects

and the Moderating Role of Business Models and Innovation. Business Strategy and the

Environment, 21, 183-196.

Hansen, E., Schaltegger, S. (2016). The Sustainability Balanced Scorecard: A Systematic Review

of Architectures. Journal Business Ethics, 133, 193-221.

61

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.

Høgevold, N. M., Svensson, G. (2012). A business sustainability model: a European case study.

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 27 (2), 142-151.

Høgevold, N. M., Svensson, G., Klopper, H. B., Wagner, B., Varela, J. C. S., Padin, C., …, Petzer,

D. (2015). A triple bottom line construct and reasons for implementing sustainable business

practices in companies and their business networks. Corporate Governance, 15 (4), 427-443.

Isil, O., Hernke, M. (2017). The Triple Bottom Line: A critical review from a transdisciplinary

perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26, 1235-1251.

Iyigün, N. O. (2015). What could Entrepreneurship do for Sustainable Development? A Corporate

Social Responsibility-based approach. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 1226-

1231.

Jamali, D. R., Dirani, A. M., Harwood, I. A., (2015). Exploring human resource management roles

in corporate social responsibility: the CSR-HRM co-creation model. Business Ethics: A European

Review, 24(2).

Jitmaneeroj, B. (2016). Reform priorities for corporate sustainability: Environmental, social,

governance, or economic performance? Management Decision, 54(6), 1497-1521.

Kairouz, A., Hokayem, J. E., Hage, U. (2016). Sustainability of Public Management in the

developing countries: the kacase of Lebanon. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 221,

378-387.

Kalender, Z. T., Vayvay, Ö. (2016). The Fifth Pillar of the Balanced Scorecard: Sustainability.

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 235, 76 – 83.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). Focusing your organization on strategy – with the balanced

scorecard. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Khurshid, R., Darzi, M. A., (2016). Go green with green human resource management practices.

International journal of research in commerce & management, 7(1).

Kocmanova, A., Simanaviciene, Z., Docekalova M. P. (2015). Predictive Model for Measuring

Sustainability of Manufacturing Companies. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics,

26(4), 442–451.

Kocmanova, A., Docekalova, M. P., Simanaviciene, Z. (2017). Corporate Sustainability

Measurement and Assessment of Czech Manufacturing Companies using a Composite Indicator.

Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 28(1), 88–100.

Kozica, A., Kaiser, S. (2012). A sustainability perspective on flexible HRM: How to cope with

paradoxes of contingent work. Management revue, 23(3), 239-261.

62

Kramar, R. (2014). Beyond strategic human resource management: is sustainable human resource

management the next approach? The International Journal of Human Resource Management,

25(8), 1069–1089.

Lakshmi, V. R., Kennedy, H. (2017). The role of business sustainability in Human Resource

Management: A study on Indian manufacturing companies. The South East Asian Journal of

Management, 11(1), 70-85.

Langwell, C., Heaton, D. (2016). Using human resource activities to implement sustainability in

SMEs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 23 (3), 652-670.

Li, S., Ngniatedema, T., Chen, F. (2017). Understanding the impact of Green Initiatives and Green

Performance on financial performance in the US. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26, 776-

790.

Lia, 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.

Lis, B. (2012). The Relevance of Corporate Social Responsibility for a Sustainable Human

Resource Management: An Analysis of Organizational Attractiveness as a Determinant in

Employees’ Selection of a (Potential) Employer. Management revue, 23(3), 279-295.

Longoni, A., Cagliano, R. (2016) Human resource and customer benefits through sustainable

operations. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 36(12), 1719-1740.

Magbool, M. A. H., Amran, A., Nejati, M., Jayaraman, K. (2016). Corporate sustainable business

practices and talent attraction. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 7 (4),

539-559.

Martin-Alcazar, F., Romero-Fernandez, P.M., & Sanchez-Gardey, G. (2005). Strategic human

resource management: integrating the universalistic, contingent, configurational and contextual

perspectives. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(5), 633-659.

Masri, H. A., Jaaron, A. A. M. (2017). Assessing green human resource management practices in

Palestinian manufacturing context: An empirical study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 474-

489.

Mazur, B. (2014). Sustainable Human Resource Management in theory and practice. Economics

and Management, 1.

Mazur, B. (2015). Sustainable Human Resource Management. The attempt of holistic approach.

Economics and Management, 7(2), 7-12.

McElroy, M. W., Van Engelen, J. M. (2012). Corporate sustainability management: The art and

science of managing non-financial performance. Routledge.

63

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred

Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS

Medicine, 6(7).

Montiel, I., Delgado-Ceballos, H. (2014). Defining and Measuring Corporate Sustainability: Are

We There Yet? Organization & Environment. 27(1).

Morgeson, F.P., Aguinis, H., Waldman, D., Siegel, D.S. (2013). Extending Corporate Social

Responsibility research to the Human Resource Management and orgnizational behavior domains:

A look to the future. Personnel Psychology, 66, 805-824.

Newman, A., Miao, Q., Hofman, P.S., Zhu, C. J. (2016). The impact of socially responsible human

resource management on employees’ organizational citizenship behaviour: the mediating role of

organizational identification. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(4),

440–455.

O’Donohue, W., Torugsa, N. (2016). 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, 27 (2), 239–261.

Parkes, C., Davis, A. J. (2013). Ethics and social responsibility – do HR professionals have the

‘courage to challenge’ or are they set to be permanent ‘bystanders?’. The International Journal of

Human Resource Management, 24 (12), 2411–2434.

Passalidou, O. (2016). Sustainable Human Resource Management (Master’s Dissertation,

International Hellenic University, Thessaloniki, Greece).

Paille, P., Chen, Y., Jin, J., Boiral, O. (2014). The Impact of Human Resource Management on

Environmental Performance: An Employee-Level Study. Journal Business Ethics, 121, 451-466.

Persson, S., Agostini, B., Kleber, A. (2017). In praise of a flexible and sustainable HR support".

Journal of Management Development, 36 (3), 298-308.

Persson, S., Shrivastava, P. (2016). Sustainable Development of Human Resources Inspired by

Chinese Philosophies: A Repositioning Based on Francois Jullien’s Works. Management and

Organization Review, 12(3), 503–524.

Pinzone, M., Guerci, M., Lettieri, E., Redman, T. (2016). Progressing in the change journey

towards sustainability in healthcare: the role of “Green” HRM. Journal of Cleaner Production,

122, 201-211.

Radu, M. (2012). Empirical Study on the Indicators of Sustainable Performance -the Sustainability

Balanced Scorecard, Effect of Strategic Organizational Change. Sustainability and Organizational

Change, 14(32).

Rayner, J., Morgan, D. (2018) An empirical study of ‘green’ workplace behaviours: ability,

motivation and opportunity. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 56(7).

64

Reilly, A. H., Hynan, K. A. (2014). Corporate communication, sustainability, and social media:

It’s not easy (really) being green. Business Horizons, 57, 747—758.

Renwick, D. W. S., Jabbour, C. J. C., Muller-Camen, M., Redman, T., Wilkinson, A. (2016).

Contemporary developments in Green (environmental) HRM scholarship. The International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 27, (2), 114–128.

Renwick, D. W. S., Redman, T., Maguire, S. (2013). Green Human Resource Management: A

review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15, 1-14.

Rok, M., Mulej, M. (2014). CSR-based model for HRM in tourism and hospitality. Kybernetes,

43 (3/4), 346-362.

Rothenberg, S., Hull, C.E., Tang, Z. (2015). The Impact of Human Resource Management on

Corporate Social Performance Strengths and Concerns. Business & Society, 56(3), 391 – 418.

Saifulina, N., Carballo-Penela, A. (2017). Promoting Sustainable Development at an

Organizational Level: An Analysis of the Drivers of Workplace Environmentally Friendly

Behaviour of Employees. Sustainable Development, 25, 299–310.

Sarmah, B., Islam, J. U., Rahman, Z. (2015). Sustainability, social responsibility and value co-

creation: A case study based approach. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 189, 314 – 319

Savaneviciene, A., & Stankeviciute, Z. (2014). The disclosure of sustainability and human

resource management linkage. Human Resources Management & Ergonomics, 8(1).

Savaneviciene, A., & Stankeviciute, Z. (2017). Smart power as a pathway for employing

sustainable Human Resource Management. Inzinerine Ekonomika – Engineering Economics,

28(2), 198-206.

Saufi, N. A. A., Daud, S., Hassan, H. (2016). Green Growth and Corporate Sustainability

Performance. Procedia Economics and Finance, 35, 374 – 378.

Schaltegger, S., Burritt, R., Zvezdov, D., Horisch, J., Tingey-Holyoak, J. (2015). Management

Roles and Sustainability Information. Exploring Corporate Practice. Australian Accounting

Review, 25(4).

Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E., Ludeke-Freund, F. (2016). Business Models for Sustainability:

Origins, Present Research, and Future Avenues. Organization & Environment. 29(1), 3-10.

Schroeder, H. (2012). The Importance of Human Resource Management in Strategic

Sustainability: An Art and Science Perspective. Journal of Environmental Sustainability, 2(4), 75-

82.

Schuler, D., Rasche, A., Etzion, D., (2017). Corporate Sustainability Management and

Environmental Ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(2).

Schulz, S. A., Flanigan, R. L. (2016). Developing competitive advantage using the triple bottom

line: a conceptual framework. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 31(4), 449-458.

65

Singh, S., Kumar, M. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility and Human Resource Management.

UNNATI-The Business Journal, 1 (2).

Skare, M., Golja, T. (2012). Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Financial Performance

– Is There a Link? Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 25(1), 215-242.

Speziale, M.T., Kloviene, L. (2014). The relationship between performance measurement and

sustainability reporting: a literature review. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 156, 633

– 638

Stankeviciute, Z., Savaneviciene, A. (2013). Sustainability as a concept for Human Resource

Management. Economics and management, 18(4).

Strand, R. (2014). Strategic leadership of Corporate Sustainability. Journal Business Ethics, 123,

687-706.

Svensson, G., Høgevold, N., Ferro, C., Varela, J. C. S., Padin, C., Wagner, B. (2016). A Triple

Bottom Line Dominant Logic for Business Sustainability: Framework and Empirical Findings.

Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 23, 153-188.

Sugiyama, D., Shirahada, K., Kosaka, M. (2012). Strategis 5Ps and their IT based service business

model for Corporate Sustainability. Proceedings of PICMET '12: Technology Management for

Emerging Technologies.

Supanti, D., Butcher, K., Fredline, L. (2015) Enhancing the employer-employee relationship

through corporate social responsibility (CSR) engagement. International Journal of

Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(7), 1479-1498.

Suriyankietkaew, S. (2016). Effects of sustainable leadership on customer satisfaction: Evidence

from Thailand. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 8(3), 245-259.

Szczepanska-Woczczyna, K. (2015). Responsible leadership contribution to Human Resource

Management. Procedia – Economics and Finance, 34, 403-409.

Tabatabaei, S. A. N., Omran, E. S., Hashemi, S., Sedaghat, M. (2017), Presenting Sustainable

HRM Model Based on Balanced Scorecard in Knowledge-based ICT Companies (The Case of

Iran). Economics and Sociology, 10 (2), 07-124.

Tang, G., Chen, Y., Jiang, Y., Paille, P., Jia, J. (2018). Green human resource management

practices: scale development and validity. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 56, 31-55.

Tasleem, M., Khan, N., Saleem, M., Shah, S. T. H., Nisar, A. (2017). Six Steps Implementation

Framework for Corporate Sustainability Performance Management. RISUS - Journal on

Innovation and Sustainability, 8(3).

Tregidga, H., Milne, M., Kearins, K. (2014). (Re)presenting “sustainable organizations”.

Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39, 477-494.

66

Turnbull, S., Williams, S. (2015). Developing the next generation of globally responsible leaders:

Generation Y perspective and the implications for Green HRD. Advances in Developing Human

Resources, 17(4), 504-521.

Urbaniec, M. (2015). From environmental management to corporate sustainability. The 9th

International Days of Statistics and Economics, Prague.

Van Thiel, S. (2014). Research Methods in Public Administration and Public Management: An

Introduction. London

Vanderstaeten, A. (2014). Human Resource Management and Performance. Gent. Academia

Press.

Vanderstraeten, A., Banic, V. (2015). HRM Cockpit: Een duurzaam Human Resource beleid in de

social profit en publieke sector. Gent.

Vavra, J., Bednarikova, M., Ehlova, Z. (2012). Assessment of sustainability aspects in a company.

7th International Scientific Conference “Business and Management 2012”, 775-782.

Venkatraman S., Nayak, R.R. (2015). Corporate sustainability: an IS approach for integrating

Triple Bottom Line elements. Social Responsibility Journal, 11 (3), 482-501.

Venkatraman S., Nayak, R. R. (2015b). Relationship among Triple Bottom Line elements. Focus

on integrating sustainable business practices. Journal of Global Responsibility, 6(2), 195-214.

Vigneau, L., Moon, J., Humphreys, M. (2015). How Do Firms Comply with International

Sustainability Standards? Processes and Consequences of Adopting the Global Reporting

Initiative. Journal Business ethics, 131, 469-486.

Vildåsen, S. S., Keitsch, M., Fet, A. M. (2017). Clarifying the Epistemology of Corporate

Sustainability. Ecological Economics Elsevier.

Vitari, C., David, C. (2017). Sustainable management models: innovating through permaculture.

Journal of Management Development, 36(1), 14-36.

Voegtlin, C., Greenwood, M. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and human resource

management: A systematic review and conceptual analysis. Human Resource Management

Review, 26, 181–197.

Voets, J. (2018). Lecture Onderzoeksmethoden toegepast in publiek management en

bestuurskunde (‘OM-BPM’), Sessie 21/03/2018. Gent.

Wagner, M. (2013). “Green” Human Resource Benefits: Do they Matter as Determinants of

Environmental Management System Implementation? Journal Business Ethics, 114, 443–456.

Wagner, M. (2015). The link of environmental and economic performance: Drivers and limitations

of sustainability integration. Journal of Business Research, 68, 1306–1317.

67

Wagner, M. (2015b). A European perspective on country moderation effects: Environmental

management systems and sustainability-related human resource benefits. Journal of World

Business, 50, 379–388.

Walker, K., Ni, N., Dyck, B. (2015). Recipes for successful sustainability: Empirical

Organizational Configurations for Strong Corporate Environmental Performance. Business

Strategy and the Environment, 24, 40-57.

Wang, Y., Chen, Y. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: event study

cases. Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, 12, 193–219

Whiteman, G., Walker, B., Perego, P. (2013). Planetary boundaries: Ecological foundations for

Corporate Sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 50 (2).

Wilburn, K., Wilburn, R. (2014). The double bottom line: profit and social benefit. Buziness

Horizons, 57, 11-20.

Windolph, S. E., Harms, D., Schaltegger, S. (2014). Motivations for Corporate Sustainability

Management: Contrasting Survey Results and Implementation. Corporate Social Responsibility

and Environmental Management, 21, 272–285.

Wolf, J. (2013). Improving the Sustainable Development of Firms: The role of employees.

Business Strategy and The Environment, 22, 92-108.

Xing, Y., Starik, M. (2017). Taoist leadership and employee green behaviour: a cultural and

philosophical microfoundation of sustainability. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38, 1302-

1319.

Yong, J. Y., Mohd-Yusoff, Y. (2016). Studying the influence of strategic human resource

competencies on the adoption of green human resource management practices. Industrial and

Commercial Training, 48 (8), 416-422.

Yu, M., Zhao, R. (2015). Sustainability and firm valuation: an international investigation.

International journal of Accounting and Information Management, 23(3), 289-307.

Zhang, M., Di Fan, D., Zhu, C. J. (2014). High-Performance Work Systems, Corporate Social

Performance and Employee Outcomes: Exploring the Missing Links. Journal Business Ethics,

120, 423-435.

Zibarras, L. D., Coan, P. (2015). HRM practices used to promote pro-environmental behavior: a

UK survey. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26 (16), 2121–2142.

critical research on sustainabilityt in hrm · 2018-08-29 · green hrm practices ... since...

Documents