Employee Green Behaviour in Pakistani Education Sector: Does Green Perceived Organisational Support Mediate the Relation between Green Human Resource Management and Employee Green Behaviours?

Abstract

Human inappropriate behaviour is being criticised for changing the climate because it wastes resources, pollutes water and contaminates the air, thereby demeaning the environment. To contribute to the United Nations’ sustainable development goals for 2019, companies have begun to focus on green human resource initiatives to promote green perspectives in their employees. In this regard, green human resource management may assist companies in motivating their employees towards environmentally friendly practices, but green perceived organisational support remains unexplored in this context. To address this gap, based on the theory of planned behaviour, this study aims to investigate the effect of green human resource management on employee green behaviour through the mediation effect of green perceived organisational support in the higher education sector of Pakistan. The questionnaire survey was used to collect data from the employees of the higher education sector. Findings show that green human resource management is a strong predictor of employee green behaviour, while green perceived organisational support is a significant mediator between green human resource management and employee green behaviour. Theoretical implications and practical significance have been addressed in this study.

Keywords

Green human resource management green perceived organisational support employee green behaviours in-role green behaviours extra-role green behaviours

Introduction

Climate change is a major issue in the modern world since global warming affects humans (Kura, 2016). The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change published a report that, between 1980 and 2012, there was a 0.85 °C rise in temperature, which had a negative impact on total crop production (as a 5% decrease in total yield can be seen with every 1 °C increase in temperature). Furthermore, due to the warm climate, a 40 Mt fall in wheat, rice, maize and other crops was observed between the years 1981 and 2002. Due to polar glaciers melting, the water level at sea has risen by 19 cm because of the extreme weather. According to a survey, if greenhouse gas secretions continue at the same pace, by the end of the twenty-first century, the global temperature will have risen by 1.5 °C. According to the report, carbon dioxide emissions have risen significantly between the years 2000 and 2010 than in the world in the previous 33 years (IPCC, 2018). Extreme climate change and carbon emissions cause more or less 4.3 million deaths annually and a yearly financial loss of $2–4 billion, as per the report of the World Health Organisation (WHO, 2018). The above discussed are the few factors why the UN has set its goals for sustainable development for 2020–2021 and has a special emphasis on extreme climate change.

Organisations are currently under intense pressure to operate in an ecologically responsible manner from the government, non-government stakeholders, customers, environmental activists and employee unions (Iqbal, 2020). Corporations have been considered accountable for extreme climate change by recent studies, as they continue to emit carbon dioxide into the environment and harmful chemicals into the water (Aboramadan, 2020; Robertson & Barling, 2017). As a result, there is a considerable increasing trend among stakeholders in environmentally friendly practices (Boiral et al., 2018). Consequently, businesses have moved to green business strategies, with the primary focus on adopting green strategies into all operational structures (Islam et al., 2019; Wagner, 2011). Human activities are held liable to increase global warming by wasting the country’s resources and contaminating air and water, causing harm to the atmosphere. Consequently, the primary motive of the organisation has diverted to practices that assisted in the development of green behaviours (Islam et al., 2020). The literature suggests that corporations should effectively implement green human resource management (GHRM) to incite and provoke staff green actions to attain the green goals of the corporation (Shafaei et al., 2020). According to Dumont et al. (2017), GHRM is just a new concept in academia. Consequently, indicators and outcomes of GHRM are still unexplored (Roscoe et al., 2019). In recent few numbers of years, across the world, several educational institutions have tried to integrate the sustainability of the environment and green human resource activities into their services. According to León-Fernández and Domínguez-Vilches (2015), higher education institutions must perform a significant part in the adoption of approaches and solutions to address contemporary climate change. According to Gilal et al. (2019), higher education institutions should adopt the ‘Go Green’ ideology to promote an eco-friendly workplace climate. GHRM activities are taken as vital human resource management (HRM) tactics to increase workers’ environmental consciousness at the workplace to inspire employee green behaviours (EGB) (Aboramadan, 2020).

GHRM research has accelerated in recent few years, with studies being conducted in a variety of sectors, including tourism and hospitality (Luu, 2017), a study conducted in information and technology (Ojo & Raman, 2019), and a study on the automobile industry (Chaudhary, 2019). But there is limited literature on GHRM in the education sector (Aboramadan, 2020; Gilal et al., 2019). A recent study by Pham et al. (2019) verified this and argued that more research in a variety of service sectors is needed. Among the few studies, Fawehinmi et al. (2020) discovered that GHRM improves EGB by the mediation of environmental awareness, and Aboramadan (2020) discovered that GHRM improves EGB by the mediation of green work engagement. Also, as suggested earlier by Aboramadan (2020), this study investigates whether GHRM furthers the EGB via the green perceived organisation support (GPOS).

The findings can help higher education officials to understand how GHRM can help employees to show eco-friendly behaviours. This research is special for several different reasons. For starters, it adds to GHRM literature in general. Second, it adds to the relatively small piece of literature on GHRM in the education sector (Aboramadan, 2020). Third, this is the main contribution of the paper as it is one of few papers that introduced a construct named ‘GPOS’ in the literature, and it has been introduced and analysed as an intervening between GHRM and EGB.

Literature review and Hypothesis

GHRM

According to Opatha and Arulrajah (2014), the formation, execution, and ongoing maintenance of pro-environmental processes, strategies, and propaganda designed for the environmental sustainability of a firm’s employees, for the collective welfare of persons, community, the natural atmosphere and the corporation, are referred to as GHRM. The demand for GHRM, which concentrates on environmental business priorities, has grown in recent years, as such practices assist companies in coordinating their human resources (HR) plan with their corporate strategy (Islam et al., 2020). Employees are more inclined to participate in long-term pro-social activities when they are encouraged through green practices (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005). So, by only involving HR in environmental sustainability initiatives, positive outcomes can be achieved (Aboramadan, 2020). HR activities include all those activities which are aligned with organisational priorities in a structured and organised manner (Kim et al., 2019). So, according to Gilal et al. (2019), recruiting, selection, training of employees, growth, encouragement and performance assessment are all GHRM functions aimed at achieving environmental goals. A four-stage GHRM model is suggested by Milliman and Clair (1996), which explains: (a) upper executives must have a vision for the environment; (b) employees must be trained according to the vision of HR departments to safeguard the environment; (c) eco-friendly conduct as one of the criteria for evaluating employee efficiency; and (d) those who behave in an environmentally friendly manner should be rewarded. Such people generate better job results, strengthen their ecological attitudes (Gilal et al., 2019), reduce waste in the environment (Robertson & Barling, 2013), contribute to green culture (Muster & Schrader, 2011) and improve environmental efficiency (Saeed et al., 2019).

GPOS

According to Eisenberger et al. (1986), the expression ‘POS’ refers to the staff’s belief in organisational support when their services to the corporation were greatly regarded, and they were provided with a welfare program by the corporation. Employees viewed POS as a surety that they would still obtain the desired support and assistance from the corporation to complete their tasks and assignments efficiently (George et al., 1993). According to Jain and Sinha (2005), the social attachment desires, contributions, dedication and devotion of a person recognised by that corporation were referred to as perceived organisational support. So, when green behaviours by environmentally friendly workers are welcomed, rewarded and supported by the corporation, then the employee will perceive this support of the organisation as GPOS. In short, GPOS considers a person’s perception of the organisational green assurance to them. Since friendly GHRM activities are voluntary services by the organisation that seems to be likely to favour the green employee, they can be used as measures that the company cares for its green employees’ well-being and can therefore be relied on for future benefits. Employees’ perceptions of POS will improve as a result of such positive evaluations (Nasurdin et al., 2008).

EGB

EGB refers to actions taken by workers with the goal of helping the environment (Stern, 2000). Employees’ identifiable decisions and activities aimed at environmental protection are referred to as EGB (Ones & Dilchert, 2012). A green worker is just a person who works to minimise the risk of changes in the influence natural environment, is proactive while using the country’s natural resources opposes destroying the environment and aims to ameliorate and strengthen the environment in a positive way (Opatha & Arulrajah, 2014). EGB tries to preserve or alleviate environmental damage (Steg & Vlek, 2009), and the in-role and the extra-role aspects are included in EGB. Extra-role green behaviour (ERGB) and in-role green behaviour (IRGB) are both crucial because they improve organisational efficiency (Ramus & Killmer, 2007). Green activities are categorised according to the company objectives of their employees (Dumont et al., 2017). For example, policies requiring workers to dispose of dangerous chemicals or prevent water from toxic components are examples of green behaviours. According to Paillé and Boiral (2013), employees’ structured job descriptions usually contain organisational expected behaviours, which are IRGB, but ERGB is not as essential as staff environmental conservation recommendations. For example, if they do not use them or leave the workplace for whatever reason, they shut off lights, ceiling fans and computers. Green business actions must be aligned with the green goals of the business, for both aspects of EGB are essential and should be present in the workplace (Norton et al., 2014; Yuriev et al., 2020), but Gilal et al. (2019) say that green action, on the other hand, is reliant on a lot of situations.

GHRM and EGB

The behaviour of workers at work depends on how their organisation’s views of such HRM activities are based (Nishii et al., 2008). According to Saeed et al. (2019) and Kim et al. (2019), an enormous literature shows that GHRM activities enhance the environmental efficiency of companies by optimising the actions of workers (Elrehail et al., 2019). Workers are encouraged to be environmentally conscious in a variety of ways through GHRM. For example, HR efforts can aid in the development of competencies, motivation and employee participation in green initiatives. According to Chaudhary (2019), the environmental business concerns reflected in GHRM activities build a work environment that appeals to candidates who value and consider the environment. Renwick et al. (2013) pointed out that employees’ green intuition was greatly affected by green recruiting, green development and green information dissemination. Likewise, training initiatives aimed at improving workers’ expertise, abilities and skills to safeguard the environment will encourage them to follow green practices (Pless et al., 2012). GHRM activities such as recruiting, selecting candidates and training employees expanded employee environmental consciousness, strengthened their green abilities, and allowed them to recognise environmental issues and take the requisite steps to improve the ecological culture (Jabbour, 2015; Tang et al., 2018). Incorporating ecological considerations into workers’ priorities and obligations, as well as measuring their success against these targets, supported the company in reaching its environmental objectives (Jackson et al., 2011). Furthermore, honouring and praising workers for their environmental efficiency and success may encourage them to go above and beyond their conventional job responsibilities (Renwick et al., 2013). IRGB and ERGB are the dimensions of EGB (Ramus & Killmer, 2007). Norton et al. (2014) and Robertson and Barling (2013) stated that corporations appreciate these activities because employee success and citizenship responsibilities are critical to the accomplishment of overall corporate sustainability goals. Pinzone et al. (2016) annotated that employees were motivated to work for the environment of the corporation because of HR activities related to the environment, and they also go beyond and above their specified targets. According to the literature, such environmental considerations by organisations provide a perception of a sustainable company in the minds of managers and employees, causing them to continue to balance personal and business priorities and commit more efforts to accomplish organisational ecological goals (Ahmad et al., 2019; Farooq et al., 2014). The following hypotheses are derived from the preceding debate.

H₁: GHRM has a favourable impact on IRGB.

H₂: GHRM has a favourable impact on ERGB.

The Mediation Effect of GPOS

The social attachment desires, contributions, dedication and devotion of a person recognised by that corporation were referred to as perceived organisational support (Jain & Sinha, 2005). So, when green behaviours by the workers who are environmentally friendly are welcomed, rewarded and supported by the corporation, then the employee will perceive this support of the organisation as GPOS. GHRM activities are voluntary services by the organisation that seems to be likely to favour the green employee; they can be used as measures that the company cares for its green employees’ well-being and can therefore be relied on for future benefits (Nasurdin et al., 2008). POS is described as ‘a common perception of how much the organisation values its workers’ overall contributions and prudence about their prosperity’ (Eisenberger et al., 1990). The favourable relationship between POS and organisational commitment has been empirically proven in past research (Eisenberger et al., 1990; Loi et al., 2006; Randall et al., 1999). So, when they receive GPOS from the company, they will be more committed to showing green behaviours. Drawing on the discussion given above in previous sections, POS can be argued for mediating between the association of GHR practices and EGB. If the HR activities that represent a firm’s voluntary treatment are seen as supportive, this would prove that the organisation is solicitous about the well-being of its staff and could then be reaped as a reward (Nasurdin et al., 2008). Organisations’ HRM activities will transmit a message that they regard their workers as long-term investments. This optimistic judgement will enhance employees’ confidence in POS. POS will provide the worker with a responsibility to look after the organisation’s well-being and support in accomplishing its goals. Employees will reimburse their responsibilities by increasing affective commitment to help the company by showing green behaviours in the shape of IRGB and ERGB (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Mowday et al., 2013). So, from the above discussion, the following hypotheses are formulated:

H₃: GPOS mediates between GHRM and IRGB.

H₄: GPOS mediates between GHRM and ERGB.

Theoretical Model

Theoretical Consideration

This study is underpinned by the theory named the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991). TPB is a psychological theory that relates beliefs to behaviour. According to the TPB, an individual’s behavioural intentions are shaped by three fundamental components: attitude of a person, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control of a person. TPB asserts that behavioural success is determined by both motivation (intention) and ability (behavioural control). It is one of the theories in environmental studies that are more frequently used (Blok et al., 2015; Safari et al., 2018; Wesselink et al., 2017). According to Ajzen and Fishbein (2000), the most accurate indicator of behaviour is an individual’s desire to engage in behaviour. One’s attitude towards the behaviour, their subjective norms, and behavioural control over the circumstance in which they are expected to perform and conduct in a particular way are the three constructions that make up the antecedents of the intention to act. The beliefs of an individual on the repercussions of particular actions are referred to as attitudes (Cordano et al., 2010), whereas collective ideas about how a person ought to behave and act make up subjective norms (Conner & Armitage, 1998). The idea that one is ‘in control’ of displaying the desired behaviour is known as a sense of behavioural control (Ajzen, 1991). So, according to this theory, through GHRM when a company hires green employees, provides them with green training which is eco-friendly, and then management provides support to the employees through the help of GPOS. Employees will discern that corporation is thinking about their welfare and even about their society. Then they will take a behavioural step with the intention that they will show green behaviours, even those which are not part of their formal job duties, because the most accurate indicator of behaviour is an individual’s desire to engage in behaviour (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2000). So, according to this psychology theory, an employee can be motivated for showing green behaviour by providing him green support (social attachment desires, contributions, dedication and devotion of a person recognised by that corporation) and considering their welfare. Based on the theoretical support of the TPB and hypothesis development, the following theoretical model (Figure 1) has been developed.

Figure 1.

Research Framework.

Research Methodology

Research Participants and Samples

The target population for this study was all the staff working in the higher education sector of Pakistan, and unit of analysis was ‘individual’. The author has considered all the administrative force and academic employees for this study. According to Krejcie and Morgan (1970), the sample size was 383 because the population was unknown. Data was collected through a survey by distributing questionnaires in the two months of June and July. We obtained data from four cities (Sialkot, Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad) using a stratified random sampling technique. Initially, cities were considered strata, and then randomly four strata were selected. The authors distributed 400 questionnaires, and the response rate was 65.25% (261), as 139 questionnaires were returned unsolved. According to the demographics of the participants and socioeconomic factors of the sample (Table 1), 57.08% of males and 42.92% of females filled out the survey. The response rate from different cities was Sialkot (26.44%), Lahore (33.72%), Islamabad (28.35%) and Karachi (11.49%). Teachers and management who were delivering their services for less than 1 year were 13.41%, 1–3 years were 26.82%, 3–5 years were 41% and more than 5 years were 18.77%. 56.7% of teachers have filled in the questionnaire who were delivering their services in various universities, and the management of universities response rate was 43.3%.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of Respondents.

Profile	Category	Percentage
Gender	Male	57.08
	Female	42.92
	Less than 1 year	13.41
Tenure	1–3 years	26.82
	3–5 years	41
	More than 5 years	18.77
	Sialkot	26.44
City	Lahore	33.72
	Karachi	11.49
	Islamabad	28.35
Designation	Teacher	56.7
	Management	43.3

Measurement

To assess the study’s hypotheses, the authors used a questionnaire evaluation. There were four sections of the questionnaire. The first component dealt with the participant’s details, such as gender and experience in university and city. In the second part, respondents were asked about GHRM. Items about GPOS were asked in the third section. The last part covered the questions of EGB. GHRM was assessed using six items devised by the researchers (Dumont et al., 2017). GPOS was measured by five items adapted from an earlier study (Astuty & Udin, 2020). The five items were adjusted to assess GPOS because this scale was initially intended to measure perceived organisational support; for example, ‘my university values employee contribution’ was adjusted to ‘my university values employee green contribution’ to measure GPOS. In the end, employee’s green behaviour was measured by using two dimensions, ERGB and IRGB. The three-item scale of Bissing-Olson et al. (2013) assessed IRGB, and their other three-item scale assessed ERGB. The study used five-point Likert scale from one to five, with one representing ‘strongly disagree’ and five indicating ‘strongly agree’.

Table 2.

Mean Value and S.D.

Variables (n = 261)	Mean	S.D.
GHRM	4.4	0.77
GPOS	4.36	0.75
IRGB	4.39	0.77
ERGB	4.4	0.71

Analysis and Results

The Evaluation Model

A two-way step technique was utilised to evaluate data. To examine the data’s reliability, we employed Composite Reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s alpha. The Standard Factor Loadings (SFL) were calculated, and the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) (Avey et al., 2011) was tested to determine discriminate validity and convergent validity. After establishing the evaluation model, the structural equation model was used to determine the association of four research constructs (GHRM, GPOS, IRGB and ERGB). SmartPLS 3.0 was used for the statistical analysis of the study (Figure 2 and table 2).

Figure 2.

Source: Generated by smart-PSL software.

To begin, confirmatory factory analysis predicted the evaluation model. All of the study’s variables were loaded with their appropriate measurement items, and correlation analysis variables were approved (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).

To examine the data’s reliability, we used CR and Cronbach’s alpha. All the variables had Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from 0.78 to 0.91 (Table 3). All the variables’ Cronbach’s alphas met the minimum threshold of 0.70. All the constructs’ CR values range from 0.87 to 0.93, which were higher than the usual CR value of 0.70. This analysis demonstrated that the data is completely trustworthy, allowing us to proceed to the validity phase. The threshold of significance was 0.70, and the SFL items ranged from 0.80 to 0.88, which were higher than average. The AVE values are all in the range of 0.69–0.75, with a threshold of significance of 0.50. In conclusion, the research data demonstrate high reliability and validity. The chi-square test and numerous fit indices were used to determine the model’s fitness for CFA. The chi-square value was 389.68, and 2.56 was the $χ^{2}$ /df value. The CFI value (0.92) was higher than the recommended standard value (Bentler, 1990). The RMSEA was 0.097, and the NFI was 0.90, which was also noteworthy. The models’ overall fitness was found to be acceptable based on the statistical findings.

Table 3.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Constructs	Items	SFL
	GHRM-1	0.82
GHRM	GHRM-2	0.80
Cronbach’s α = 0.91	GHRM-3	0.81
CR = 0.93	GHRM-4	0.85
AVE = 0.69	GHRM-5	0.83
	GHRM-6	0.86
GPOS	GPOS-1	0.86
Cronbach’s α = 0.89	GPOS-2	0.80
CR = 0.92	GPOS-3	0.81
AVE = 0.69	GPOS-4	0.80
	GPOS-5	0.87
IRGB	IRGB-1	0.87
Cronbach’s α = 0.83	IRGB-2	0.85
CR = 0.90	IRGB-3	0.86
AVE = 0.75
ERGB	ERGB-1	0.85
Cronbach’s α = 0.78	ERGB-2	0.80
CR = 0.87	ERGB-3	0.84
AVE = 0.70

Note: Overall Model fit: chi-square ( $χ^{2}$ ) = 389.68, $χ^{2}$ /df= 2.56, p < .001, Comparative-Fit Index (CFI) = 0.92, Normed-fit index (NFI) = 0.90, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.097.

To reduce method bias, precautions were taken during the data collection process. We made changes to the scales’ components to lessen bias and reassured respondents that there were no right or incorrect answers, which reduced evaluation anxiety. The survey questions were made simple to grasp by our design. To address common method bias (CMV), an analysis utilising principal component analysis and Harman’s single-factor test was carried out. Six factors were identified in the results (Table 4), which met the requirement of less than 50% variance explained. This demonstrated a lack of CMV, making its impact on the study’s findings insignificant and confirming the quality of the data.

Table 4.

Total Variance Explained.

	Initial Eigenvalues			Extraction of Sum of Squared Loadings
Factor	Total	% of Variance	Cumulative %	Total	% of Variance	Cumulative %
1	2.870	47.839	47.839	2.389	38.810	38.810
2	2.232	37.197	85.036
3	0.454	7.566	92.602
4	0.284	4.740	97.342
5	0.109	1.818	99.160
6	0.050	0.840	100.000

Note: Extraction method: principal axis factoring.

The next step, as proposed by Gholami et al. (2013), was to conduct a discriminant validity test. If a concept is genuinely different from another construct, discriminant validity is achieved, and it also assesses how many indicators indicate just one construct. To establish that the variables were statistically unique from other components, a precise evaluation of discriminant validity was required (Hair et al., 2019). As per Henseler et al. (2015), the study reported discriminatory validity utilising the HTMT ratio at this level. If the HTMT value is greater than 0.85, there is a serious problem with discriminant validity (Franke & Sarstedt, 2019). The HTMT criterion was lower than the 0.85 threshold, as stated in Table 5, indicating that discriminatory validity had been demonstrated.

Table 5.

Discriminant Validity (HTMT).

ERGB	GHRM	GPOS	IRGB
ERGB
GHRM	0.764
GPOS	0.821	0.756
IRGB	0.742	0.843	0.814

Results

It was observed that a high level of GHRM was associated with a high level of IRGB and ERGB. So, H₁ and H₂ were answered affirmatively. The path from the explanatory variable of GHRM to the mediator of GPOS and from the GPOS to outcome variables of IRGB and ERGB suggested positive associations. The high-level GHRM was associated with the high level of GPOS, and the high level of GPOS was associated with high levels of IRGB and ERGB. Answering H₃ and H₄ affirmatively, GPOS was the vehicle through which the effects of GHRM were passed on to IRGB and ERGB. Thus, GPOS mediated the path relations of GHRM with IRGB and GHRM with ERGB (Table 6). To estimate how much effect was passed through the mediator, the ratio of indirect effect divided by total effects was converted to a percentage (Hair Jr et al., 2014). It was observed that GPOS, the mediator, explained only 38% variance in the relationship of GHRM and IRGB, and 39% variance in the relationship of GHRM and ERGB. Accordingly, the mediation effects were partial, not full.

Table 6.

Main Effects.

	Path Coeff.	S.D.	T Values	P Values
GHRM -> IRGB	0.77	0.06	12.83	.000
GHRM -> ERGB	0.76	0.06	12.67	.000
GHRM -> GPOS	0.92	0.02	45.15	.000
GPOS -> IRGB	0.51	0.12	4.23	.000
GPOS -> ERGB	0.49	0.13	3.76	.000

Discussion

Corporations have been criticised in literature for contributing significantly to climate change since they continue to release hazardous chemicals and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (Aboramadan, 2020; Robertson & Barling, 2017). As a result, stakeholders are using environmentally friendly techniques to a far greater extent (Boiral et al., 2018). Consequently, businesses are now concentrating on developing green business strategies with the main objective of integrating green practices into all operational frameworks. According to our findings, GHRM has a significant influence on EGB, and GPOS has suggested a good mediator between GHRM and EGB. Our findings corroborated the findings of the studies (Aboramadan, 2020), which explored a positive relationship between GHRM and EGB with the mediation effect of environmental awareness, and also corroborated with (Fawehinmi et al., 2020); they also explored a significant relationship between GHRM and EGB with the mediation mechanism of green-work engagement. Our findings are also consistent with earlier studies (Chaudhary, 2019; Fawehinmi et al., 2020; Islam et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2019). As we have introduced a mediator, GPOS, and according to the results GPOS has shown to be an effective mediator between GHRM and EGB. The results of our research backed up the findings of the study of Hameed et al. (2021). This study explored the effect of GHRM on the employees’ green creativity with the mediation mechanism of GPOS, as employees’ green creativity is a closed construct of EGB. According to this research’s findings, employees who get GPOS from an organisation may be encouraged to engage in green behaviours even if they are not required to do so by their formal job obligations.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

In numerous ways, our research contributes to the literature. First, this study is contributing to the literature on GHRM in the services sector, especially in the education sector, except (Aboramadan, 2020), as Pham et al. (2019) argued for more research in the services sector. Literature shows that many researchers have investigated the effect of GHRM on EGB and environmental performance (Aftab et al., 2023; Shah & Soomro, 2023), but these studies have been undertaken on manufacturing sector and were not responding to the call of Pham et al. (2019). Second, this is the main contribution of the study as it is one of few papers which introduced a construct named ‘GPOS’ in a body of literature, and it has been introduced as a mediator between GHRM and EGBs except the findings of Hameed et al. (2021). There are also practical implications of this study, as this helps managers and companies to motivate their employees towards green behaviours. Because environmental issues such as global temperatures, recurrent forest fires and contamination of water and soil resources have become more prevalent in recent years, the green attitude of employees consists of a set of actions that lead to environmental sustainability, such as environmental conservation, conserving energy and reconfiguring waste (Ones & Dilchert, 2012). GHRM can motivate employees towards green behaviours, but the HR department can motivate employees towards green behaviours, even those that are not part of their formal job duties, when the corporation provides employees with the GPOS.

Conclusion

Through the mediation effect of GPOS, the study examined the effect of GHRM on EGB, such as the IRGB and the ERGB. Data was collected from the employees of higher education sector of Pakistan by distributing a questionnaire. The results demonstrated that GHRM has a significant impact on EGB, and GPOS is found to be a significant mediator between GHRM and EGB. According to the findings, corporations can motivate their employees towards green behaviour through GHRM and by providing them with GPOS.

Limitations and Future Directions

Even though this research has both theoretical implications and practical applications, it has some limitations. The first limitation of this study is that it has collected data from a developing country with a high rate of unemployment. Employees with no other options are found to prioritise output over green outcomes (Islam & Tariq, 2018). Future research should concentrate on other parts of the globe to provide more generalised results. Second, the study’s design is cross-sectional, which limits the ability to draw cause-and-effect findings. A longitudinal research design could be used in future studies to examine the framework over time. Future studies can investigate the effect of other intervening variables such as self-efficacy or organisational identification between GHRM and EGB. Future researchers can also investigate the same model by introducing a moderating variable such as green transformational leadership or servant leadership.

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees of the journal for their extremely useful suggestions to improve the quality of the paper. Usual disclaimers apply.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data is not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

ORCID iD

Muhammad Wasim Akram

References

Aboramadan

(2020). The effect of green HRM on employee green behaviors in higher education: The mediating mechanism of green work engagement. International Journal of Organizational Analysis , 30(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-05-2020-2190

Aftab

, Abid

, Cucari

, & Savastano

(2023). Green human resource management and environmental performance: The role of green innovation and environmental strategy in a developing country. Business Strategy and the Environment , 32(4), 1782–1798. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3219

Ahmad

, Donia

M. B.

, & Shahzad

(2019). Impact of corporate social responsibility attributions on employees’ creative performance: The mediating role of psychological safety. Ethics & Behavior , 29(6), 490–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2018.1501566

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Ajzen

, & Fishbein

(2000). Attitudes and the attitude-behavior relation: Reasoned and automatic processes. European Review of Social Psychology , 11(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779943000116

Anderson

J. C.

, & Gerbing

D. W.

(1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin , 103(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

Astuty

, & Udin

(2020). The effect of perceived organizational support and transformational leadership on affective commitment and employee performance. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business , 7(10), 401–411. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no10.401

Avey

J. B.

, Palanski

M. E.

, & Walumbwa

F. O.

(2011). When leadership goes unnoticed: The moderating role of follower self-esteem on the relationship between ethical leadership and follower behavior. Journal of Business Ethics , 98, 573–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0610-2

Bentler

P. M.

(1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin , 107(2), 238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238

10.

Bissing-Olson

M. J.

, Iyer

, Fielding

K. S.

, & Zacher

(2013). Relationships between daily affect and pro-environmental behavior at work: The moderating role of pro-environmental attitude. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 34(2), 156–175. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1788

11.

Blok

, Wesselink

, Studynka

, & Kemp

(2015). Encouraging sustainability in the workplace: A survey on the pro-environmental behaviour of university employees. Journal of Cleaner Production , 106, 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.063

12.

Boiral

, Raineri

, & Talbot

(2018). Managers’ citizenship behaviors for the environment: A developmental perspective. Journal of Business Ethics , 149(2), 395–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3098-6

13.

Boudreau

J. W.

, & Ramstad

P. M.

(2005). Talentship, talent segmentation, and sustainability: A new HR decision science paradigm for a new strategy definition. Human Resource Management: Published in Cooperation with the School of Business Administration, The University of Michigan and in alliance with the Society of Human Resources Management , 44(2), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20054

14.

Chaudhary

(2019). Green human resource management in Indian automobile industry. Journal of Global Responsibility , 10(9), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1108/JGR-12-2018-0084

15.

Conner

, & Armitage

C. J.

(1998). Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 28(15), 1429–1464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01685.x

16.

Cordano

, Marshall

R. S.

, & Silverman

(2010). How do small and medium enterprises go “green”? A study of environmental management programs in the US wine industry. Journal of Business Ethics , 92, 463–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0168-z

17.

Dumont

, Shen

, & Deng

(2017). Effects of green HRM practices on employee workplace green behavior: The role of psychological green climate and employee green values. Human Resource Management , 56(4), 613–627. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21792

18.

Eisenberger

, Fasolo

, & Davis-LaMastro

(1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology , 75(1), 51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.1.51

19.

Eisenberger

, Huntington

, Hutchison

, & Sowa

(1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology , 71(3), 500. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500

20.

Elrehail

, Harazneh

, Abuhjeeleh

, Alzghoul

, Alnajdawi

, & Ibrahim

H. M. H.

(2019). Employee satisfaction, human resource management practices and competitive advantage: The case of Northern Cyprus. European Journal of Management and Business Economics , 29(2), 125–149. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJMBE-01-2019-0001

21.

Farooq

, Payaud

, Merunka

, & Valette-Florence

(2014). The impact of corporate social responsibility on organizational commitment: Exploring multiple mediation mechanisms. Journal of Business Ethics , 125(4), 563–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1928-3

22.

Fawehinmi

, Yusliza

M. Y.

, Mohamad

, Faezah

J. N.

, & Muhammad

(2020). Assessing the green behaviour of academics: The role of green human resource management and environmental knowledge. International Journal of Manpower , 41(7), 879–900. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-07-2019-0347

23.

Franke

, & Sarstedt

(2019). Heuristics versus statistics in discriminant validity testing: A comparison of four procedures. Internet Research , 29(3), 430–447. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-12-2017-0515

24.

George

J. M.

, Reed

T. F.

, Ballard

K. A.

, Colin

, & Fielding

(1993). Contact with AIDS patients as a source of work-related distress: Effects of organizational and social support. Academy of management Journal , 36(1), 157–171. https://doi.org/10.5465/256516

25.

Gholami

, Sulaiman

A. B.

, Ramayah

, & Molla

(2013). Senior managers’ perception on green information systems (IS) adoption and environmental performance: Results from a field survey. Information & Management , 50(7), 431–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2013.01.004

26.

Gilal

F. G.

, Ashraf

, Gilal

N. G.

, Gilal

R. G.

, & Channa

N. A.

(2019). Promoting environmental performance through green human resource management practices in higher education institutions: A moderated mediation model. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management , 26(6), 1579–1590. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1835

27.

Hair

J. F.

, Risher

J. J.

, Sarstedt

, & Ringle

C. M.

(2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review , 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203

28.

Hair

J.F.

Jr , Sarstedt

, Hopkins

, & Kuppelwieser

V.G.

(2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review , 26(2), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128

29.

Hameed

, Naeem

R. M.

, Hassan

, Naeem

, Nazim

, & Maqbool

(2021). How GHRM is related to green creativity? A moderated mediation model of green transformational leadership and green perceived organizational support. International Journal of Manpower , 43(3), 595–613. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-05-2020-0244

30.

Henseler

, Ringle

C. M.

, & Sarstedt

(2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8

31.

IPCC. (2018). IPCC climate report 2018 . https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/climate-change/

32.

Iqbal

(2020). The era of environmental sustainability: Ensuring that sustainability stands on human resource management. Global Business Review , 21(2), 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150918778967

33.

Islam

, Ali

, & Asad

(2019). Environmental CSR and pro-environmental behaviors to reduce environmental dilapidation: The moderating role of empathy. Management Research Review , 42(3), 332–351. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-12-2017-0408

34.

Islam

, Khan

M. M.

, Ahmed

, & Mahmood

(2020). Promoting in-role and extra-role green behavior through ethical leadership: Mediating role of green HRM and moderating role of individual green values. International Journal of Manpower , 42(6), 1102–1123. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-01-2020-0036

35.

Islam

, & Tariq

(2018). Learning organizational environment and extra-role behaviors: The mediating role of employee engagement. Journal of Management Development , 37(3), 258–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-01-2017-0039

36.

Jabbour

C. J. C.

(2015). Environmental training and environmental management maturity of Brazilian companies with ISO14001: Empirical evidence. Journal of Cleaner Production , 96, 331–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.039

37.

Jackson

S. E.

, Renwick

D. W.

, Jabbour

C. J.

, & Muller-Camen

(2011). State-of-the-art and future directions for green human resource management: Introduction to the special issue. German Journal of Human Resource Management , 25(2), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/239700221102500203

38.

Jain

A. K.

, & Sinha

A. K.

(2005). General health in organizations: Relative relevance of emotional intelligence, trust, and organizational support. International Journal of Stress Management , 12(3), 257. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.12.3.257

39.

Kim

Y. J.

, Kim

W. G.

, Choi

H. M.

, & Phetvaroon

(2019). The effect of green human resource management on hotel employees’ eco-friendly behavior and environmental performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management , 76, 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.04.007

40.

Krejcie

R. V.

, & Morgan

D. W.

(1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 30(3), 607–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308

41.

Kura

K. M.

(2016). Linking environmentally specific transformational leadership and environmental concern to green behaviour at work. Global Business Review , 17(3_suppl), 1S–14S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150916631069

42.

León-Fernández

, & Domínguez-Vilches

(2015). Environmental management and sustainability in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education , 16(4), 440–455. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-07-2013-0084

43.

Loi

, Hang-Yue

, & Foley

(2006). Linking employees’ justice perceptions to organizational commitment and intention to leave: The mediating role of perceived organizational support. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 79(1), 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905x39657

44.

Luu

T. T.

(2017). CSR and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment in hotel industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , 29(11), 2867–2900. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-02-2016-0080

45.

Milliman

, & Clair

(1996). Best environmental HRM practices in the US . Taylor & Francis Group.

46.

Mowday

R. T.

, Porter

L. W.

, & Steers

R. M.

(2013). Employee—organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover . Academic Press.

47.

Muster

, & Schrader

(2011). Green work-life balance: A new perspective for green HRM. German Journal of Human Resource Management , 25(2), 140–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/239700221102500205

48.

Nasurdin

A. M.

, Hemdi

M. A.

, & Guat

L. P.

(2008). Does perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between human resource management practices and organizational commitment. Asian Academy of Management Journal of Accounting and Finance , 13(1), 15–36.

49.

Nishii

L. H.

, Lepak

D. P.

, & Schneider

(2008). Employee attributions of the “why” of HR practices: Their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer satisfaction. Personnel Psychology , 61(3), 503–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00121.x

50.

Norton

T. A.

, Zacher

, & Ashkanasy

N. M.

(2014). Organisational sustainability policies and employee green behaviour: The mediating role of work climate perceptions. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 38, 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.12.008

51.

Ojo

A. O.

, & Raman

(2019). Role of green HRM practices in employees’ pro-environmental IT practices. World Conference on Information Systems and Technologies .

52.

Ones

D. S.

, & Dilchert

(2012). Environmental sustainability at work: A call to action. Industrial and Organizational Psychology , 5(4), 444–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2012.01478.x

53.

Opatha

H. H. P.

, & Arulrajah

A. A.

(2014). Green human resource management: Simplified general reflections. International Business Research , 7(8), 101.

54.

Paillé

, & Boiral

(2013). Pro-environmental behavior at work: Construct validity and determinants. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 36, 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.07.014

55.

Pham

N. T.

, Hoang

H. T.

, & Phan

Q. P. T.

(2019). Green human resource management: A comprehensive review and future research agenda. International Journal of Manpower , 41(7), 845–878. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-07-2019-0350

56.

Pinzone

, Guerci

, Lettieri

, & Redman

(2016). Progressing in the change journey towards sustainability in healthcare: The role of ‘Green’ HRM. Journal of Cleaner Production , 122, 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.031

57.

Pless

N. M.

, Maak

, & Waldman

D. A.

(2012). Different approaches toward doing the right thing: Mapping the responsibility orientations of leaders. Academy of Management Perspectives , 26(4), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0028

58.

Ramus

C. A.

, & Killmer

A. B.

(2007). Corporate greening through prosocial extrarole behaviours—A conceptual framework for employee motivation. Business Strategy and the Environment , 16(8), 554–570. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.504

59.

Randall

M. L.

, Cropanzano

, Bormann

C. A.

, & Birjulin

(1999). Organizational politics and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior , 20(2), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199903)20:2<159::AID-JOB881>3.0.CO;2-7

60.

Renwick

D. W.

, Redman

, & Maguire

(2013). Green human resource management: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews , 15(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00328.x

61.

Robertson

J. L.

, & Barling

(2013). Greening organizations through leaders’ influence on employees’ pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 34(2), 176–194. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1820

62.

Robertson

J. L.

, & Barling

(2017). Contrasting the nature and effects of environmentally specific and general transformational leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal , 38(1), 22–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-05-2015-0100

63.

Roscoe

, Subramanian

, Jabbour

C. J.

, & Chong

(2019). Green human resource management and the enablers of green organisational culture: Enhancing a firm’s environmental performance for sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment , 28(5), 737–749. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2277

64.

Saeed

B. B.

, Afsar

, Hafeez

, Khan

, Tahir

, & Afridi

M. A.

(2019). Promoting employee’s proenvironmental behavior through green human resource management practices. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management , 26(2), 424–438. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1694

65.

Safari

, Salehzadeh

, Panahi

, & Abolghasemian

(2018). Multiple pathways linking environmental knowledge and awareness to employees’ green behavior. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society , 18(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-08-2016-0168

66.

Shafaei

, Nejati

, & Yusoff

Y. M.

(2020). Green human resource management. International Journal of Manpower , 41(7), 1041–1060. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-08-2019-0406

67.

Shah

, & Soomro

B. A.

(2023). Effects of green human resource management practices on green innovation and behavior. Management Decision , 61(1), 290–312. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-07-2021-0869

68.

Steg

, & Vlek

(2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 29(3), 309–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004

69.

Stern

P. C.

(2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues , 56(3), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175

70.

Tang

, Chen

, Jiang

, Paille

, & Jia

(2018). Green human resource management practices: Scale development and validity. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources , 56(1), 31–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12147

71.

Wagner

(2011). Environmental management activities and sustainable HRM in German manufacturing firms—incidence, determinants, and outcomes. German Journal of Human Resource Management , 25(2), 157–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/239700221102500206

72.

Wesselink

, Blok

, & Ringersma

(2017). Pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace and the role of managers and organisation. Journal of Cleaner Production , 168, 1679–1687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.214

73.

WHO. (2018). Climate change and health . https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health

74.

Yuriev

, Boiral

, & Guillaumie

(2020). Evaluating determinants of employees’ pro-environmental behavioral intentions. International Journal of Manpower , 4, 1005–1019. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-08-2019-0387

75.

Zhang

, Luo

, Zhang

, & Zhao

(2019). How green human resource management can promote green employee behavior in China: A technology acceptance model perspective. Sustainability , 11(19), 5408. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1694