Green Human Resource Management and Employee Green Behaviour: Participation and Involvement,and Training and Development as Moderators

Abstract

The current study is aimed at exploring the effect of Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) practices on employee green behaviour (EGB). We conducted this research in the context of one of the countries in the South Asian sub-continent, India. First, we developed a conceptual model based on the ability, motivation, and opportunity (AMO) framework and Social Identity Theory (SIT). Then, we tested the model with data collected from 191 faculty members in higher educational institutions in southern India. We first checked the instrument’s psychometric properties and tested the hypotheses using hierarchical regression. The results indicate that: (a) green recruitment strategies (GRS), green institutional initiatives (GII), and green performance management and appraisal (GPMA) positively impact EGB; and (b) EGB is positively related to employee green compensation and rewards (EGCR). The results also reveal that employee green participation and involvement (EGPI) and employee green training and development (EGTD) moderate the relationship between GRS, GII, GPMA, and EGB. The motivation stems from the need for present-day organisations to focus on a green environment and contribute to sustainability. The role of GHRM practices in stimulating employees to exhibit green behaviour is highlighted. The implications for GHRM theory and practice are discussed.

Keywords

Green human resource management green training and development green recruitment strategies employee green behaviour

Introduction

Recent years have witnessed increasing attention by researchers to find ways to prevent environmental degradation and maintain ecological sustainability (Benevene & Buonomo, 2020; Kim et al., 2017; Shafaei et al., 2020; Singh et al., 2020). The seminal work by Elkington (1997) on the triple-bottom-line (people, profits and planet) has resulted in the exponential growth of research on sustainable production, consumption, and individuals’ and organisations’ responsibility toward the environment (Chen et al., 2019; Pereira & Martins, 2021; Zhou et al., 2018). One significant aftermath of the contemporary research is the concept of ‘going green’ on several fronts. The term ‘green’ has become a catchphrase, and researchers have been focusing on green consumption (Haws et al., 2014; Tezer & Bodur, 2020), ‘green innovation’ (Song et al., 2020), green behaviour (Chaudhary, 2020; Davis et al., 2020; Pham et al., 2019), green investment (Doval & Negulescu, 2014; Heinkel et al. 2001; Sharma et al., 2020), green organisational citizenship behaviour (Anwar et al., 2020; Pham et al., 2019), green-related creativity (Awan et al., 2019; Maitlo et al., 2022).

Realising the importance of environmental awareness, researchers have emphasised the role of human resource management as a tool for bringing a ‘green organisation’ that will positively impact individuals, society, and the environment. Thus, focusing on sustainability dimensions (environmental, economic and social), a new stream of research called ‘Green Human Resource Management’ (GHRM) has emerged (Fawehinmi et al., 2020; Ren et al., 2018; Renwick et al., 2013; Wehrmeyer, 2017). As Jabbour posits, ‘Green HRM is concerned with the systemic, planned alignment of typical human resource management practices with the organisation’s environmental goals’ (Jabbour, 2013, pp. 147–148). GHRM is the implementation of HRM practices policies that promote sustainable use of resources, create a green workforce, and encourage green culture among employees, which benefit society and the environment (Ahmad, 2015; Mampra, 2013; Shahriari et al., 2019). Since GHRM is in the embryonic phase, most research focuses on advocating the potential benefits of HRM practices and giving directions for research (Ahmad, 2015; Benevene & Buonomo, 2020). Research is gradually progressing to provide empirical evidence of the effect of GHRM on employee green behaviour (EGB) (Iftikhar et al., 2021; Shafaei et al., 2020). Some researchers contend that GHRM ensures environmental sustainability by focusing on the 3D approach (de-materialisation, de-carbonisation and de-mobilisation) (Chen et al., 2018; Hossen et al., 2018).

The paucity of studies on finding empirical relationships on the effects of GHRM practices is evidenced in literature reviews by several scholars (Renwick et al., 2013). Further, some researchers contend that the literature on GHRM focused mainly on the western world, and only a few studies were available on Asian environmental management in the Asian world (Ahmad, 2015; Renwick et al., 2013). After reviewing several studies, Shahriari et al. (2019) pointed out that there is a ‘lack of comprehensive studies and research about GHRM in undeveloped countries and Asia’ (p. 177). Because of the lack of research focusing on Asian countries, little is known about how GHRM practices influence individual and organisational outcomes (Ren et al., 2018) and the boundary conditions that change the strength of the relationship between antecedents of employee green behaviour and green compensation (Benevene & Buonomo, 2020). To recall the history, the evolution of HR function in Indian organisations was well documented sometime back (Rao, 2014), but the green HRM function is still in its embryonic stage. To the best of our knowledge, most of the research on GHRM practices in the Indian context is conceptual rather than empirical. For example, Varma and Balachandran (2021) provided a conceptual framework for the GHRM practices in Indian higher educational institutions. Another non-empirical study by Pothuraju and Battu (2018) focused on an emerging trend in HR practices in the Indian context. In the present study, we test the hypotheses about the relationship between GHRM practices and outcomes; thus, our contribution is empirical. In brief, this research aims to bridge the gap and complement the conceptual framework by empirically exploring the effect of GHRM practices on green employee behaviour that contributes to high performance and environmental sustainability. Responding to the call by earlier researchers to have empirical studies in Asian context, this study examines how HRM practices in educational institutions in India lead to environmental-friendly behaviour by employees resulting in environmental sustainability. Though the research on GHRM has been exploding, a relatively small number of studies focused on the antecedents and consequences of EGB, particularly in the context of educational institutions. Some studies in the western context dwelled on studying green behaviour in manufacturing sector (Davis et al., 2018), and hotel industry (Iftikhar et al., 2021; Shafaei et al., 2020), not many studies concentrated on educational institutions. This study is aimed to fill the gap by studying the GHRM practices followed in educational institutions in recruitment, performance management, and rewards for exhibiting environmental concerns by the employees. Educational institutions are responsible for creating awareness among employees and students to adhere to waste management, maintain cleanliness, use pro-environmental resources, and promote green culture (Bhandari, 2019; Mukharjee et al., 2020). The primary responsibility of faculties in educational institutions is to impart knowledge in respective subject areas and inculcate a sense of environmental responsibility to the students. As educational institutions are the knowledge disseminators among the students (Prakash et al., 2022), it is essential that the faculty need to educate the students about the importance of a green environment that promotes sustainability and contributes to the welfare of the society. In the Indian context, the scant research on GHRM in educational institutions outlined the green HRM practices such as recruitment, performance management, green compensation, and green training and development among the employees (Bhagyalakshmi & Priyanka, 2019). In the successful implementation of green strategies, the individuals and groups need to understand effective environmental management, and educational institutions have a pivotal role in this process. We first examine the effect of green recruitment strategies (GRS), green institutional initiatives (GII), and green performance management (GPM) on employee green behaviour (EGB). Second, we investigate the role of employee green participation and involvement (EGPI) and employee green training and development (EGTD) programs in educational institutions. Third, we study the consequences of EGB in terms of employee green compensation and rewards (EGCR).

The current study contributes to the literature on GHRM in five ways. First, by establishing the positive association between GRS and EGB, this study highlights the importance of including environmental consciousness in the recruitment process. Second, the positive link between GII and EGB suggests that institutions undertake initiatives to promote a green environment in organisations that enhances green behaviour. The knowledge from the faculty about the EGB is more likely to be transferred to the students, who, in turn, will make a positive contribution to the environment and society. Third, this research provides empirical evidence for positive effect of green performance management on EGB. Periodical evaluation of green performance is essential in organisations to motivate employees to increase environmental protection and sustainability awareness. Fourth, employee participation and involvement in activities promoting a green environment strengthen the positive relationship between green recruitment and EGB. When recruiting and selecting employees, organisations consider the sustainability dimension and expect the incumbents to participate in the programs fostering green development. Further, the organisation’s initiatives interacting with employee participation and involvement in green programs would enhance EGB. Fifth, employee green training and development combined with recruitment, institutions initiatives, and performance management would further fortify the EGB. Furthermore, the positive association between EGB and employee rewards for exhibiting green behaviour suggests that organisations periodically review the behaviour of employees and reward such behaviour. To sum, the conceptual model developed and tested in the context of educational institutions makes a significant contribution to the literature on GHRM and sustainability.

Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Development

The theoretical background for this research comes from ability-motivation-opportunity (AMO) theory (Appelbaum et al., 2000; Blumberg & Pringle, 1982; Campbell et al., 1970; Renwick et al., 2013; Vroom, 1964) and social identity theory (SIT) (Hogg et al., 1995; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). The basic tenet of AMO theory is that performance is a function of employees’ ability (i.e., capacity to perform a given task), motivation (i.e., willingness exhibited by employees in achieving the shared mission), and opportunity (stemming from self-directed leadership of individuals). Further, Vroom (1964) advocated performance depends on ability and motivation. AMO has been a widely used theoretical framework in HRM literature (Bos-Nehles et al., 2013; Obeidat et al., 2016; Renwick et al., 2013).

In the context of GHRM, organisations—(a) recruit employees who have green competencies and abilities; (b) motivate the employees through training and development; and (c) and create opportunities for employees in green participation (Amrutha & Geetha, 2020; Cabral & Dhar, 2019). The performance appraisal system is a motivating force for the employees (Fawehinmi et al., 2020). At the same time, positive evaluation motivates them for superior green performance, and negative assessments create opportunities for green participation and improve green performance.

Another theory applied in this research is SIT, according to which individuals tend to identify themselves with particular groups and secure their membership. As green behaviour is socially acceptable, employees exhibit their interest in joining a group of people who follow the ‘green’ concept and eventually increase their green performance (Hogg & Turner, 1987; Kim et al., 2019).

The recruitment strategies employed in selecting the individuals who show interest in environmental protection and cleanliness are related to the ‘ability’ component of AMO. The institutional initiatives and green performance management to motivate the employees to exhibit green behaviour and green performance are related to the ‘motivation’ component of AMO. The training and development programs undertaken by organisations provide opportunities for employees to participate and involve in the programs are related to the ‘opportunities’ component of AMO. Following SIT, employees identify themselves with others who are pro-green in their approach and show the tendency to exhibit green behaviour. Thus, the constructs used in this research are related to both AMO and SIT in applying GHRM practices in organisations.

The conceptual model involving these variables is presented in Figure 1.

In the following section we formulate hypotheses based on the conceptual model developed.

Hypotheses Development

The Relationship Between GRS and EGB

The essence of GHRM is to promote EGB. EGB is defined as ‘scalable action(s) and behaviour(s) that employees engage in or bring about that are linked with, and contribute to, environmental sustainability’ (Ones & Dilchert, 2012, p. 87). The GHRM functions: recruitment strategies and institutional initiatives and aims to enhance EGB. About GHRM, as per AMO theory, the first and foremost important strategy of HRM departments is to attract and develop high-performing green employees. Selecting individuals who have both interest and ability to exhibit pro-environmental behaviour, referring to the ‘ability component of AMO, is very important to elicit green behaviour. Green recruitment is defined as “the process of hiring individuals with knowledge, skills, approaches, and behaviours that identify with environmental management systems within an organization”’ (Ahmad, 2015, p. 6). Extant research reveals that recruitment of ‘environmentally aware younger generation’ (Renwick et al., 2013, p. 2) is indispensable for green performance and also the reputation of organisations (Philpott & Davies, 2007) which has been supported by subsequent researchers (Jabbour et al., 2010). Holtom et al. (2008) found that green recruitment of employees is negatively related to turnover intention and positively related to satisfaction. Green job descriptions are part of employment contracts in several companies (e.g., British car manufacturing company Rover), and green employers attract high-quality workers (Stringer, 2009). Extant research reported that organisations show their preference to recruit and hire candidates who exhibit concern for the environment and prefer to work in greener jobs (Brekke & Nyborg, 2008; Guerci et al., 2016). Further, the requirements of environmental standards also may have a positive effect on green employee recruitment (Grolleau et al., 2012). Thus, based on the available empirical evidence, we offer the following hypothesis:

H₁: Green recruitment strategies are positively related to employee green behaviour.

The Relationship Between GII and EGB

One of the ways of implementing corporate social responsibility by organisations is to implement green initiatives that promote eco-friendly activities by employees (Boselie et al., 2001). The motivation component of AMO is related to the institutional initiatives that promote sustainable and pro-environmental behaviour. These initiatives include implementing paperless offices as far as possible, energy conservation and solar-based systems, and encouraging car-sharing to reduce carbon emissions from gasoline-operated cars (Ahmad, 2015). In present-day organisations, culture is reflected in green initiatives that minimise adverse effects and encourage a positive impact on the environment (Roscoe et al., 2019; Sroufe et al., 2010). These days, organisations encourage employees to use stairs instead of elevators, reduce paper consumption, and comply with the environmental regulations practiced (Ren et al., 2018). Some empirical evidence suggests that green initiatives have positive outcomes by promoting green citizenship behaviour and sustainability (Norton et al., 2015; Pham et al., 2019). These green initiatives instituted by organisations are expected to affect EGB positively. Based on the above, we offer the following hypothesis:

H₂: Green institutional initiatives are positively related to employee green behaviour.

The Relationship Between GPM and EGB

According to AMO theory, performance management plays a vital role in motivating the employees towards green behaviour. Employees participating in the opportunities provided by organisations to exhibit green behaviour (related to the ‘opportunities’ component of AMO), gets reflected in the performance appraisal. Prior research suggests that performance appraisal results in increase in citizenship behaviour and commitment (Gahlawat & Kundu, 2020). With regard to green HRM practices, extant reported positive outcomes of green performance management and appraisal of employee behaviour (Guerci et al., 2016; Haddock-Millar et al., 2016; Zaid et al., 2018). In a study conducted on service and manufacturing firms in Italy, researchers found a positive impact of performance management on green employee outcomes (Longoni et al., 2018). The importance and positive effect of performance management and appraisal have been highlighted by previous researchers (Epstein & Roy, 1997). Effective performance appraisal provides opportunities for the employees to follow environmental responsibilities and environmental stewardship (Jackson et al., 2011). Based on available empirical evidence and logos, we offer the following hypothesis:

H₃: Green performance management and appraisal are positively related to employee green behaviour.

The Relationship Between EGB and GCR

One of the critical elements of GHRM practices is rewarding the employees for green performance. Organisations implementing green rewards as a part of compensation packages motivate the employees to engage in eco-friendly practices (Forman & Jorgensen, 2001; Ramus, 2002). A survey conducted in the UK revealed that around 8% of companies provide employees with financial incentives and rewards for green performance (Phillips, 2007). In addition, the CEOs are rewarded for implementing GHRM practices and encouraging eco-friendly practices (Berrone & Gomez-Mejia, 2009; Cordeiro & Sarkis, 2008). In the US, 186 companies listed in Forbes follow green compensation policies. In the UK, over 40% of employees are reported that their companies conduct periodical reviews on how they support environmental objectives (Cotton, 2008). Since green compensation and rewards follow the exhibition of green behaviour, we offer the following hypothesis:

H₄: Employee green behaviour is positively related to employee green compensation and rewards.

Employee Green Participation and Involvement (EGPI) as a Moderator

Employee participation in decision-making and involvement in green practices play an essential role in environmental sustainability (O’Donohue & Torugsa, 2016). Early research reported positive outcomes of employee involvement in understanding, learning, and implementing green practices—reducing waste, pollution, and efficient use of resources to prevent depletion of scarce resources (Florida & Davison, 2001; May & Flannery, 1995). In their survey of 110 Spanish factories, Brio et al. (2007) reported that employee involvement and participation resulted in eco-friendly behaviour and positive outcomes. Organisational culture of encouraging employee participation and involvement in decision-making about green implementation enables them to learn about the importance of environmental protection and suggest improvements (Govindarajulu & Daily, 2004). Furthermore, employees consider participation and involvement an ‘opportunity’ to learn to engage in pro-environmental behaviour. Therefore, it is more likely that the greater the participation and involvement, the greater would be EGB. In this study, we posit that participation and involvement act as a moderator in influencing the strength of positive association between recruitment strategies, institutional initiatives, performance management, and green behaviour (Cabral & Dhar, 2019; Masri et al., 2017). Though previous researchers did not explore the moderating effect of participation and involvement, we offer the following exploratory hypotheses:

H_1a: Employee green participation and involvement moderates the relationship between green recruitment strategies and employee green behaviour.

H_2a: Employee green participation and involvement moderates the relationship between green institutional initiatives and employee green behaviour.

H_3a: Employee green participation and involvement moderates the relationship between green performance management and appraisal and employee green behaviour.

Employee Green Training and Development (EGTD) as a Moderator

Training and development are essential HRM activities in any organisation. Employee green training is concerned with developing skills and attitudes and bringing awareness about environmental protection (Zoogah, 2011). Through training and development, employees learn how to reduce waste, engage in energy conservation methods, and implement eco-friendly practices (Gholami et al., 2016; Tang et al., 2018). Organisations develop training programs on environment management to bring awareness among employees about the importance of protecting the environment and preserving resources. Such education results in green knowledge management and ensures employees seek preventive solutions for environmental damage and depletion of resources (Tang et al., 2018). In a study conducted in Spain, Gonzalez-Benito (2008) found that training and development resulted in environmental proactivity in manufacturing. In another research conducted in Brazil, researchers found a positive association between green training on supply chain management resulting in pro-environmental behaviour (Teixeira et al., 2016). We argue that employee green training and development strengthen the relationship between recruitment, institutional initiatives, performance management, and green behaviour by employees. Based on AMO and SIT, it would be interesting to explore the moderating role of training and development, and offer the following exploratory moderation hypotheses:

H_1b: Employee green training and development moderates the relationship between green recruitment strategies and employee green behaviour.

H_2b: Employee green training and development moderates the relationship between green institutional initiatives and employee green behaviour.

H_3b: Employee green training and development moderates the relationship between green performance management and appraisal and employee green behaviour.

Method

Sample

This study focuses on the green HRM practices in educational institutions. We collected data from the faculty engaged in teaching, research, and service in higher educational institutions in India’s southern part. A carefully crafted survey instrument is distributed among the faculty in the colleges and universities. Since faculty are entrusted with educating students about the importance of a green environment, we contend that faculty are the primary motivating force for inculcating the awareness about pro-environmental behaviour among students. We visited universities and colleges and collected data from 191 faculty members, as most faculty preferred web-based teaching because of frequent lockdowns and social distancing norms during the pandemic. Since we collected the data during the pandemic, we followed convenience sampling which is adopted by several researchers in the past (Irshad et al., 2021; Madhu et al., 2022; Sivagnanam et al., 2022). Though the sample size is minimal, the faculty were cooperative in filling out surveys dispassionately so that the generalisability of results would not be at stake. Since the faculty understood the importance of research and its implications, we felt that the data collected was representative of general awareness about the green environment. Following several studies in the past (Balakrishnan et al., 2022; Goel et al., 2022) we tested the non-response bias by comparing the first fifty respondents with the last fifty responses and found no statistical differences between these two groups.

Demographics

The respondents consist of 103 (53.92%) men, and 88 (46.08%) women [M _age = 40.49; SD = 8.27; M _{minimum age} = 23; M _{maximum age} = 62]. The respondents consist of 164 (85.9%) were Assistant Professors, 26 (13.6%) were Associate Professors, and one Full Professor (0.5%). About 55 (28.8%) are working in Aided institutions and 136 (71.2%) are working in Self-financed, unaided institutions. As far as age is concerned 21 (10.9 %) were between 23–30 years, 74 (38.74%) were between 30–40 years, 65 (34.03%) were between 40–50, and 31 (16.24%) were between 50–62 years. Age (Mean = 40.49; s. d = 8.27; Minimum 23; Maximum = 62).

Measures

The constructs in this study were measured with indicators drawn from the literature. Each construct is measured on a Likert-type five-point scale [‘1’ = strongly disagree; ‘5’ = strongly agree]. We measured the perceptions of the faculty members on GHRM practices and the outcomes. All the constructs along with indicators and the sources of measures were mentioned in Table 2.

Analysis

Descriptive Statistics and Multicollinearity

Table 1 captures the descriptive statistics: means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations of the variables.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics: Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-order Correlations.

Variables	Mean	Standard Deviation	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Green Recruitment Strategies (GRS)	3.88	0.56	0.73
2. Green Institutional Initiatives (GII)	4.18	0.50	0.37***	0.73
3. Green Performance Management (GPM)	3.86	0.61	0.56***	0.59***	0.79
4. Employee Green Participation and Involvement (EGPI)	3.80	0.57	0.52***	0.60***	0.63***	0.79
5. Employee Green Training and Development (EGTD)	4.01	0.50	0.61***	0.59***	0.68***	0.56***	0.73
6. Employee Green Behaviour (EGB)	4.00	0.61	0.59***	0.46***	0.48***	0.53***	0.59***	0.79
7. Employee Green Compensation and Rewards (EGCR)	3.72	0.57	0.58***	0.51***	0.67***	0.74***	0.54***	0.43***	0.75

Source: The authors.

Note: *** p < .001; The values in the diagonals are the square root of average variance extracted (AVE) estimates.

To test the collinearity, it is necessary to examine the correlation matrix and see if the correlations are not over 0.75. The preliminary analysis of correlations suggests that the largest correlation was 0.74 between EGPI and EGCR. On the other hand, the smallest correlation was 0.37 between GRS and GII; hence in this study, multicollinearity is not a problem with the data (Tsui et al., 1997). Another check to verify multicollinearity is checking the variance inflation factor (VIF). We found that the VIF values for all the variables were less than 5, thus suggesting multicollinearity is not a problem in this research (Montgomery et al., 2021).

Measurement Model and Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Reliability and Convergent Validity

Following the procedures outlined by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), we first checked the measurement model and mentioned the results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in Table 2.

As can be seen in Table 2, the factor loadings of all the indicators of the constructs were within the acceptable levels and the average variance extracted (AVE) estimates were well over 0.50 (Hair et al., 2014). Further, the reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) for all the constructs were over 0.70, and the composite reliability (CR) levels (0.70 < CR < 0.90) were within the threshold levels of 0.9 and were over 0.70, thus provide support for the internal consistency and convergent validity of the instrument (Moss et al., 2007; Nunnally, 1994). The goodness of fit statistics reveal: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.056; χ2/df = 3.53; Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.92; Goodness of Fit Index = 0.89; Normed, Normed Fit Index (NNFI or TLI) = 0.91.

Table 2.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Constructs and the sources of the measures	Alpha	CR	Standardised Loadings (λ_yi)	Reliability (λ²_yi)	Variance (Var(ε_i))	Average Variance-Extracted Estimate Σ (λ²_yi)/ [(λ²_yi) + (Var(ε_i))]
Green Recruitment Strategies (Zibarras & Coan, 2015; Tang et el., 2018; Guerci et al., 2016)	0.78	0.85				0.54
Recruitment and selection criteria that recognise environmental behaviour/commitment			0.76	0.58	0.42
The institution attracts green job candidates who use green criteria and recruits them			0.67	0.44	0.56
In the recruitment process, we give top priority to green awareness			0.69	0.48	0.52
Employee selection in this institution is based on environmental criteria			0.81	0.65	0.35
Employees attracted through environmental commitment			0.73	0.53	0.47

Green Institutional Initiatives (Jabbour et al., 2010; Tang et al., 2018)	0.79	0.85				0.54
My institution creates awareness of environmental sustainability through green campaign			0.72	0.52	0.48
Continuous improvement of green environmental management is part of the institution’s mission			0.86	0.74	0.26
In our institution, there are a number of formal or informal communication channels to spread green culture			0.77	0.60	0.40
My institution encourage students and faculty to plant medicinal herbal plants and trees to establish a garden in the campus.			0.62	0.38	0.62
Faculty members, students and other staff members are instructed to dispose bio-degradable and non-biodegradable wastes separately			0.69	0.48	0.52

Green Performance Management (Tang et al., 2018; Gholami et al., 2016)	0.85	0.89				0.62
My Institution sets green targets and goals for its faculties			0.80	0.64	0.36
Green contributions of employees are part of the Performance appraisal system			0.78	0.61	0.39
We make green performance indicators in performance management system and appraisals			0.73	0.53	0.47
Management gives feedback about achieved environmental goals and ways to improve the environmental performance			0.80	0.64	0.36
My institution considers faculties workplace green behaviour in performance appraisal system			0.84	0.71	0.29

Employee Green Participation and Involvement (Tang et al., 2018; Guerci et al., 2016)	0.84	0.89				0.63
In our institution, employees are involved in quality improvement and problem solving on green issues			0.85	0.72	0.28
We offer practices for employees to participate in environment management, such as newsletters, suggestion schemes, problem-solving groups, low-carbon champions and green action teams			0.84	0.70	0.30
Faculties involve employees in formulating environmental strategy			0.79	0.62	0.38
Management use teamwork (green team or green task force) to manage and create awareness of environmental issues			0.68	0.46	0.54
Our institution encourages employee involvement on environmental issues			0.79	0.62	0.38

Employee Green Training and Development (Jabbour et al., 2010; Zibarras & Coan, 2015; O’Donohue & Torugsa, 2016)	0.81	0.87				0.54
Green training is given more priority over other type of training.			0.66	0.44	0.56
My institution provides green training for employees to promote green values			0.69	0.48	0.52
Induction training includes how to use the institutional resources such as water, paper and energy efficiently			0.81	0.65	0.35
My institution organises national and international seminar, workshops, symposium and conference on online			0.71	0.51	0.49
Training courses aimed at developing/encouraging environmental behaviour			0.79	0.63	0.37

Employee Green Behaviour (George & Jayakumar, 2019)	0.84	0.88				0.62
I dispose biodegradable and non-biodegradable wastes separately			0.83	0.69	0.31
I educate my colleagues about sustainable behaviour towards the environment			0.84	0.71	0.29
I believe that it is always better to preserve the nature rather ruining and fixing it			0.80	0.63	0.37
I understand that the environment is vital, for life on earth			0.82	0.67	0.33
I am concerned about the scarcity of natural resources for the future generation			0.61	0.37	0.63

Employee Green Compensation and Rewards (Jabbour et al., 2010; Zibarras & Coan, 2015)	0.80	0.86				0.57
Employee environmental performance appraisals are registered by the institution			0.71	0.50	0.50
Employees are financially rewarded for their performance in green environmental issues			0.80	0.65	0.35
Employees who contribute to green environment and improvements are publicly recognised by the company			0.88	0.77	0.23
Individual incentives or reward programs that encourage green environmental behaviour			0.86	0.74	0.26
Organisation-based incentives or bonus schemes that encourage green environmental behaviour			0.45	0.21	0.79

Source: The authors.

Discriminant Validity

The square root of AVEs of the constructs should be compared with the correlations between the variables to assess the discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). From the correlation matrix we can see that the value of AVE for each construct is ranging from (0.54 to 0.63) and square root AVE (0.73 to 0.79). The AVE values for each construct exceeded the squares of correlation coefficient between the constructs. For example, the AVE estimates for GII and GPM were 0.54 and 0.62 respectively, and both exceeded the squares of correlation coefficient between GII and GPM (Φ₂₁= 0.59, Φ²₂₁= 0.35; SE of Φ₂₁= .04; p < .05). Further, the squared correlation between EGPI and EGTD (0.56) was lower than the variance extracted estimates of 0.63 and 0.54 respectively (Φ₂₁= 0.56, Φ²₂₁= 0.31; SE of Φ₂₁= .03; p < .05), thus provide discriminant validity of the constructs in this research. Discriminant validity is also examined through Heterotrait-Monotrait matrix (HTMT). HTMT ratio compares the average of hetero-trait-hetero-method (HTHM) correlations with the mono-trait-hetero-method (MTHM) correlations and if the HTMT values should be below the threshold of 0.85 to establish discriminant validity (Henseler et al., 2015). As shown in Table 4, the HTMT values were less than 0.85 and hence the discriminant validity is established. The Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion and HTMT criterion were presented in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3.

Discriminant Validity: Fornell Larcker Criterion.

	EGB	EGPI	EGCR	EGTD	GII	GPMA	GRS
EGB	0.785
EGPI	0.535	0.791
EGCR	0.449	0.774	0.756
EGTD	0.443	0.521	0.508	0.724
GII	0.531	0.698	0.575	0.65	0.736
GPMA	0.486	0.637	0.7	0.612	0.539	0.79
GRS	0.609	0.531	0.605	0.39	0.451	0.579	0.732

Source: The authors.

Table 4.

Discriminant Validity: HTMT Criterion.

	EGB	EGPI	EGCR	EGTD	GII	GPMA	GRS
EGB	–
EGPI	0.624	–
EGCR	0.531	0.843	–
EGTD	0.534	0.608	0.594	–
GII	0.647	0.836	0.705	0.81	–
GPMA	0.567	0.742	0.811	0.712	0.631	–
GRS	0.729	0.64	0.742	0.465	0.55	0.685	–

Source: The authors.

Note: Abbreviations: EGB: Employee green behaviour; GRS: Green recruitment strategies; GPMA: Green performance management and appraisal; EGTD: Employee green training and development; GII: Green institutional initiatives; EGCR: Employee green compensation and rewards; EGPI: Employee green participation and involvement.

Common Method Bias

Since common method bias (CMB) is inherent in any survey research, it is important to check for the common method bias. We did Harman’s single-factor test and found that a single factor accounted for 25.04% variance, implying common method was not a problem because it is less than 50% (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In addition, we used ‘latent factor method’ and calculated inner VIF values for each of the constructs. As Kock (2015) suggest that if VIF values exceed 3.3, it indicates pathological collinearity and the model is inferred to be contaminated by CMB. We found that the inner VIF values were less than 3,3 and hence the model is said to be free from the CMB (Kock, 2015).

Hypotheses Testing

Hierarchical regression was used to test the hypotheses. In a serial mediation, structural equation modelling (SEM) is preferred whereas in case of the multiple interactions between the variables, hierarchical regression is robust and gives unbiased coefficients (Aiken & West, 1991). Therefore, we used hierarchical regression to test the hypotheses. The regression results were presented in Table 5.

Table 5.

Hierarchical Regression Results of Green HRM Practices on Employee Green Behaviour.

Dependent Variable↓	Employee Green Behaviour				Employee Green Behaviour
Independent Variables
Main Variables	β	s. e	t	p	β	s. e	t	p
(Constant)	–.340	.396	–.860	.391	1.879	2.091	.899	.370
Green Recruitment Strategies	.347***	.075	4.608	<.001	–.475	.579	–.822	.412
Green Institutional Initiatives	.179**	.063	2.819	.005	–.870	.535	–1.628	.105
Green Performance Management and Appraisal	.152*	.074	2.060	.041	1.499	.666	2.251	.026
Employee Green Participation and Involvement	.188**	.072	2.616	.010	.715	.625	1.144	.254
Employee Green Training and Development	.297***	.090	3.311	.001	–.622	.733	–.848	.397

Moderator Variables
Green Recruitment strategies × Employee Green Participation and Involvement					.154*	.070	2.212	.028
Green Institutional Initiatives × Employee Green Participation and Involvement					.147*	.069	2.130	.023
Green Performance Management and Appraisal × Employee Green Participation and Involvement					.087	.620	1.404	.162
Green Recruitment strategies × Employee Green Training and Development					.290*	.145	1.986	.045
Green Institutional Initiatives × Employee Green Training and Development					.419*	.175	2.396	.018
Green Performance Management and Appraisal × Employee Green Training and Development					–.511*	.186	–2.750	.007
R²	.466				.502
ADJ R²	.451				.489
ΔR2					.036
F	32.26***				16.271***
ΔF					6.488
df	5,185				11,179

Source: The authors.

The direct effects were shown in the column 1 of Table 5. The regression coefficient of GRS on EGB was positive and significant (β = 0.346, t = 4.60; p <.001), thus supporting H1. The regression coefficient of GII on EGB was positive and significant (β = 0.179, t = 2.819; p <.01), thus supporting H2. The regression coefficient of GPM on EGB was positive and significant (β = 0.152, t = 2.06; p <.05), thus supporting H3. The direct effects model was significant and explains 46.6% of the variance (F[5,185] = 32.26, p < .001; R² = 0.466, and adjusted R² = 0.451).

Following the procedures recommended by Aiken and West (1991), the moderation hypotheses were tested by entering the interaction variables in the regression equation in the second step. The regression coefficient of the multiplicative term between GRS and EGPI (Step 2 Column 2 of Table 5) was significant (β _{GRS × EGPI} = 0.154, t = 2.212, p < .05), and the beta coefficient of multiplicative term between GII and EGPI significant (β _GII × _EGPI = 0.147, t = 2.13; p < .05). The regression coefficient of multiplicative effect of GPM and EGPI was not significant (β _GPM × _EGPI = 0.087, t = 1.40; p = .162). These results supported H1a and H2a but did not support H3a.

The results of moderating effect of EGTD on the relationship between GRS, GII, and GPM show that all the coefficients of the interaction terms are significant [β _GRS × _EGTD= 0.290, t = 1.986, p < .05; β _GII × _EGTD = 0.419, t = 2.39, p < .05; β _GPM × _EGTD = 0.511, t = 2.75, p < .05], thus supporting H1b, H2b, and H3b. The model was significant and explained 50.2% variance in the employee green behaviour because of main variables and interaction variables (F=16.69, p < .001; R² = .0.502, and adjusted R² = 0.489, ΔF = 6.488, p <.05; ΔR² = 0.036).

The interaction effects were presented in graph (Figures 2 –5).

Figure 2 depicts the interaction of recruitment strategies with the employee participation in green programs. When the employee participation in the green program is high, the recruitment strategies result in higher levels of employee green behaviour. On the contrary, low participation results in lower employee green behaviour. Further, when recruitment strategies increases from low to high, higher level of employee green behaviour is evidenced when participation is high as compared to lower levels of participation. These results render support to H1a.

Figure 3 shows the effect of participation in green programs in the relationship between Institutional green initiatives and employee green behaviour. When the initiatives are low, higher level of participation results in high employee green behaviour when compared to low participation. However, when institutional initiatives increase from low to high, even lower participation results in increase in employee green behaviour and it is not necessary for the employees to show participation and involvement. This is because institution itself engage in green initiatives. These results render support to H2a.

Figures 4, 5 and 6 show the moderation effect of employee green training and development in the relationship between recruitment strategies, institutional initiatives, and performance management and employee green behaviour. In all these figures, higher level of training and development are associated with higher level of employee green behaviour. Further, when the recruitment strategies move from low to high, the relationship between recruitment strategies and employee green behaviour strengthens when training and development is high (Figure 4). When green initiatives of the institutions increase from low to high, the relationship between GII and employee green behaviour becomes stronger when training and development is high rather than low (Figure 5). Finally, the higher levels of training and development are associated with strong positive relationship between performance management and employee green behaviour (Figure 6). These results render support to H1b, H2b, and H2c.

To test Hypothesis 4, which posits that EGB is positively related to EGCR, we did run hierarchical regression and presented the results in Table 6. We included the main variables also into the equation so that the beta coefficient of EGB will not show inflated values. The regression coefficient of EGB on EGCR is positive and significant (β = 0.556, t = 9.249; p <.001), thus supporting H4. The direct effects model was significant and explains 67.4% of the variance in EGCR (F[4,185] = 96.09, p < .001; R² = 0.674, and adjusted R² = 0.667).

Table 6.

Regression Results of the Effect of Green Employee Behaviour on Green Compensation and Rewards.

Dependent Variable↓	Employee Green Compensation and Rewards
Independent Variables
Main Variables	β	s. e	t	p
(Constant)	.501	.288	1.737	.084
Green Recruitment Strategies	.293***	.062	4.748	<.001
Green Institutional Initiatives	.223**	.077	2.884	.004
Green Performance Management and Appraisal	.397***	.066	5.985	<.001
Employee Green Behaviour	.556***	.060	9.249	<.001
R²	.674
ADJ R²	.667
F	96.09***
df	4,186

Source: The authors.

The summary of the results of the hypotheses was presented in Table 7.

Table 7.

Summary of the Results of Hypotheses Testing.

Number	Hypotheses	Result
H ₁	GRS are positively related to EGB	Supported
H ₂	GII are positively related to EGB	Supported
H ₃	GPM is positively related to EGB	Supported
H ₄	EGB is positively related to employee GCR	Supported
H _1a	EGPI moderates the relationship between GRS and EGB	Supported
H _2a	EGPI moderates the relationship between GII and EGB	Supported
H _3a	EGPI moderates the relationship between GPM and EGB	Not supported
H _1b	EGTD moderates the relationship between GRS and EGB	Supported
H _2b	EGTD moderates the relationship between GII and EGB	Supported
H _3b	EGTD moderates the relationship between GPM and EGB	Supported

Source: The authors.

Discussion

The current study was a modest attempt to examine the antecedents of EGB and its effect on green compensation and rewards. The study was conducted in the context of countries in South Asian region. We conducted this research in the context of countries in the South Asian region. First, we developed a conceptual model and tested the hypothesised relationships by collecting data from 191 faculty members in educational institutions in one of the thickly populated countries in the South Asian region, India. After testing the psychometric properties of the survey instrument, the hypotheses were tested using hierarchical regression, which is a powerful tool when many interactions between the variables are involved.

The findings from the study suggest that GRS are positively associated with EGB (Hypothesis 1), and the results are consistent with what has been proposed in the literature (Holtom et al., 2008; Jabbour et al., 2010). The results also support the positive impact of GII on EGB (Hypothesis 2). Though previous researchers have provided theoretical support for the effect of initiatives by institutions on green behaviour, to our knowledge, the empirical evidences are scant to support the results from this study. The findings support that GPMA is positively related to the EGB (Hypothesis 3); the result is consistent with some of the practices followed in organisations (Guerci et al., 2016; Zaid et al., 2018). One of the key findings from this study is the positive effect of EGB on green compensation and rewards (Hypothesis 4). Literature supports the positive link between green rewards and green behaviour. Though green rewards motivate the employees for green performance, we hypothesised that green behaviour reaps benefits in terms of rewards; our results support the hypothesis.

This study found a positive association between employee involvement and participation in green environmental programs and the training and development of employees on EGB (though not hypothesised). The results found support for the moderating effect of employee involvement and participation on the relationship between GRS and EGB (Hypothesis 1a). Since no previous research was available to support this moderation hypothesis, the empirical evidence about the direct relationship supports the results. The moderating effect of EGPI on EGB found support (Hypothesis 2a) in this study. Again, despite the non-existence of previous studies on the multiplicative impact of GII and EGPI, the results can be substantiated only from the intuitive logic and direct relationships. This research did not support the EGPI as a moderator in the relationship between GII and EGB (Hypothesis 3a). In educational institutions, the initiatives launched might probably not have any impact on green behaviour due to the global pandemic when the survey is collected.

The moderation effect of employee green training and development programs in the relationship between GRS and EGB found support (Hypothesis 1b). Previous researchers have established a direct and positive relationship between EGTD and EGB but did not study the moderation effect. Hence, no studies were available to support the results of this study. As hypothesised in 2b, the results suggest EGTD strengthened the positive effect of GII on EGB. Further, the moderating effect of EGTD in the relationship between GPM and EGB found support in this study (Hypothesis 3b). Regarding the moderation effects, literature is sparse and sporadic to the best of our knowledge. However, the results were in the expected direction. As explained in the theoretical framework, the results are consistent with what is expected in AMO and SIT.

Theoretical Implications

This study has several contributions to the theory of Green HRM. First, the results underscore the importance of green recruitment in influencing green employee behaviour. In the present-day environmental pollution and irresponsible behaviour of individuals, groups, and organisations towards sustainability, it is significant to include green awareness and knowledge while recruiting employees. Most importantly, the focus on higher educational institutions highlights the necessity of educating the present students about preserving the environment through green practices. Second, the results emphasise that organisations need to initiate steps to promote a green environment. Third, the theory adds to the literature on GHRM that green performance measurement, including assessment and feedback, is essential for securing green employee behaviour. Fourth, the finding is that when employees feel that their efforts towards green behaviours will be rewarded, they become motivated. Therefore, the results provide strong empirical evidence supporting the green reward and compensation in the job description and pay package. Fifth, the study demonstrated that employee participation and involvement would foster green employee behaviour through the multiplicative effect of green recruitment and rewarding the employees for green performance. Sixth, the training and development programs organised by institutions would foster the knowledge about the importance of environmental protection, resulting in pro-sustainability behaviours (Fryxell & Lo, 2003). Finally, riding on both AOM and SIT, the conceptual model developed and tested in this research adds to the growing literature on GHRM.

Practical Implications

Any research conducted without practical implications would remain merely academic. This study has several implications for the organisations interested in exhibiting responsibility towards sustainability and corporate social responsibility. The results from the study provide strong evidence for incorporating the clauses in the employment contract to include green awareness and participation while recruiting human resources. Second, the results highlight tying the compensation and rewards to green performance to motivate the employees towards pro-environmental behaviour. Third, institutions should practice, not only preach, the practices of sustainability in terms of energy-saving, conducting training and development programs to increase the awareness about the environment in the minds of employees. Fourth, organisations need to encourage employee participation and involvement in decisions concerning green management and evaluation practices. Such involvement would foster employee green behaviour, which eventually benefits society. Fifth, organisations can attract and retain employees only when they practice GHRM, which becomes ‘employer branding’ aptly put by Renwick et al. (2012, p. 2). This study was conducted among the faculty from the higher educational institutions and found that when faculty are aware of the importance of the environmental protection and sustainability, they will share their knowledge with the students, who practice pro-environmental behaviour. Following the AMO theory, institutions need to recruit and retain employees with green abilities, motivate them through performance management and appraisal, reward the green behaviour, and provide opportunities to commit to environmental sustainability (Singh et al., 2020). Following the SIT, employees engage in green practices to secure the group’s membership that appreciates responsibility towards sustainability. Thus, this study provides direction to the organisations highlighting the importance of GHRM initiatives and practices in promoting the pro-environmental behaviour.

Limitations and Future Research

The results from the study should be interpreted in light of some limitations. First, the conceptual model is tested in higher educational institutions, affecting generalisability. Since most studies focused on manufacturing units where pollution generation is high, researchers found that promoting a green environment is essential. However, our research intends to educate students through faculty in educational institutions. The knowledge sharing by faculty is much broader because students may get employed in any industry, and the education from the universities would enable them to practice in the respective organisations in which they get engaged. Second, we focused on a limited number of antecedents affecting the EGB. A host of other factors (e.g., peer groups, families, general environment, working conditions in the organisations) would influence the employee’s green behaviour. Further, perceived organisational support and trust of employees in the organisation for proper implementation of compensation and reward as promised may affect the relationships. Third, the small sample size can be another limitation of this study. As we mentioned earlier, access to the faculty became problematic because the data collection was done during the global pandemic. Future studies may involve much larger samples in testing the hypothesised relationships. Fourth, the social desirability bias inherent in survey-based research may be considered while interpreting the results. However, anonymising the survey report, as suggested by some scholars (Latkin et al., 2017), would minimise the social desirability bias.

This study offers several avenues for future research. As of now, most of the studies on GHRM were case-based and qualitative, while a minority of studies were empirical (see Shahriari et al., 2019). Future studies may focus on finding the differences in the GHRM functions and activities performed in developed countries and developing countries. It also would be interesting to see the green citizenship behaviour and its influence on the performance of organisations. Further, the differences in the GHRM practices of for-profit and non-profit organisations may be interesting to unravel. Finally, the identification of some potential mediators in the GHRM practices and EGB (e.g., regulatory framework of governments and private institutions) may be examined. To sum up, both qualitative and quantitative studies need to be combined to enhance the theory and practice of GHRM for sustainability.

Conclusion

This study provides empirical support for the antecedents of green employee behaviour and the steps that need to be taken by the organisations in this process. As the GHRM is still in its embryonic stage, more empirical studies are required, and this study is a step in that direction. As the resources are slowly depleted, individuals and organisations need to practice pro-environmental behaviour. GHRM practices would help achieve ‘green companies’ and eventually emerging ‘green economies’ so that future generations would not be deprived of resources. We believe that in addition to improving the workplace environment, it is essential to bring awareness about sustainability to employees’ minds. As organisations are slowly moving toward a green environment, the identification of new methods and practices of GHRM will continue to be on the agenda of future researchers.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We thank Professor Pavithra Kailasapathy, the Editor-in-Chief, Professor Alka Gupta, the Associate Editor, and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions in the earlier versions of the manuscript.

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.

ORCID iD

Satyanarayana Parayitam

References

Aiken

L. S.

, & West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions . SAGE Publications.

Ahmad

(2015). Green human resource management: Policies and practices. Cogent Business & Management , 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2015.1030817

Amrutha

V. N.

, & Geetha

S. N.

(2020). A systematic review on green human resource management: Implications for social sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production , 247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119131

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

Anwar

, Mahmood

N. H.

, Yusliza

M. Y.

, Ramayah

, Faezah

N. J.

, & Green

K. W.

(2020). Human resource management for organisational citizenship behaviour towards the environment and environmental performance on a university campus. Journal of Cleaner Production , 256, 120401.

Appelbaum

, Bailey

, Berg

, & Kalleberg

(2000). Manufacturing advantage: Why high performance work systems pay off . Cornell University Press.

Awan

, Sroufe

, & Kraslawski

(2019). Creativity enables sustainable development: Supplier engagement as a boundary condition for the positive effect on green innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production , 226, 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.308

Balakrishnan

S. R.

, Soundararajan

, & Parayitam

(2022), Recognition and rewards as moderators in the relationships between antecedents and performance of women teachers: Evidence from India. International Journal of Educational Management , 36(6), 1002–1026. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-12-2021-0473

Benevene

, & Buonomo

(2020). Green human resource management: An evidence-based systematic literature review. Sustainability , 12, 5974. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12155974

10.

Bhagyalakshmi

, & Priyanka

(2019). The effect of practices of green human resource management based on teaching faculties in Chennai city. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering , 8(4S3), 1–5.

11.

Bhandari

(2019). Environmental management systems in higher education institutions in India: A workplace management approach. International Journal of Research in Engineering, IT, and Social Science , 9, 112–118.

12.

Blumberg

, & Pringle

C. D.

(1982). The missing opportunity in organizational research: Some implications for a theory of work performance. Academy of Management Review , 7(4), 560–569; https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1982.4285240

13.

Boselie

, Paauwe

, & Jansen

P. G. W.

(2001). Human resource management and performance: Lessons from the Netherlands. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 12, 1107–1125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585190110068331

14.

Bos-Nehles

A. C.

, Van Riemsdijk

M. J.

, & Looise

J. K.

(2013). Employee perceptions of line management performance: Applying the AMO theory to explain the effectiveness of line managers’ HRM implementation. Human Resource Management , 52(6), 861–867.

15.

Brekke

K. A.

, & Nyborg

(2008). Attracting responsible employees: Green production as labor market screening. Resource and Energy Economics , 30(4), 509–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2008.05.001

16.

Brio

J. A. D.

, Fernandez

, & Junquera

(2007). Management and employee involvement in achieving an environmental action-based competitive advantage: An empirical study. International Journal of Human Resource Management , 18, 491–522.

17.

Cabral

, & Dhar

R. L.

(2019). Green competencies: Construct development and measurement validation. Journal of Cleaner Production , 235, 887–890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.014

18.

Campbell

J. P.

, Dunnette

M. D.

, Lawler

E. E.

, & Weick

K. E.

(1970). Managerial behavior, performance and effectiveness . McGraw Hill.

19.

Chaudhary

(2020). Green human resource management and employee green behavior: An empirical analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management , 27(2), 630–641. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1827

20.

Chen

W. C.

, Su

C. P.

, & Rogers

M. M.

(2019). Measuring the performance of and tradeoffs within the triple bottom line. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation , 13(1), 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2017.1419519

21.

Cordeiro

, & Sarkis

(2008). Does explicit contracting effectively link CEO compensation to environmental performance? Business Strategy and the Environment , 17, 304–317.

22.

Cotton

(2008). Go the green mile. CIPD. http://www2.peoplemanagement.co.uk/pm/articles/

23.

Davis

M. C.

, Unsworth

K. L.

, Russell

S. V.

, & Galvan

J. J.

(2020). Can green behaviors really be increased for all employees? Tradeoffs for ‘deep greens’ in a goal oriented green human resource management intervention. Business Strategy and the Environment , 29, 335–346.

24.

Doval

, & Negulescu

(2014). A model of green investments approach. Procedia Economics and Finance , 15, 847–852. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00545-0.

25.

Elkington

(1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business . Oxford University Press.

26.

Florida

, & Davison

(2001). Gaining from green management: Environmental management systems inside and outside of the factory. California Management Review , 43(1), 64–84.

27.

Fornell

, & Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research , 18(1), 39–50.

28.

Epstein

, & Roy

(1997). Using ISO 14000 for improved organizational learning and environmental management. Environmental Quality Management , 7(1), 21–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6483

29.

Fawehinmi

, Yusliza

M. Y.

, Kasim

W. Z. W.

, Mohamad

, & Halim

M. A. S. A.

(2020). Exploring the interplay of green human resource management, employee green behavior, and personal moral norms. SAGE Open , 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020982292

30.

Forman

, & Jorgensen

M. S.

(2001). The social shaping of the participation of employees in environmental work within enterprises—Experiences from a Danish context. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management , 13(1), 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320120040455

31.

Fryxell

G. E.

, & Lo

C. W. H.

(2003). The influence of environmental knowledge and values on managerial behaviours on behalf of the environment: An empirical examination of managers in China. Journal of Business Ethics , 46(1), 45–69.

32.

Gahlawat

, & Kundu

S. C.

(2020). Unravelling the relationship between high-involvement work practices and organizational citizenship behaviour: A sequential mediation approach. South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management , 7(2), 165–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/2322093720932071

33.

George

J. S.

, & Jayakumar

K. N.

(2019). Development and validation of employee green behaviour scale (EGBS) for IT professionals in India. International Journal on Emerging Technologies , 10(4), 32–37.

34.

Gholami

, Rezaei

, Saman

M. Z. M.

, Sharif

, & Zakuan

(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.

35.

Goel

, Parayitam

, Sharma

, Rana

N. P.

, & Dwivedi

Y. K.

(2022). A moderated mediation model for e-impulse buying tendency, customer satisfaction and intention to continue e-shopping. Journal of Business Research , 142, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.041

36.

Gonzalez-Benito

(2008). The effect of manufacturing proactivity on environmental management: An exploratory analysis. International Journal of Production Research , 46(24), 7017–7038.

37.

Govindarajulu

, & Daily

B. F.

(2004). Motivating employees for environmental improvement. Industrial Management and Data Systems , 104, 364–372.

38.

Grolleau

, Mzoughi

, & Pekovic

(2012). Green not (only) for profit: An empirical examination of the effect of environmental related standards on employees’ recruitment. Resource and Energy Economics , 34(1), 74–92.

39.

Guerci

, Longoni

, & Luzzini

(2016). Translating stakeholder pressures into environmental performance—the mediating role of green HRM practices. International Journal of Human Resource Management , 27(2), 262–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1065431

40.

Haddock-Millar

, Sanyal

, & Müller-Camen

(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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1052087

41.

Hair

J. F.

, Sarstedt

, Hopkins

, & Kuppelwieser

G. V.

(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

42.

Haws

K. L.

, Winterich

K. P.

, & Naylor

R. W.

(2014). Seeing the world through GREEN-tinted glasses: Green consumption values and responses to environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Psychology , 24(3), 336–354.

43.

Heinkel

, Kraus

, & Zechner

(2021). The effect of green investment on corporate behavior. The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , 36(4), 431–449.

44.

Henseler

, Ringle

C. M.

, & Sinkovics

R. R.

(2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing , 20, 277–319.

45.

Hogg

M. A.

, Terry

D. J.

, & White

K. M.

(1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychological Quarterly , 58(4), 255–269.

46.

Hogg

M. A.

, & Turner

J. C.

(1987). Intergroup behaviour, self-stereotyping and the salience of social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology , 26(4), 325–340.

47.

Holtom

B. C.

, Mitchell

T. R.

, Lee

T. W.

, & Eberly

M. B.

(2008). Turnover and retention research: A glance at the past, a closer review of the present, and a venture into the future. The Academy of Management Annals , 2, 231–274.

48.

Hossen

M. M.

, Begum

, & Sultana

(2018). Managing human resource through green policy: Ways out and its implication. Trikonomika , 17(2), 49–58.

49.

Hossen

M. M.

, Begum

, & Zhixia

(2018). Present status of organizational work–life balance practices in Bangladesh: Employees expectation and organizational arrangements. Journal of Eastern European and Central Asian Research , 5(1), 1–16.

50.

Iftikhar

, Zaman

, Rehmani

, Ghias

, & Islam

(2021) Impact of green human resource management on service recovery: Mediating role of environmental commitment and moderation of transformational leadership. Frontiers in Psychology , 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.710050

51.

Irshad

, Umar

K. M.

, Rehmani

, Khokhar

M. N.

, Anwar

, Qaiser

, & Naveed

R. T.

(2021). Impact of work-from-home human resource practices on the performance of online teaching faculty during coronavirus disease 2019. Frontiers in Psychology , 12, 740644.

52.

Jabbour

C. J.

(2013). Environmental training in organisations: From a literature review to a framework for future research. Resources, Conservation and Recycling , 74, 144–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.12.017

53.

Jabbour

C. J.

, Santos

F. C. A.

, & Nagano

M. S.

(2010). Contributions of HRM throughout the stages of environmental management: Methodological triangulation applied to companies in Brazil. International Journal of Human Resource Management , 21, 1049–1089.

54.

Jackson

S. E.

, Renwick

D. W. S.

, Jabbour

C. J. C.

, & Camen

M. M.

(2011). State of the art and future directions for green human resource management. German Journal of Human Resource Management , 25(1), 99–116.

55.

Kim

, Kim

, Han

, Jackson

S. E.

, & Ployhart

R. E.

(2017). Multilevel influences on voluntary workplace green behavior: Individual differences, leader behavior, and coworker advocacy. Journal of Management , 43(5), 1335–1358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314547386

56.

Kim

Y. J.

, Kim

W. G.

, Choi

H. M.

, & Phetvaroon

(2019). The effect of green human resource management on hotel employees’ ecofriendly behavior and environmental performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management , 76(1), 83–93.

57.

Kock

(2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration , 11(1), 1–10.

58.

Longoni

, Luzzini

, & Guerci

(2018). Deploying environmental management across functions: The relationship between green human resource management and green supply chain management. Journal of Business Ethics , 151, 1081–1095.

59.

Madhu

, Soundararajan

, & Parayitam

(2022). Online promotions and hedonic motives as moderators in the relationship between e-impulsive buying tendency and customer satisfaction: Evidence from India. Journal of Internet Commerce . https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2022.2088035

60.

Maitlo

, Wang

, Jingdong

, Lashari

I. A.

, Faraz

N. A.

, & Hajaro

N. H.

(2022). Exploring green creativity: The effects of green transformational leadership, green innovation climate, and green autonomy. Frontiers in Psychology , 13, 686373. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.686373

61.

Mampra

(2013, January 6–9). Green HRM: Does it help to build a competitive service sector? A study. Tenth AIMS International Conference on Management , Bangalore, pp. 1273–1281.

62.

Masri

H. A.

, & Jaaron

A. A. M.

(2017). Assessing green human resources management practices in Palestinian manufacturing context: An empirical study. Journal of Cleaner Production , 143, 474–489.

63.

May

D. R.

, & Flannery

B. L.

(1995). Cutting waste with employee involvement teams. Business Horizons , 38(1), 28–38.

64.

Montgomery

D. C.

, Peck

E. A.

, & Vining

G. G.

(2021). Introduction to linear regression analysis . John Wiley & Sons.

65.

Moss

S. A.

, McFarland

, Ngu

, & Kijowska

(2007). Maintaining an open mind to closed individuals: The effect of resource availability and leadership style on the association between openness to experience and organizational commitment. Journal of Research in Personality , 41(2), 259–275.

66.

Mukherjee

, Bhattacharjee

, Paul

, & Banerjee

(2020). Assessing green human resource management practices in higher educational institute. TEST Engineering & Management , 82, 221–240.

67.

Nunnally

J. C.

(1994). Psychometric theory , 3rd ed. Tata McGraw-Hill education.

68.

Obeidat

S. M.

, Mitchell

, & Bray

(2016). The link between high performance work practices and organizational performance: Empirically validating the conceptualization of HPWP according to the AMO model. Employee Relations , 38(4), 578–595.

69.

Norton

T. A.

, Parker

S. L.

, Zacher

, & Ashkanasy

N. M.

(2015). Employee green behavior: A theoretical framework, multilevel review, and future research agenda. Organization and Environment , 28(1), 103–125.

70.

O’Donohue

, & Torugsa

N. A.

(2016). The moderating effect of green HRM on the association between proactive environmental management and financial performance in small firms. International Journal of Human Resource Management , 27(2), 239–261.

71.

Ones

D. S.

, & Dilchert

(2012). Employee green behaviors. In Jackson

S. E.

, Ones

D. S.

& Dilchert

(Eds.), Managing human resources for environmental sustainability (pp. 85–116). Jossey-Bass/Wiley.

72.

Pereira

T. H. M.

, & Martins

H. C.

(2021). People, planet, and profit: A bibliometric analysis of triple bottom line theory. Journal of Management and Sustainability , 11(1), 64–73.

73.

Pham

N. T.

, Tucková

, & Jabbour

C. J.

(2019). Greening the hospitality industry: How do green human resource management practices influence organizational citizenship behavior in hotels? A mixed methods study. Tourism Management , 72, 386–399.

74.

Phillips

(2007). Go green to gain the edge over rivals. People Management , 23 August, p. 9.

75.

Philpott

, & Davies

(2007). Labour market outlook (Quarterly Survey Report, Summer, pp. 1–22). CIPD/KPMG.

76.

Podsakoff

P. M.

, MacKenzie

S. B.

, & Podsakoff

N. P.

(2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology , 63, 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

77.

Pothuraju

V. L.

, & Battu

(2018). A study on green HRM: An emerging trend in HR practices. International Journal of Management , 9(3), 74–82.

78.

Prakash

, Yadav

, Singh

& Aarti. (2022). An empirical investigation of the higher educational institutions’ attractiveness as an employer. South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management , 9(1), 130–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/23220937221078118

79.

Ramus

C. A.

(2002). Encouraging innovative environmental actions: What companies and managers must do. Journal of World Business , 37, 151–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1090-9516(02)00074-3

80.

Rao

T. V.

(2014). Evolution and evaluation of human resources function in India: A balance sheet, South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management , 1(1), 91–108.

81.

Ren

, Tang

, & Jackson

S. E.

(2018). Green human resource management research in emergence: A review and future directions. Asia Pacific Journal of Management , 35, 769–803.

82.

Renwick

D. W.

, Jabbour

C. J. C.

, Muller-Camen

, Redman

, & Wilkinson

(2016). Contemporary developments in green (environmental) HRM scholarship. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 27(2), 114–128.

83.

Renwick

D. W. S.

, Redman

, & Maguire

(2013). Green human resource management: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Review , 15(1), 1–14.

84.

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.

85.

Shafaei

, Nejati

, & Yusoff

M. Y.

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

86.

Shahriari

, Hassanpoor

, Navehebrahim

, & Jafarinia

(2019). A systematic review of green human resource management. EVERGREEN Joint Journal of Novel Carbon Resource Sciences & Green Asia Strategy , 6(2), 177–189.

87.

Sharma

, Saha

, Sridharan

V. R.

, & Paul

(2020). Relating the role of green self-concepts and identity on green purchasing behaviour: An empirical analysis. Business Strategy and the Environment , 29(8), 3203–3219. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2567

88.

Singh

S. K.

, Del Giudice

, Chierici

, & Graziano

(2020). Green innovation and environmental performance: The role of green transformational leadership and green human resource management. Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 150, 119762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119762

89.

Sivagnanam

, Pillai

A. R.

, Elangovan

, & Parayitam

(2022). Knowledge management process, infrastructure, and system quality as resilient strategies to respond to COVID-19 pandemic challenges: Evidence from higher educational institutions in India. Knowledge and Process Management , 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1722

90.

Song

, Yu

, & Xu

(2020). Effects of green human resource management and managerial environmental concern on green innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management , 24(3), 951–967. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-11-2019-0315

91.

Sroufe

, Liebowitz

, Sivasubramaniam

, & Donahue

(2010). Are you a leader or a laggard: HR’s role in creating a sustainability culture. People & Strategy , 33(1), 34–42.

92.

Stringer

(2009). The green workplace. Sustainable strategies that benefit employees, the environment, and the bottom line . Macmillan

93.

Tajfel

, & Turner

J. C.

(1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations . Brooks-Cole.

94.

Tang

, Chen

, Jiang

, Paillé

, & 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

95.

Teixeira

A. A.

, Jabbour

C. J. C.

, Jabbour

A. B. L. D. S.

, Latan

, & Oliveira

J. H. C. D.

(2016). Green training and green supply chain management: Evidence from Brazilian firms. Journal of Cleaner Production , 116, 170–176.

96.

Tezer

, & Bodur

H. O.

(2020). The greenconsumption effect: How using green products improves consumption experience. Journal of Consumer Research , 47(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucz045

97.

Tsui

A. S.

, Pearce

J. L.

, Porter

L. W.

, & Tripoli

A. M.

(1997). Alternative approaches to the employee-organization relationship: Does investment in employees pay off? The Academy of Management Journal , 45(5), 1089–1121.

98.

Varma

, & Balachandran

(2021). Green human resource management practices—implementation in Universities and higher educational institutions: A study. Sambodhi , 44(1), 93–98.

99.

Vroom

(1964). Work and motivation . Wiley.

100.

Wehrmeyer

(2017). Greening people: Human resources and environmental management . Greenleaf.

101.

Zaid

A. A.

, Jaaron

A. A. M.

, & Bon

T. A.

(2018). The impact of green human resource management and green supply chain management practices on sustainable performance: An empirical study. Journal of Cleaner Production , 204, 965–979.

102.

Zhou

, Yang

, Chen

, & Zhu

(2018). Data envelopment analysis application in sustainability: The origins, development and future directions. European Journal of Operational Research , 264(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.06.023

103.

Zibarras

L. D.

, & Coan

(2015). HRM practices used to promote pro-environmental behavior: A UK survey. International Journal of Human Resource Management , 26(16), 2121–2142.

104.

Zoogah

D. B.

(2011). The dynamics of green HRM behaviors: A cognitive social information processing approach. German Journal of Research in Human Resource Management , 25(2), 117–139.