Content uploaded by Priyanka Aggarwal
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Priyanka Aggarwal on Mar 28, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Relationship of green human
resource management with
environmental performance:
mediating effect of green
organizational culture
Priyanka Aggarwal
Research Scholar, Faculty of Management Studies, University of Delhi,
Delhi, India, and
Tanuja Agarwala
Faculty of Management Studies, University of Delhi, Delhi, India
Abstract
Purpose –Environment concerns and climate changes have led organizations to reorient their processes with
a focus toward sustainability. Organizations recognize that incorporating greening in HR practices has the
potential to address environmental concerns. The present study aims to focus on investigating the relationship
between green human resource management (GHRM) practices and environmental performance (EP). It is
premised that the adoption of green human resource practices facilitates the development of a green
organizational culture (GOC) that helps the organization to gain strategic business advantage with respect to
the competitors. The literature suggests that the adoption of green human resource practices among
organizations is at a nascent stage. The present study focusses on understanding the mediating role of three
dimensions of GOC, that is, degree, diffusion and depth in the relationship between green human resource
practices and EP that has not been addressed in the empirical literature.
Design/methodology/approach –The present study developed a model consisting of GHRM practices as an
independent variable, the three dimensions of culture (degree, diffusion and depth) as mediators, and EP as the
dependent variable. The study followed a quantitative exploratory research approach. The sample consisted of
278 employees from private and public sector organizations located in India. The hypothesized model was
analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM).
Findings –The study found the green human resource practices to be significantly related with EP of the
organization. Results of parallel mediation confirmed that the “degree”dimension of GOC played a significant
mediating role in the relationship between green human resource practices and EP of the organization. The
other two dimensions of GOC, diffusion and depth, did not have a significant mediating role in this relationship.
The findings of the study have been explained in the context of social identity theory, resource based view and
ability–motivation–opportunity theory.
Practical implications –The study provides practical insights for researchers and managers who seek to
adopt sustainability objectives in the organization. The findings have the potential to encourage human
resource managers to adopt green human resource management practices toward promoting a culture of
greening in the organization. The importance of developing and measuring EP targets for industry leadership
is also emphasized.
Originality/value –The originality of the study lies in classifying and understanding GOC in terms of three
dimensions, that is, degree, diffusion and depth, following the model proposed by Harris and Crane (2002). The
three dimensions help in assessing the current level of GOC. This assessment promotes the judicious
application of resources by the organization and adopts green practices to foster the organizational EP.
Keywords Green organizational culture, Green human resource management, Parallel mediation, Moderated
mediation, Environmental performance
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Environmental preservation is an agenda of high significance for organizations in
contemporary times (Ahmed et al., 2021). Organizations have faced innumerable
Relationship of
GHRM with EP
and GOC’s
effect
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1463-5771.htm
Received 16 August 2021
Revised 29 January 2022
Accepted 22 May 2022
Benchmarking: An International
Journal
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1463-5771
DOI 10.1108/BIJ-08-2021-0474
challenges due to natural disasters, climatic changes, economic growth, globalization,
industrial development etc. These challenges have led organizations to rethink their activities
and processes with the aim to preserve the environment (Saeed et al., 2021). In keeping with
the trend, organizations have also adopted green human resource management (GHRM)
practices. GHRM involves the use of human resource practices for reinforcing environmental
sustainability and preservation in the organization (Masri and Jaaron, 2017). It includes five
practices namely, green recruitment, green training and development, green performance
management, green compensation and green involvement (Rizvi and Garg, 2020;Renwick
et al., 2013). Green human resource practices ensure the use of traditional HR practices of
recruitment, training, performance management etc. with a focus on environmental aspects in
the pursuit of organizational goal achievement. Adoption of green human resource practices
provides the organization with a sustainable competitive advantage (Muisyo et al., 2021), and
increases the reputation (Tang et al., 2018) and economic efficiency of the organization (Shah
et al., 2021). Though studies suggest that green human resource practices are positively
related to environmental performance (EP) (Roscoe et al., 2019), these are not sufficient for
enhancing organizational EP (Muisyo and Qin, 2021). Other mediating variables like green
creativity (Zhou and Shalley, 2011) and green culture (Muisyo and Qin, 2021) play a crucial
role in enhancing organizational performance. Pelligrini et al. (2018) demonstrated that the
implementation of environmental friendly practices throughout the organization helps in
instilling a culture of greening in the organization by transforming the behavior of employees.
Green organizational culture (GOC) is defined as the values, beliefs and principles that guide
the behavior of employees (Schein, 1992) and includes environment friendly organizational
practices (Afum et al., 2020). Green culture is created when the employees incorporate green
practices in their day-to-day working activities, go beyond profit making and act to minimize
the effects of the organization’s operational activities on the natural environment. Harris and
Crane (2002) suggested three dimensions of GOC, that is, degree, diffusion and depth, and
proposed that these three dimensions account for a cultural change in the organization. GOC
develops unique characteristics in the organization that are difficult for the competitors to
imitate (Wang, 2019). To achieve the goal of sustainability, the organization is required to
institutionalize environmental beliefs (Harris and Crane, 2002) and ensure the alignment of
organizational vision and mission with sustainability values (Porter et al., 2016).
Though green practices are yet to be adopted in full measure by firms in India (Raut et al.,
2019) and environmental management activities, nevertheless, it is a growing concern as the
firms have recognized the benefits of green practices. The benefits include better brand image
(Gupta and Kumar, 2013), improved productivity and reduced cost (Porter et al., 2016).Therefore,
it is important for researchers to address attention on GHRM. However, very few studies have
evaluated the role of green human resource practices on EP (Mishra, 2017), and no study has
focused on studying the role of various dimensions of GOC in improving the EP of the
organization. Therefore, the present study seeks to understand the importance of sustainability
and greening for a country like India and aims to fulfill the following objectives. The main
purpose of the study is to understand the mediating role of three dimensions (degree, diffusion
and depth) of GOC in the relationship between GHRM and EP of the organization. The study
also seeks to understand the direct and indirect effects of GHRM on EP of the organization. In
addition, the study also attempts to understand the moderating effect of industrial sector (public
or private) on the relationships of GHRM and degree, diffusion and depth dimension of GOC.
2. Conceptual framework
2.1 Green human resource management
Contemporary challenges in the business environment and increased competition have
forced organizations to adopt new processes especially in the field of human resource
BIJ
management. To address the environmental issues, many organizations have adopted
GHRM (Renwick et al., 2013). Wehrmeyer (1996), who edited a book titled “Greening people:
Human Resources and Environmental Management”, originally gave the concept of GHRM.
Since then authors have been defining GHRM in different ways. However, definitions assume
GHRM as a systematic, planned and an ongoing concept aimed at sustainable use of
resources (Haddock-Millar et al., 2016). GHRM transforms the traditional HR practices into
environmentally sustainable practices (Opatha and Arulrajah, 2014) that aim toward
building a competitive advantage for the organization. GHRM has been comprehended in the
light of Ability–Motivation–Opportunity (AMO) theory proposed by Appelbaum et al. (2000).
This theory suggests that human resource management (HRM) practices focus on enhancing
the human capabilities and help in improving the performance outcomes (increased
performance, reduced waste etc.) of the organization (Renwick et al., 2013). Many scholars
(Pinzone et al., 2016;Rizvi and Garg, 2020) have extended this theory in the context of GHRM.
They suggest that green recruitment and green training focus on improving the green ability
of employees, green performance management and green compensation focus on motivating
green employees while green involvement provides sufficient opportunities to the employees
to perform environmental management activities.
Zaid et al. (2018) proposed that green HR practices act in bundles to have greater impact on
organizational performance. Macduffie (1995) proposed that different combinations of
individual HR practices that are mutually complementary act in a way to produce better
organizational performance. Thus, HR practices act in bundles to produce a synergistic effect
that has a greater impact on organizational performance. Zaid et al. (2018),Renwick et al.
(2013) considered the bundle of green HR practices and found that if green practices are
jointly implemented then they have greater impact on organizational EP. Therefore, we
would also consider a bundle of five green HR practices to obtain a collective effect of these
practices on the organizational EP. Thus, the GHRM bundle consists of following five
different green HR practices:
(1) Green recruitment: It is the process of choosing environmentally concerned
employees in the organization who are ready to minimize any negative impact of
their activities on the environment to improve the organizational effectiveness
(Guerci et al., 2016).
(2) Green training and development: This practice focuses on improving the employees’
ability toward understanding green/environmental issues and helps them to learn
different ways of conserving energy and reducing waste in the organization (Jabbour
et al., 2015).
(3) Green performance management: It involves a system of assigning and evaluating the
activities of employee related to environmental goals of the organization (Jabbour and
Santos, 2008).
(4) Green compensation: It is a system of monetary (cash prizes) and nonmonetary
(praise, awards and recognition) rewards for those who contribute toward
environmental management goals (Jabbour and Santos, 2008).
(5) Green involvement: It involves participation of employees in environmental
management activities to produce significant results concerning environment
(Rizvi and Garg, 2020).
2.2 Green organizational culture
Wang (2019) defined organizational culture as a shared system of values, beliefs, ideas and
attitude that shape the organizational behavior. Culture helps the organization in transforming
Relationship of
GHRM with EP
and GOC’s
effect
the thinking of employees (Rao and Holt, 2005) and acts as a competitive advantage for an
organization (Aggarwal and Agarwala, 2021;Shah et al.,2021). Harris and Crane (2002) defined
GOC as an extent to which assumptions, values, symbols and artifacts of the organization
reflect the desire to operate in an environmentally sustainable manner. Green culturefacilitates
the adoption of any change related to environment in the organization.
GOC can be discussed in the context of social identity theory (SIT) proposed by Ashforth
and Mael (1989). According to this theory, people divide themselves into teams to develop
positive habits. They form groups of like-minded people and adopt similar set of habits.
Extending this theory in organizational context, GOC is created when organizational
members behave and work in a way to influence the environment positively (Shroufe and
Sivasubramaniam, 2010).
Harris and Crane (2002) formulated a three-dimensional concept of GOC which includes
degree, diffusion and depth of various organizational processes and practices to form GOC.
The degree dimension is defined as the extent to which managers feel that green values are
present in the organizational artifacts. The diffusion dimension of cultural greening involves
the adoption of green values by all the departments of the organization. It focuses on the
width of adoption of green practices in the organization. The depth dimension of cultural
greening focusses on the adoption of green values by all the organizational members at an
individual level (Harris and Crane, 2002).
GOC also relies on the postulates of resource based view (RBV) theory and advances the
notion that it can act as a source of competitive advantage for the organization (Wang, 2019).
RBV theory was initially proposed by Barney (1991) in order to demonstrate how an
organization is likely to achieve competitive advantage by developing valuable, inimitable,
rare and organized resources. Green culture also aims to be a source of competitive advantage
for the organization as it develops an invisible asset for the organization that is hard for the
competitors to imitate.
2.3 Environmental performance
Lober (1996) initially defined EP as the commitment of an organization to preserve and
protect its natural environment. Several measures such as maintenance of quality of water,
air, soil etc. were considered toward the measurement of EP. Epstein (1996) considered the
effects of business activities and products of the organization on the natural environment,
such as resource consumption, waste generation and emissions to study EP. Sen et al. (2013)
categorized the measurement of EP using two approaches:
(1) Direct approach: This approach focused on measuring quantities directly responsible
for pollution control methodologies and strategies. These include several approaches
such as intelligent and information based environmental management,
environmental innovation management, planning environmental impact
assessment etc.
(2) Indirect approach: These approaches do not deal directly with pollution control
methodologies and strategies but result in environmental performance improvement.
It includes several approaches such as selecting a green supplier, reduction in energy
consumption and focusing on waste minimization.
Several scholars (Al-Swidi et al., 2021;Muisyo et al., 2021) have used indirect approaches of
EP measurement toward GHRM. International standard association suggested that the
management should focus toward EP evaluation for a continuous progression toward
sustainability (Shah et al., 2021). Baah et al. (2021) revealed that an improvement in EP also
leads to an improvement in financial performance of the firm thus providing a competitive
advantage to the organization.
BIJ
3. Literature review and hypothesis development
3.1 Green human resource management and green organizational culture
Preservation of environment has gained attention among organizations over the past decade
(Ahmed et al., 2021). It has encouraged organizations toward adopting green practices
(Rawashdeh, 2018) that helps to gain a sustained business advantage (Tang et al., 2018).
Human resource department facilitates the establishment of green culture (Muisyo et al.,
2021) by shaping the employees’behavior and values through its practices (Amini et al., 2018).
Green HR practices act as a catalyst to monitor, reduce and manage the adverse impact of
business organizations on the natural environment. These practices promote
proenvironmental initiatives in the organization that helps in developing and promoting
GOC (Attainese, 2012). Among the five green HR practices, green recruitment helps to attract
environment friendly employees in the organization (Zaid et al., 2018). It supports the
environmental initiatives of the organization by making the new employees familiar with the
organization’s environmental friendly culture. These employees undergo green training that
helps in promoting green values among them.
Green performance management helps in promoting green behavior in the organization.
This behavior is supported with green rewards. Culture of greenness is strengthened if we
involve and provide sufficient opportunities to employees to contribute toward
environmental initiatives. Thus, these practices work cohesively to minimize the
environmental burden and promote green culture in the organization (Muisyo et al., 2021).
This argument is also supported by Roscoe et al. (2019) who showed that if employees
cooperate to face environmental challenges together, it leads to the development of
proenvironmental culture in the organization. Porter et al. (2016) demonstrated that
implementation of sustainable practices leads to the development of green organizational
culture in the organization. Harris and Crane (2002) proposed that green culture is contingent
upon three key dimensions (degree, diffusion and depth). The three dimensions are
internalized in such a way that green human resource practices play a major role in
operationalizing green culture in the organization (Porter et al., 2016). Based on the above
literature, the present study tries to evaluate the following relationships (Figure 1):
H1a. There exists a significant and positive relationship between GHRM and the degree
dimension of GOC.
H1b. There exists a significant and positive relationship between GHRM and the
diffusion dimension of GOC.
Green Human Resource
Management (GHRM)
Diffusion
Environmental
Performance
Degree
Depth
Sector
Indirect effect: H4a (+), H4b (+), H4c (+)
H1c (+)
H1b (+)
H1a (+) H3a (+)
H3b (+)
H3c (+)
H2 (+)
H5a,
H5b,
H5c
Figure 1.
The mediating role of
three dimensions of
green culture in the
relationship between
GHRM and EP
(hypothesized model)
Relationship of
GHRM with EP
and GOC’s
effect
H1c. There exists a significant and positive relationship between GHRM and the depth
dimension of GOC.
3.2 Green human resource management and environmental performance
The literature indicates that most organizations focus on adopting green HR practices to
address environmental concerns (Baah et al., 2021). Among the five practices considered in
our study, green recruitment is the process of attracting new talent in the organization who
possess environmental competencies (Guerci et al., 2016) and are aware of the process of
sustainable development (Wehrmeyer, 1996). Green recruitment focuses on choosing a
candidate for a job who demonstrates proenvironmental behavior (Guerci et al., 2016). It aims
to create a fit between employees and employers’values concerning environmental
preservation thus fulfilling the organizational goal of environmental sustainability.
Mishra (2017) demonstrated that green recruitment helps the organization in decreasing
the rate of environmental degradation thus providing better environmental sustainability
results. Similarly, green training and development adds value to the employees (Malik et al.,
2020) and focuses on improving their environmental awareness (Teixeira et al., 2012). Zaid
et al. (2018) and Longini et al. (2016) depicted that green recruitment and green training are
positively related to the EP of the organization.
Green performance management is aimed at motivating the employees to align their
behavior in line with the organizational environmental goals (Govindarajulu and Daily, 2004).
It focuses on green goal setting, i.e. environment related goals are mutually set between the
employer and employee. These targets motivate the employees to behave in an
environmentally sustainable manner. Carrol and Bucholtz (2011) showed that if
environment friendly goals are included in the goal sheet of an employee then the
employee tries to fulfill these goals and achieve organizational sustainability targets with full
zeal and enthusiasm. Different types of green goals that can be set in an employee’s goal sheet
include environmental incidents, environmental responsibilities, reduction in carbon dioxide
emissions etc. (Wehrmeyer, 1996). Green compensation is a system of providing financial and
nonfinancial rewards to the employee based upon their environmental contribution. Some
monetary examples of green compensation are providing cash bonuses for environment
related performance or financial incentives for green product purchases (electric cars). Some
nonmonetary examples include gift certificates, time off, excellence awards for
environmental performance etc. (Govindarajulu and Daily, 2004;Renwick et al., 2013).
Yong et al. (2019) demonstrated that green performance and green compensation have no
significant relationship with EP while Longini et al. (2016) demonstrated that green
performance and green compensation are positively related to EP.
Green involvement refers to direct participation of employees in the environmental
management activities. It gives due consideration to employees’voice in environmental
problems and asks employees to suggest solutions for these problems (Dubois and Dubois,
2012). Green involvement includes participation of employees in the decision making process
of environment management activities (Jabbour and Santos, 2008)andprovides
opportunities to employees to raise voice in environmental issues. Mousa and Othman
(2020) argued that employees’participation in the decision making process triggers green
behavior in the organization and significantly influences the EP of the organization.
Tadi
c and Pivac (2014) demonstrated that organizations focus on obtaining a synergistic
effect of joint activities rather than relying on individual variables. This combined effect is
also obtained by GHRM. When green activities are performed in combination, they create a
synergistic effect and help to produce a greater effect on the EP of the organization
(Minbaeva, 2013). Guerci et al. (2016) and Zaid et al. (2018) have focused on assessing and
studying the impact of the GHRM bundle on EP.
BIJ
Therefore, on the basis of above literature review, we propose the following relationship
(Figure 1):
H2. There exists a significant and positive relationship between GHRM and EP of the
organization.
3.3 Dimensions of GOC and EP
Although GHRM is gaining momentum and organizations have started adopting green
practices in order to promote sustainability, yet mere adoption of these policies and practices
is not sufficient to improve the EP of the organization. Sufficient steps have to be taken by the
organization to imbibe green practices into its culture that serves as a competitive advantage
to the organization thereby helping the organization to face the environmental challenges
(Post and Altman, 1994). GOC is comparatively new in the field of HR (Al Swidi et al., 2021),
and studies have focused on evolving its definition from the concept of organizational culture
(Afum et al., 2020). Harris and Crane (2002) focused on GOC along three dimensions (degree,
diffusion and depth) that gave a holistic picture of green culture in the organization. Harris
and Crane (2002) suggested that changes in the organization are drastic if green practices are
imbibed in the organization according to the three dimensions of GOC. These dimensions
suggest that the focus of adoption of green practices should not be HR only; rather greening
should be adopted by all the employees of the organization. The change in the method of
adoption of green practices enables all employees to contribute toward the activities of
environmental management thereby leading to the development of a culture of greenness in
the organization. Rao and Holt (2005) advised that GOC can change the thinking pattern of
organizational members and act as a catalyst in the process of green change that can serve as
a competitive advantage for the firm (G€
urlek and Tuna, 2018). The green culture oriented
competitive advantage for the firm which also enables the organization to differentiate itself
from its competitors and solve environmental problems more strategically (Muisyo et al.,
2021). Dangelico (2015) suggested that organizations have to take conscious efforts to involve
and develop all the organizational members to solve environmental problems that eventually
lead to improved EP of the organization. Harris and Crane’s (2002) model of green culture
helps the organization in identifying where (degree, depth and diffusion) the environmental
management efforts should be incorporated in the organization to lead a sustained business
advantage (Aggarwal and Agarwala, 2021).
Muisyo et al. (2021) demonstrated that the enablers of GOC (leadership emphasis, message
credibility, and peer involvement and employee empowerment) provide a foundation for the
improvement of green competitiveness of the firm. These enablers motivate the employees to
focus on imbibing green initiatives in the organization thereby reducing harmful emissions
from organizational processes (Simpson and Samson, 2010) and eventually leading to an
improved environmental performance of the organization (Roscoe et al., 2019). Shah et al.
(2021) pointed that GOC focuses on making behavioral changes among the employees to
address environmental issues that transforms the organization into a new one. G€
urlek and
Tuna (2018) showed the organization should encourage all the organizational members to
involve in environmental issues. This leads to development of the degree, diffusion and depth
dimension of green culture in the organization and serve as a competitive edge for the
organization. Based on the above discussion, we propose the following hypothesis (Figure 1):
H3a. There exists a significant and positive relationship between the degree dimension
of GOC and EP of the organization.
H3b. There exists a significant and positive relationship between the diffusion dimension
of GOC and EP of the organization.
Relationship of
GHRM with EP
and GOC’s
effect
H3c. There exists a significant and positive relationship between the depth dimension of
GOC and EP of the organization.
3.4 Mediating role of GOC
GHRM is a very focused and efficient approach in terms of improving the ability and
motivation of employees and providing them sufficient opportunities to engage through the
environmental behavior (Saeed et al., 2019). The adoption of GHRM activities of the
organization help in increasing the environmental awareness of the employees. This
cognizance influences the beliefs and values of employees to evolve green culture in the
organization (Roscoe et al., 2019). Thus, green culture has the capability of transforming the
behavior of employees and focuses on implementation of green practices in the
organization. The development of green culture enables employees to think in an
environmentally sustainable way. It is a key driver in the implementation of green practices
(GHRM) as green culture is said to be created when all the members of the organization are
involved in the greening initiatives of the organization (Rizvi and Garg, 2020). Chen et al.
(2020) contended that the environment friendly values and GOC can enhance the
capabilities of the organization and can help in translating the organizational strategy into
environment friendly outcomes. Burki et al. (2018) demonstrated that GOC acts as a
strategic lens that helps an organization to achieve not only financial performance but also
EP objectives. Gupta and Kumar (2013) highlighted that formation of GOC needs the
intervention and involvement of HRM practices. These HRM practices focus on complete
transformation of employees. Green employees are more expressive to share their thoughts
and contribute toward organizational environmental initiatives and objectives. Therefore,
green culture plays a key role in the improvement of environmental performance of the
organization. Nazarian et al. (2017) pointedthatGOCcanplayaninstrumentalrolein
enhancing an organizational competitiveness by improving its performance. Muisyo et al.
(2021) focused on evaluating the role of enablers of green culture on the relationship
between GHRM and the firm’s competitive advantage while Muisyo and Qin (2021) focused
on analyzing the moderating role of green innovation culture on the relationship between
GHR practices and green performance of the organization. Afum et al. (2020) focused on
evaluating the role of GOC as a mediator on the relationship between green manufacturing
and green procurement practices and the EP of the organization, but no study has focused
on investigating the mediating role of three dimensions of GOC on GHRM and EP of the
organization.
Based on the above discussion we seek to understand if the three dimensions of GOC
(degree, diffusion and depth) mediate the relationship between green human resource practices
and EP of the organization. Therefore, the following relationships are proposed (Figure 1):
H4a. The degree dimension of green organizational culture plays a mediating role in the
relationship between GHRM and EP.
H4b. The diffusion dimension of green organizational culture plays a mediating role in
the relationship between GHRM and environmental performance.
H4c. The depth dimension of green organizational culture plays a mediating role in the
relationship between GHRM and EP.
3.5 The sector as a moderator
Johns (2006) pointed out that contextual factors are crucial to understand the nature of an
activity. It is quite possible that the workers experience same process differently in different
contexts. Some examples of context suggested by the Johns (2006) are nations, organizations,
BIJ
industries, profession etc. Oppel et al. (2016) suggested that the ownership related difference
in various sectors still remains an under researched area and needs to be addressed especially
in developing countries. Hinz and Ingerfurth (2013) identified that ownership (private and
public sector) acts as an important contextual factor as it is believed that the culture and work
environment in both the sectors differ significantly. Budhwar and Boyne (2004) identified
that private sector organizations emphasize more on performance while public sector
organizations invest more in selection procedure. HR function is considered to be primarily
administrative in public sector organizations with the power being concentrated in the hands
of top management (Veloso et al., 2015) whereas in the private sector organizations, HR acts as
a strategic function that focuses on participative decision making and employee involvement
(Blom et al., 2018). The goals for public sector organization employees are less tangible and
difficult to measure as compared to the goal set by private sector employees (Rainey and Jung,
2010). Consequently, public sector organizations find it difficult to develop incentive schemes
for employees (Perry et al., 2006). Chaudhary (2019) demonstrated environmental orientation
and gender as a moderator in the relationship between green practices and job pursuit
intention. However, no research has studied the role of the sector as a moderator in the
relationship between GHRM, EP and GOC. Therefore, based upon the differences in
ownership, we formulate the following hypothesis:
H5a. The relationships between GHRM and the degree dimension of GOC is positively
moderated by the industrial sector (public or private) such that the relationship is
stronger for private sector organizations.
H5b. The relationships between GHRM and the diffusion dimension of GOC is positively
moderated by the industrial sector (public or private) such that the relationship is
stronger for private sector organizations.
H5c. The relationships between GHRM and the depth dimension of GOC is positively
moderated by the industrial sector (public or private) such that the relationship is
stronger for private sector organizations.
In the context of the above relationships, Figure 1 presents the conceptual model and the
related hypothesis to be tested in the study.
4. Methodology
4.1 Sample description
Table 1 shows the sample characteristics. Data were collected using convenience sampling.
The total sample consisted of 279 respondents. These responses were collected through a
questionnaire that was developed to measure the different constructs of the research model.
In all 650 questionnaires were shared with employees of public and private sector
organizations, and 278 usable questionnaires were obtained with a response rate of 42.92%.
All the items in the questionnaire were measured on a five point Likert scale ranging from
15strongly disagree to 5 5strongly agree.
4.2 Questionnaires
4.2.1 Green human resource management. GHRM is a second order construct consisting of
five variables, i.e. green recruitment, green training and development, green performance
management, green compensation and green involvement. The degree of implementation of
green HR practices in the organization was measured using different scales adapted from the
previous studies (Jabbour, 2011;Tang et al., 2018;Guerci et al., 2016;Yusliza et al., 2017). The
GHRM scale consisted of 19 items related to five green HR practices. The five practices were
Relationship of
GHRM with EP
and GOC’s
effect
green recruitment (4 items), green training and development (4 items), green performance
management (3 items), green compensation (3 items) and green involvement (5 items). The
questionnaire items are given in Appendix. The responses were obtained on a five point
Likert scale where 1 indicated “strongly disagree”and 5 indicated “strongly agree”. The
factor loadings were found to range between 0.54 and 0.84 while Cronbach alpha was found to
be 0.951.
4.2.2 Green organizational culture. Green culture consists of three dimensions, i.e. degree,
diffusion and depth of cultural greening in the organization. The questionnaire of these
dimensions was adapted from the scale of Aggarwal and Agarwala (2021).Thethree
dimensions of GOC consisted of 17 items. The respondents were asked to indicate the
responses on a five point Likert scale where 1 denotes “strongly disagree”and 5 denotes
“strongly agree”. The items in the scale were as given in Appendix.Table 2 denotes the
Cronbach alpha and the range of factor loadings of the three dimensions of GOC.
4.2.3 Environmental performance. The questionnaire for studying EP was adapted from
Daily et al. (2007) and Paill
eet al. (2014). It consisted of eight items. The items of the
questionnaire are given in Appendix.
The respondents were asked to indicate their responses to the questionnaire on a five point
Likert scale where a response of 1 denotes “strongly disagree”and a response of 5 denotes
“strongly agree”. The factor loadings of the items ranged between 0.70 and 0.79, and the
Cronbach alpha was found to be 0.893.
Statements related to demographic characteristics of the respondents like age, gender,
work experience etc. were also included in the questionnaire.
Category NPercentage
Gender profile
Male 167 60.07%
Female 111 39.92%
Sector profile
Public 129 46.40%
Private 149 53.59%
Age profile
< 35 years 178 64.02%
> 35 years 100 35.97%
Management level
Entry level 71 25.53%
Junior management 79 28.41%
Middle management 101 36.33%
Senior management 27 9.71%
Construct No. of items Factor loadings range Cronbach alpha
Degree dimension 6 0.62–0.86 0.862
Diffusion dimension 6 0.75–0.87 0.900
Depth dimension 5 0.67–0.84 0.86
Table 1.
Sample characteristics
Table 2.
Cronbach alpha values
of three dimensions
of GOC
BIJ
5. Results and analysis
5.1 Nonresponse bias and common method bias
To test the nonresponse bias due to variation in early and late responses, t-test was
conducted to compare the responses of early and late respondents (Armstrong and
Overton, 1997). The findings of t-test (p< 0.05) revealed no significant difference
between groups of respondents, thus indicating the absence of nonresponse bias.
Common method bias was examined using Harman’s single factor method and single
common latent factor method (Dubey et al., 2017). The first was Harman’s single-
factor, and the second was single common latent factor analysis. Results of Harman’s
single-factor analysis showed that a single factor explained 29.78% of the variance
which is less than the cutoff (i.e. 50%) as suggested by Harrison et al. (1996).Insingle
common latent factor analysis using analysis of moment structures (AMOS), the
common method bias (CMB) value was found to be 0.48, and the bias was found to be
23.04% (< 50%, threshold value). These two tests reconfirm that our study has no
concern regarding CMB (Bhatti et al., 2021).The data analysis was carried out in two
steps. First, the measurement model was run using AMOS-structural equation
modelling (SEM) to study the relationship between the measured variables and the
latent constructs. Next, SEM was carried out, and the proposed hypotheses were
tested. Lastly, moderation effect of the sector (public and private) was studied.
5.2 Measurement model
Anderson and Gerbing (1988) suggested to test the measurement model of the constructs
before testing the proposed conceptual model. Therefore, the study evaluated the
measurement model using confirmatory factor analysis and assessed different
measurement properties like reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity. The
model fit indices such as minimum discrepancy per degree of freedom (Cmin/DF),
comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and
standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) were calculated to test the model fit. The
values of these model fit indices (Cmin/DF 51.862, CFI 50.904, RMSEA 50.056 and
SRMR 50.084) were found to meet the threshold limits (Hu and Bentler, 1999).
Hair et al. (2010) said that all the items having factor loadings above 0.5 and p< 0.001 are
significant and considered acceptable (Table 3). The composite reliability of all the constructs
was found to be greater than 0.7 satisfying Bagozzi and Yi’s (1991) condition of composite
reliability. Convergent validity is ascertained if the value of AVE is found to be greater than
0.5 (Hair et al., 2010). AVE for all the constructs was found to be more than 0.5, thus satisfying
the criteria of convergent validity.
Discriminant validity identifies if the observed scale items can explain the latent
construct fully. It is measured by comparing MSV against AVE where AVE should be
greater than MSV. In addition, Hair et al. (2010) suggested that square root of AVE
should be greater than inter construct correlations. Table 4 suggests that AVE for all
the factors is greater than MSV, and the square root of AVE is greater than inter
construct correlations; thus the model does not have discriminant validity issues.
5.3 The structural model and hypothesis test
Model fitness of the structural model indicated good fitness results (Cmin/DF 51.862;
CFI 50.904; RMSEA 50.056; SRMR 50.084) (Hu and Bentler, 1999). Figure 2 represents the
structural model with path coefficients.
Figure 2 shows the results of the structural model. Detailed results of hypothesis testing
are shown in Table 5.pvalues are the basis to decide the acceptance or rejection of hypothesis.
GHRM is found to be positively and significantly related with the degree dimension of
Relationship of
GHRM with EP
and GOC’s
effect
Variable/Construct Factor loading (>0.5) AVE (>0.5) CR (>0.7) Cronbach alpha
GHRM 0.716 0.925 0.951
REC1 0.773
REC2 0.739
REC3 0.869
REC4 0.841
TD1 0.735
TD2 0.821
TD3 0.832
TD4 0.810
PMS1 0.771
PMS2 0.855
PMS3 0.835
COMP1 0.783
COMP2 0.878
COMP3 0.821
INV1 0.786
INV2 0.836
INV3 0.803
INV4 0.847
INV5 0.836
Degree 0.530 0.868 0.862
DEG1 0.515
DEG2 0.732
DEG3 0.837
DEG4 0.855
DEG5 0.798
DEG6 0.559
Diffusion 0.603 0.901 0.900
DIFF1 0.777
DIFF2 0.826
DIFF3 0.859
DIFF4 0.672
DIFF5 0.711
DIFF6 0.798
Depth 0.557 0.861 0.860
DEP1 0.788
DEP2 0.577
DEP3 0.807
DEP4 0.815
DEP5 0.718
EP 0.511 0.893 0.893
EP1 0.761
EP2 0.743
EP3 0.709
EP4 0.745
EP5 0.727
EP6 0.667
EP7 0.644
EP8 0.713
Note(s): CR is the composite reliability, AVE is average variance extracted; factor loadings are significant
at p< 0.001
Table 3.
Summary of validity
and reliability analysis
BIJ
cultural greening (β50.551 and p< 0.001). However, GHRM is not found to be significantly
related with the diffusion dimension (β50.03 and p50.615) and the depth dimension of
cultural greening (β50.067, p50.260). Thus, H1a is supported while H1b and H1c are not
CR AVE MSV GHRM Degree Diffusion Depth EP
GHRM 0.925 0.716 0.300 0.846
Degree 0.868 0.530 0.311 0.507*** 0.728
Diffusion 0.901 0.603 0.305 0.030*** 0.342*** 0.777
Depth 0.861 0.557 0.305 0.060*** 0.305*** 0.552*** 0.746
EP 0.893 0.511 0.311 0.548*** 0.558*** 0.271*** 0.312*** 0.715
Note(s): ***p< 0.001
Hypothesis Independent construct Dependent construct BS.E. pvalue Conclusion
H1a GHRM Degree 0.551 0.040 0.000 Supported
H1b GHRM Diffusion 0.030 0.064 0.615 Not supported
H1c GHRM Depth 0.067 0.045 0.260 Not supported
H2 GHRM EP 0.452 0.040 0.000 Supported
H3a Degree EP 0.289 0.049 0.000 Supported
H3b Diffusion EP 0.117 0.031 0.007 Supported
H3c Depth EP 0.160 0.044 0.000 Supported
Table 4.
Model validity
measures
Figure 2.
The structural model
with path coefficients
Table 5.
Standardized direct
effects
Relationship of
GHRM with EP
and GOC’s
effect
supported. From the figure, we also found that GHRM is significantly related to EP (β50.452
and p< 0.001) thereby supporting Hypothesis H2. The model also found the degree
dimension (β50.289 and p< 0.001), diffusion dimension (β50.117 and p< 0.01) and depth
dimension (β50.160 and p< 0.001) of GOC significantly related to EP thus supporting the
hypotheses H3a,H3b and H3c.
5.4 Mediation analysis
Most of the previous research studies on mediation analysis used Baron and Kenny’s (1986)
causal steps’approach; however, several questions have been raised as to whether this
approach effectively tests the mediating effects on the independent and dependent variable.
(Fritz and Mckinnon, 2007). Hayes and Preacher (2013) suggested an effective and advanced
approach to make up for the methodological flaws of Baron and Kenny’s (1986) approach and
suggested Hayes’mediation approach which calculates direct, indirect and total effect
simultaneously.
5.4.1 Parallel mediation analysis using process macro. The aim of the study was to test
whether the relationship between GHRM and EP has been mediated by the three dimensions
of GOC. We see from the conceptual figure that it is a case of parallel mediation between the
three dimensions of GOC, GHRM and EP. We perform the mediation analysis using Andrew
Hayes’Process Model 4 in SPSS which calculated direct, indirect and total effects. The
mediation results are shown in Table 6. The analysis generates percentile based bias –
corrected bootstrap confidence intervals for the indirect effect, where the significance of
the indirect path is indicated when the confidence level does not contain zero and p< 0.05.
This process is considered to be the most effective in evaluating the mediating effects
(MacKinnon et al., 2004).
From Table 6, we found that the indirect effect of the diffusion dimension of GOC
through GHRM on EP is insignificant (BC 95% CI (0.188, 0.0108)). Therefore,
diffusion does not play a significant mediating role between GHRM and EP. In
addition, the indirect effect of the depth dimension of GOC through GHRM on EP is
also insignificant (BC 95% CI (0.0067, 0.0308)). Therefore, the depth dimension also
does not play a significant role in the mediating relationship between GHRM and EP.
However, it is found that the indirect effect of the degree dimension of GOC plays a
significant role on the relationship between GHRM and EP (BC 95% CI (0.0555,
0.2067)). Therefore, the degree dimension of GOC plays a significant mediating role in
the relationship between GHRM and EP.
From the parallel mediation analysis results, we can see that the degree dimension of
cultural greening is significant and positively related to GHRM and EP. In addition, the total
effect of GHRM on EP is significant (β50.47 and p< 0.01). However, the effect of GHRM on
EP has been reduced from 0.47 (p< 0.01) to 0.34 (p< 0.01) after the inclusion of the degree
dimension of green culture. The reduction in the value of βdepicts partial mediation with no
change in significance levels. . To confirm the partial mediation effect, Process Model 4 was
used to test the indirect effect. The technique of bootstrapping with 5,000 samples was used to
calculate the mediation effect and estimate the effect size. At 5% level of significance, it was
observed that the indirect effect of GHRM on EP through degree was significant (0.1208,
Hypothesis Relation Effect pvalue LLCI ULCI Conclusion
H4a GHRM →Degree →EP 0.1208 0.000 0.0557 0.2046 Supported
H4b GHRM →Diffusion →EP 0.0027 0.045 0.0188 0.0108 Not supported
H4c GHRM →Depth →EP 0.0082 0.004 0.0055 0.0294 Not supported
Table 6.
Mediation effects
BIJ
BC 595% and p< 0.01). Overall, the mediation model significantly explained 51.58% of the
variance in EP which is higher than the no mediation relationship (35.4%) between the
independent and dependent variable.
5.5 Moderation results
Moderator variables affect either or both direction and the strength of the relationship
between independent and dependent variables (Holmbeck, 1997). Results of Andrew Hayes
Process Model 7 (Table 7) demonstrates that the sector (public or private) does not moderate
the relationship between GHRM and three dimensions (degree, diffusion and depth) of GOC
as p> 0.05 for all the three relationships. Thus, H5a,H5b and H5c are not supported, and we
conclude that the sector does not moderate this relationship.
6. Conclusion and discussion
The present study contributes by examining the relationship between GHRM and EP along
with the three dimensions of GOC (degree, diffusion and depth) as mediating variables. The
study found GHRM practices to be significantly and positively related to EP. This signifies
the successful dissemination of environmental activities in the organization. The completion
of the environmental activities is achieved through GHRM bundle focusing on increasing the
environmental motivation and skills of the employees. This relationship also signifies the
creation of appropriate opportunities for successful participation of employees in
environmental management initiatives of the organization (Cantor et al., 2012). Zaid et al.
(2018) and Mousa and Othman (2020) also confirmed this relationship and concluded that
green employees contribute toward accomplishing the environmental goals of the
organization thereby, improving the performance of the organization.
Results also suggested that among the three dimensions of GOC, the degree dimension
played a significant mediating role between GHRM and EP. This is because the degree
dimension focuses on understanding the importance of greening by different managers in an
organizational set up, and it refers to the extent managers believe that green values are
embedded in organizational artifacts (Harris and Crane, 2002). The degree dimension of GOC
focuses on building environmental conscious and valuable workforce that is hard for the
competitors to imitate. The significant relationship of the degree dimension confirmed that
managers have started incorporating different environmental initiatives in the organizational
processes. These results are in accordance with Porter et al. (2016) who found that the
constituents of the degree dimension of GOC are held at the forefront by the managers. This is
because these constituents directly influence the profit and help the organization in
developing a workforce that helps distinguishing the organization from its competitors.
The study also found that the diffusion dimension of GOC does not play a significant
mediating role in the relation between GHRM and EP. The diffusion dimension focuses on
implementing green values throughout the organization, i.e. among all departments. Since
greening is a new concept for Indian organizations, the organizational members have just begun
to embed green values into their behavior and activities. Indian organizations consider greening
Hypothesis Relation βS.E. tvalue pvalue ULCI LLCI Conclusion
H5a Sector*GHRM →Degree 0.1236 0.0793 1.5599 0.1199 0.0324 0.2797 Not supported
H5b Sector*GHRM →Diffusion 0.6710 0.3715 1.8061 0.0720 0.0604 1.4025 Not supported
H5c Sector*GHRM →Depth 0.1449 0.2508 0.5780 0.5637 0.3487 0.6386 Not supported
Note(s): Bootstrap based on n, 5,000 resamples (two tailed)
Table 7.
Moderation results
Relationship of
GHRM with EP
and GOC’s
effect
as a major responsibility of HR department, and therefore, not all the departments of the
organization have imbibed green values equally. These results are not in accordance with Harris
and Crane (2002) and Porter et al. (2016). These studies demonstrated that all the organizational
and functional members implemented sustainability initiatives equally. However, Porter et al.
(2016) pointed the various challenges faced by the organization in setting up additional job
responsibilities related to sustainability. Porter et al. (2016) pointed toward the existence of
frustration among employees in the implementation of these new responsibilities. Similar results
are depicted by our study as organizations in India also face structural and implementation
challenges concerning new job responsibilities related to green initiatives.
The study further found that the depth dimension of GOC does not play a significant
mediating role in the relationship between GHRM and EP. The depth dimension considers the
behavior of each organizational member and examines the acceptability of greening in his/
her activities. Ashforth and Mael (1989) postulated that the organizational processes
influence the thoughts and ideas of the employees. However, our results depict that
environmental initiatives are at a niche stage in Indian organizations; therefore, managers
have just started imbibing green values into their behavior and have not reached to a level
where each employee of the organization shows green behavior. Businesses focus primarily
on making profits often at the cost of environment. The depth dimension points that the
organizations should predominantly focus on being sustainable (Harris and Crane, 2002).
This has not been depicted by our study. Our study demonstrates that sustainability can be a
part of profit-oriented culture but does not function as a discrete entity. Further, the depth
dimension also symbolizes the different action symbols depicted by managers of the
organization. Since green practices have not been imbibed by all the mangers, it is quite a
possibility that the managers may not be demonstrating sustainable initiatives into their
actions. The results are in accordance with Porter et al. (2016) who found that symbolic events
in the depth dimension of GOC are less prevalent in organizations.
Crane (1995) believed culture is the central idea toward developing a sustainable business,
and by developing green culture companies think beyond the idea of pollution prevention and
enters into the world of sustainable future. Culture has the power to transform the values of
an organization and is considered as an important driver of sustainability initiative. The
results of the study also depicted that in moving toward sustainability, organizations have
understood the need to incorporate green practices in day-to-day behavior. Therefore, the
organizations are making efforts toward creating a sustainable culture.
It has also been observed that private sector organizations make an early move toward
any new initiative when compared with the public sector organizations. This is likely due to
various factors like competition, high attrition rate, different challenges etc. (Oppel et al.,
2016). The present study found that the sector (public or private) does not play a moderating
role in the relationship between GHRM and GOC. These results are in accordance with
Al-Swidi et al. (2021) who found that the sector does not play a moderating role in this
relationship. This may be because of the increasing challenges faced by the all the
organizations at a global level; therefore, necessary steps have to be taken by both the public
and private sector organizations to compete and sustain.
7. Implications
7.1 Theoretical implications
The present study advances the theory and provides original empirical insights based on the
data for GHRM, degree, diffusion and the depth dimension of GOC and EP.
Research studies related to GHRM have not identified constituents of GOC from an
empirical perspective; rather studies have focused on enablers of GOC (Roscoe et al., 2019;
Muisyo et al., 2021), proenvironmental behavior (Zibarras and Coan, 2015) and environmental
BIJ
management practices. Some studies (Garc
ıa-Machado and Mart
ınez-
Avila, 2019) have
adapted the questionnaire of Denison and Mishra (1995) which focused on organizational
culture. Our study uses a questionnaire to study GOC with respect to the three dimensions
and gives a holistic perspective of GOC to our study. Azzone and Noci (1998) showed that
establishment of GOC ensures that there is an effective implementation of green practices in
the organization thereby leading to continuous improvement in the performance of the
organization.
Our study found that the GHRM bundle leads to an improvement in EP. These results are
in accordance with Zaid et al. (2018). Our study also found that the GHRM bundle also
supports the development of green culture in the organization which is in accordance with the
findings of Muisyo et al. (2021).
Therefore, managers are encouraging employees to take up various green initiatives to
reduce waste and use resources judiciously, and these practices shall instill green behavior in
employees in the long term. They shall also motivate employees to adopt greening in their
regular activities, thus transcending the journey toward GOC that shall shape the values of
the organization (G€
urlek and Tuna, 2018). GHRM shall help the organizational members
transform their thinking (Wang, 2019), reach the environmental goals of the organization and
ensure improved performance of the organization.
Since greening is at a nascent stage in Indian organizations, managers have started to
adopt green practices. They believe that green practices provide a competitive edge to the
organization and financially benefit the organization. However, green practices are
considered the primary responsibility of the HR personnel, and thus, it shall take more
time and effort by the organization to instill green values throughout the organization.
To our knowledge, this study is the first to consider the dimensions of GOC as mediating
the relationship between GHRM and EP. Muisyo et al. (2021) pointed that there is a scarcity of
studies relating to GHRM and GOC. Therefore, this study contributes to the literature by
linking GHRM, GOC and EP. This study considers environment friendly values, beliefs and
behavior of employee to give a complete picture of GOC and helps the organization to find the
exact gaps to carefully invest the resources to gain a competitive edge over its competitors.
7.2 Practical implications
Considering the importance of environmental protection and sustainable development, it
becomes imperative for the organization to judiciously invest in resources so that the
organizational efforts of conserving the environment do not turn futile. It is also important for
an organization to teach sustainable concepts to the next generation of employees by
introducing and eventually imbibing sustainability concepts into its value system.
The present study can help managers to understand the benefits of green HR practices
that can lead to the development of green culture in the organization. Different ability
improving practices of recruitment can help in bringing the environmentally conscious value
system in the organization, and training and development can promote environmental
awareness into the employees’behavior. Motivation enhancement practices of performance
management can help establish environment friendly goals for employees. Similarly
rewarding employees for environmental performance can also motivate the employees
toward adopting environmental friendly behavior. Similarly, opportunity-providing
practices of employee involvement can help the employees to engage in environmental
practices that would ultimately lead to the achievement of sustainability objectives of the
organization and an improved EP (Acquah et al., 2020). All these green practices practiced
over a period of time can ensure change and bring uniformity in the behavior of employees
thus leading to development of green culture in the organization (Schein, 1992). Green culture
can help in bringing consistency in the way tasks are accomplished in the organization.
Relationship of
GHRM with EP
and GOC’s
effect
This uniformity and standardization can be passed on to the future generation of managers
which shall be difficult for the competitors to imitate and can be helpful to the organization in
uniquely positioning itself among its competitors.
Analysis of culture with the help of threedimensionscanhelpthemanagersto
understand the prevalent level of green culture and can also help the organization to
understand the gap among existing practices. The analysis with respect to the three
dimensions can help the organization to channelize the resources judiciously in appropriate
directions to get the maximum benefit and can lead to in-depth discussions on green culture
within organizational meetings. These three dimensions can be a source of quantification of
green culture and can help the organization in identifying gaps among existing green
practices (Aggarwal and Agarwala, 2021). Thus, the existence of green practices and green
culture helps employees transform their day-to-day activities into environmentally
responsible behavior and leads to improvement in the EP of the organization. The
present study suggests that the organizations should not only invest in implementing green
practices but also focus on developing a culture of greening in the organization. This
shall help in the complete transformation and lead to a sustainable development of the
organization.
In this competitive environment, when talent and HR processes can act as a source of
distinguishing edge for an organization, organizations should definitely strengthen its
processes and find ways to gain an advantage through innovative concepts and new
practices to improve their brand image and attract the best talent from the industry.
8. Limitations
The present study consists of some limitations, which can help the future researchers in their
study. First, the study was limited to Indian organizations with a small sample size. Culture is
a subjective area that involves shared perceptions and values of employees according to the
organizational context, geographic location and leadership of the organization. Therefore,
generalizability of the results of the present study is limited. Future studies should test the
questionnaire in other industrial sectors and countries to have concrete results. Next, the
present study was cross sectional in nature, i.e. data were collected at a single point in time.
Future studies should apply longitudinal study designs and draw comparisons in the results
after and before the implementation of green HR practices.
In the present study, we have analyzed the moderating role of the sector only. Future
studies should focus on other moderating variables like firm size, age, educational
qualifications, designation etc. and test the moderated mediated relationship. The present
study was entirely quantitative in nature. Future studies should focus on adopting mixed
method research and conduct qualitative (in depth interview) studies at different managerial
levels of the organization. This shall also help the researcher to understand various issues
faced by the organization in implementing environment friendly practices and resistance
caused by employees at different levels in imbibing green practices.
References
Acquah, I.S.K., Agyabeng-Mensah, Y. and Afum, E. (2020), “Examining the link among green human
resource practices, green supply chain management practices and performance”,
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/
bij-05-2020-0205.
Afum, E., Mensah, Y.A. and Owusu, J.A. (2020), “Translating environmental management practices
into improved environmental performance via green organizational culture: insights from
Ghanian manufacturing SMEs”,Journal of Supply Chain Management System, Vol. 9 No. 1,
BIJ
pp. 31-49, available at: http://www.publishingindia.com/jscms/41/translating-environmental-
management-practices-into-improved-environmental-performance-via-green-organizational-
culture-insight-from-ghanaian-manufacturing-smes/875/6041/.
Aggarwal, P. and Agarwala, T. (2021), “Green organizational culture: an exploration of dimensions”,
Global Business Review, Vol. ahead of print, doi: 10.1177/09721509211049890.
Ahmed, U., Umarani, W.A., Yousaf, A., Siddiqui, M.A. and Pahi, M.H. (2021), “Developing
faithful stewardship for environment through green HRM”,International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 33 No. 10, pp. 3115-3133, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-
09-2020-1066.
Al- Swidi, A.K., Gelaidan, H.M. and Saleh, R.M. (2021), “The joint impact of green human resource
management, leadership and organizational culture on employees’green behaviour and
organizational environmental performance”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 316, 128112,
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128112.
Amini, M., Bienstock, C.C. and Narcum, J.A. (2018), “Status of corporate sustainability: a content
analysis of Fortune 500 companies”,Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 27 No. 8,
pp. 1450-1461, doi: 10.1002/bse.2195.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”,Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423, doi: 10.
1037/0033-2909.103.3.411.
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P.B., Kalleberg, A.L. and Bailey, T.A. (2000), Manufacturing
Advantage: Why High Performance Work Systems Pay off, Cornell University Press, Ithaca,
New York.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1997), “Estimating non response bias mail surveys”,Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402, doi: 10.2307/3150783.
Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989), “Social identity theory and the organization”,The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 20-39, doi: 10.2307/258189.
Attainese, E. (2012), “A broader consideration of human factor to enhance sustainable building
design”,Work, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 2155-2159, doi: 10.3233/WOR-2012-1020-2155.
Azzone, G. and Noci, G. (1998), “Identifying effective PMSs for the deployment of ‘green’
manufacturing strategies”,International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 308-335, doi: 10.1108/01443579810199711.
Baah, C., Opoku-Agyeman, D., Acquah, I.S.K., Agyabeng-Mensah, Y., Afum, E., Faibil, D. and
Abdoulaye, F.A.M. (2021), “Examining the correlations between stakeholder pressures, green
production practices, firm reputation, environmental and financial performance: evidence from
manufacturing SMEs”,Sustainable Production and Consumption, Vol. 27, pp. 100-114, doi: 10.
1016/j.spc.2020.10.015.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1991), “Multitrait-multimethod matrices in consumer research”,Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 426-439.
Barney, J.B. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”,Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120, doi: 10.1177/014920639101700108.
Baron, R.B. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological
research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”,Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173-1182, doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173.
Bhatti, S.H., Saleem, F., Murtaza, G. and Haq, T.U. (2021), “Exploring the impact of green human
resource management on environmental performance: the roles of perceived organizational
support and innovative environmental behavior”,International Journal of Manpower,
Vol. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/IJM-05-2020-0215.
Blom, R., Kruyen, P.M., Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M. and Van Thiel, S. (2018), “One HRM fits all? A meta-
analysis of the effects of HRM practices in the public, semi public, and private sector”,Review of
Public Personnel Administration, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 3-35, doi: 10.1177/0734371x18773492.
Relationship of
GHRM with EP
and GOC’s
effect
Budhwar, P.S. and Boyne, G. (2004), “Human resource management in the Indian public and private
sector: an empirical comparison”,The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 346-370, doi: 10.1080/0958519032000158554.
Burki, U., Ersoy, P. and Dahlstrom, R. (2018), “Achieving triple bottom line performance in
manufacturer- customer supply chains: evidence from an emerging economy”,Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 197, pp. 1307-1316, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.236.
Carroll, A. and Buchholtz, A.K. (2011), Business and Society, 8th ed., South- Western Cengage
Learning, Mason, Ohio.
Cantor, D.E., Morrow, P.C. and Montabon, F. (2012), “Engagement in environmental behaviors among
supply chain management employees: an organizational support theoretical perspective”,
Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 33-51.
Chaudhary, R. (2019), “Green human resource management in Indian automobile industry”,Journal of
Global Responsibility, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 161-175, doi: 10.1108/JGR-12-2018-0084.
Chen, Y.S., Lin, S.H., Lin, C.Y., Hung, S.T., Chang, C.W. and Huang, C.W. (2020), “Improving green
product development performance from green vision and organizational culture perspectives”,
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 27, pp. 222-231, doi: 10.
1016/j.jclepro.2021.128112.
Crane, A. (1995), “Rhetoric and reality in the greening of organization culture”,inGreening the
Boardroom, Routledge, pp. 129-144.
Daily, B.F., Bishop, J.W. and Steiner, R. (2007), “The mediating role of EMS teamwork as it pertains to
HR factors and perceived environmental performance”,Journal of Applied Business Research,
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 95-110, doi: 10.19030/jabr.v23i1.1411.
Dangelico, R.M. (2015), “Improving firm environmental performance and reputation: the role of
employee green teams”,Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 735-749,
doi: 10.1002/bse.1842.
Denison, D.R. and Mishra, A.K. (1995), “Toward a theory of organization culture and effectiveness”,
Organization Science, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 204-223, doi: 10.1287/orsc.6.2.204.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A. and Papadopoulos, T. (2017), “Green supply chain management:
theoretical framework and further research directions”,Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 184-218, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-01-2016-0011.
Dubois, C.L. and Dubois, D.A. (2012), “Strategic HRM as social design for environmental
sustainability in organization”,Human Resource Management, Vol. 51, pp. 799-826, doi: 10.
1002/hrm.21504.
Epstein, M.J. (1996), “Improving environmental management with full environmental cost accounting”,
Environmental Quality Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 11-22, doi: 10.1002/tqem.3310060104.
Fritz, M.S. and MacKinnon, D.P. (2007), “Required sample size to detect the mediated effect”,
Psychological Science, Vol. 18, pp. 233-239, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x.
Garc
ıa-Machado, J.J. and Mart
ınez-
Avila, M. (2019), “Environmental performance and green culture:
the mediating effect of green innovation. An application to the automotive industry”,
Sustainability, Vol. 11, p. 4874, doi: 10.3390/su11184874.
Govindarajulu, N. and Daily, B.F. (2004), “Motivating employees for environmental improvement”,
Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 104 No. 4, pp. 364-372, doi: 10.1108/
02635570410530775.
Guerci, M., Longini, A. and Luzzini, D. (2016), “Translating stakeholder pressures into environmental
performance –the mediating role of green HRM practices”,The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 262-289, doi: 10.1080/09585192.2015.1065431.
G€
urlek, M. and Tuna, M. (2018), “Reinforcing competitive advantage through green organizational
culture and green innovation”,The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 38 Nos 7-8, pp. 467-491,
doi: 10.1080/02642069.2017.1402889.
BIJ
Gupta, S. and Kumar, V. (2013), “Sustainability as corporate culture of a brand for superior
performance”,Journal of World Business, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 311-320, doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2012.07.015.
Haddock-Millar, J., Sanyal, C. and M€
uller-Camen, M. (2016), “Green human resource management: a
comparative qualitative case study of a United States multinational corporation”,The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 192-211, doi: 10.1080/
09585192.2015.1052087.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis:
A Global Perspective, Pearson Education, New Jersey, New Jersey.
Harris, L.C. and Crane, A. (2002), “The greening of organization culture: management views on the
depth, degree and diffusion of change”,Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 15
No. 3, pp. 214-234, doi: 10.1108/09534810210429273.
Harrison, D.A., McLaughlin, M.E. and Coalter, T.M. (1996), “Context, cognition, and common method
variance: psychometric and verbal protocol evidence”,Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 246-261.
Hayes, A.F. and Preacher, K.J. (2013), “Statistical mediation analysis with a multi-categorical
independent variable”,British Journal of Mathematical and Psychology, Vol. 67, pp. 451-470,
doi: 10.1111/bmsp.12028.
Hinz, V. and Ingerfurth, S. (2013), “Does ownership matter under challenging conditions? On the
relationship between organizational entrepreneurship and performance in the healthcare
sector”,Public Management Review, Vol. 15, pp. 969-991.
Holmbeck, G.N. (1997), “Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of
mediators and moderators: examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology
literature”,Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 599-610.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives”,Multidisciplinary Journal,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55, doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.
Jabbour, C.J.C. (2011), “How green are HRM practices, organizational culture, learning and teamwork?
A Brazilian study”,Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 98-105, doi: 10.1108/
00197851111108926.
Jabbour, C.J. and Santos, F.C. (2008), “Relationships between human resource dimensions and
environmental management in companies: proposal of a model”,Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 16, pp. 51-58.
Jabbour, C.J.C., Jugend, D., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Gunasekaran, A.B.L. and Latan, H. (2015), “Green
product development and performance of Brazilian firms: measuring the role of human and
technical aspects”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 442-451, doi: 10.1016/j.
jclepro.2014.09.036.
Johns, G. (2006), “The essential impact of context on organizational behavior”,Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 386-408, doi: 10.5465/amr.2006.20208687.
Lober, D.J. (1996), “The environmental performance of corporations”,Journal of Managerial Issues,
Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 184-205.
Longini, A., Luzzini, D. and Guerci, M. (2016), “Deploying environmental management across functions:
the relationship between green human resource management and green supply chain
management”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 151, pp. 1081-1095, doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3228-1.
Macduffie, J.P. (1995), “Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: organizational logic
and flexible production systems in the world auto industry”,Industrial and Labor Relations
Review, Vol. 48 No. 2, p. 197, doi: 10.2307/2524483.
MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M. and Williams, J. (2004), “Confidence limits for the indirect effect:
distribution of the product and resampling methods”,Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 39
No. 1, pp. 99-128, doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4.
Relationship of
GHRM with EP
and GOC’s
effect
Malik, S.Y., Mughal, Y.H., Azam, T., Cao, Y., Wan, Z., Zhu, H. and Thurasamy, R. (2020), “Corporate
social responsibility, green human resource management and sustainable performance: is
organizational citizenship behavior towards environment the missing link?”,Sustainability,
Vol. 13 No. 3, p. 1044, doi: 10.3390/su13031044.
Masri, H.A. and Jaaron, A.A.M. (2017), “Assessing green human resources management practices in
Palestinian manufacturing context: an empirical study”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 143,
pp. 474-489, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.087.
Minbaeva, D.B. (2013), “Strategic HRM in building micro-foundations of organizational knowledge
based performance”,Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 378-390, doi: 10.
1016/j.hrmr.2012.10.001.
Mishra, P. (2017), “Green human resource management: a framework for sustainable organizational
development in an emerging economy”,International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 25
No. 5, pp. 762-788, doi: 10.1108/IJOA-11-2016-1079.
Mousa, S.K. and Othman, M. (2020), “The impact of green human resource management practices on
sustainable performance in healthcare organizations: a conceptual framework”,Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 243, 118595, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118595.
Muisyo, P.K. and Qin, S. (2021), “Enhancing the firm’s green performance through green HRM: the
moderating role of green innovation culture”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 289, 125720,
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125720.
Muisyo, P.K., Su, Q., Ho, T.H., Julius, M.M. and Usmani, M.S. (2021), “Implications of green HRM on the
firm’s green competitive advantage: the mediating role of enablers of green culture”,Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/JMTM-01-2021-0033.
Nazarian, A., Atkinson, P. and Foroudi, P. (2017), “Influence of national culture and balanced
organizational culture on the hotel industry’s performance”,International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 63, pp. 22-32.
Opatha, H. and Arulrajah, A.A. (2014), “Green human resource management: simplified general
reflections”,International Business Research, Vol. 7 No. 8, pp. 101-112, doi: 10.5539/ibr.
v7n8p101.
Oppel, E.M., Winter, V. and Schrey€
ogg, J. (2016), “Examining the relationship between strategic HRM
and hospital employees’work attitudes: an analysis across occupational groups in public and
private hospitals”,The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 30 No. 5,
pp. 794-814, doi: 10.1080/09585192.2016.1254104.
Paill
e, P., Chen, Y., Boiral, O. and Jin, J. (2014), “The impact of human resource management on
environmental performance: an employee study”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 121,
pp. 451-466, doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1732-0.
Pelligrini, C., Rizzi, F. and Frey, M. (2018), “The role of sustainable human resource practices in
influencing employee behavior for corporate sustainability”,Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 1221-1232, doi: 10.1002/bse.2064.
Perry, J.L., Mesch, D. and Paarlberg, L. (2006), “Motivating employees in a new governance era: the
performance paradigm revisited”,Public Administration Review, Vol. 66, pp. 505-514, doi: 10.
1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00611.xva.
Pinzone, M., Guerci, M., Lettieri, E. and Redman, T. (2016), “Progressing in the change journey
towards sustainability in healthcare: the role of ‘green’HRM”,Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 122, pp. 201-211, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.031.
Porter, T.H., Gallagher, V.C. and Lawong, D. (2016), “The greening of organizational culture: revisited
fifteen years later”,American Journal of Business, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 206-226, doi: 10.1108/AJB-
04-2016-0011.
Post, J.E. and Altman, B.W. (1994), “Managing the environmental change process: barriers and
opportunities”,Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 64-81, doi: 10.
1108/09534819410061388.
BIJ
Rainey, H.G. and Jung, C.S. (2010), “Extending goal ambiguity research in government: from
organizational goal ambiguity to programme goal ambiguity”, in Walker, R.M., Boyne, G.A. and
Brewer, G.A. (Eds), Public Management and Performance: Research Directions, Cambridge
University Press, New York, New York, pp. 34-59.
Rao, P. and Holt, D. (2005), “Do green supply chains lead to competiveness and economic
performance?”,International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 9,
pp. 898-916, doi: 10.1108/01443570510613956.
Raut, R.D., Gardas, B., Luthra, S., Narkhede, B. and Mangla, S.K. (2019), “Analysing green human
resource management indicators of automotive service sector”,International Journal of
Manpower, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 925-944, doi: 10.1108/IJM-09-2019-0435.
Rawashdeh, A. (2018), “The impact of green human resource management on organizational
environmental performance in Jordanian health service organizations”,Management Science
Letters, Vol. 8 No. 10, pp. 3633-3639.
Renwick, D.W., Redman, T. and Maguire, S. (2013), “Green human resource management: a review
and research agenda”,International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-14,
doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00328.x.
Rizvi, Y.S. and Garg, R. (2020), “The simultaneous effect of green ability- motivation- opportunity and
transformational leadership in environmental management: the mediating role of green culture”,
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 830-856, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-08-2020-0400.
Roscoe, S., Subramanian, N., Jabbour, C.J. and Chong, T. (2019), “Green human resource management
and the enablers of green organizational culture: enhancing a firm’s environmental performance
for sustainable development”,Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 28 No. 5,
pp. 737-749, doi: 10.1002/bse.2277.
Saeed, B.B., Afsar, B., Hafeez, S., Khan, I., Tahir, M. and Afridi, M.A. (2019), “Promoting employees pro
environmental behavior through green human resource management practices”,Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 424-438, doi: 10.1002/
csr.1694.
Saeed, A., Oman, S., Rasheed, F., Waseem, M. and Tabash, M.I. (2021), “Green human resource
management and environmental performance: the role of green supply chain management
practices”,Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-05-
2021-0297.
Schein, E.H. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, doi:
10.1177/027046769401400247.
Sen, P., Ray, P. and Ghosh, S. (2013), “Environmental performance measurement and evaluation for
manufacturing organizations: a review and reflection”, in Mandal, P. (Ed.), Proceedings of the
International Conference on Managing the Asian Century, Singapore, Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-
981-4560-61-0_22.
Shah, S.M.A., Jiang, Y., Wu, H., Ahmed, Z., Ullah, I. and Adebayo, T.S. (2021), “Linking green human
resource practices and environmental economics performance: the role of green economic
organizational culture and green psychological climate”,International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, Vol. 18, 10953, doi: 10.3390/ijerph182010953.
Shroufe, R. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (2010), “Are you a leader or a laggard? HR’s role in creating a
sustainability culture”,People Strategy, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 34-42, available at: https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/291049972_Are_you_a_leader_or_a_laggard_HR%27s_role_in_
creating_a_sustainability_culture.
Simpson, D. and Samson, D. (2010), “Environmental strategy and low waste operations: exploring
complementarities”,Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 104-118, doi: 10.
1002/bse.626.
Tadi
c, I. and Pivac, S. (2014), “Defining human resource ‘bundles’and its’correlation with companies’
financial performances”,International Journal of Social, Management, Economics and Business
Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 1025-1029, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1091880.
Relationship of
GHRM with EP
and GOC’s
effect
Tang, G., Chen, Y., Jiang, Y., Paille, P. and Jia, J. (2018), “Green human resource management practices:
scale development and validity”,Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 56 No. 1,
pp. 31-55, doi: 10.1111/1744-7941.12147.
Teixeira, A.A., Jabbour, C.J.C. and de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L. (2012), “Relationship between green
management and environmental training in companies located in Brazil: a theoretical
framework and case studies”,International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140 No. 1,
pp. 318-329, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.009.
Veloso, A., Tzafrir, S. and Enosh, G. (2015), “How employees perceive HRM practices: differences
between public and private organizations”, in Machado, C. and Davim, J. (Eds), Human
Resource Management Challenges and Changes, Nova Publishers, pp. 19-36.
Wang, C.H. (2019), “How organizational green culture influences green performance and competitive
advantage: the mediating role of green innovation”,Journal of Manufacturing Technology,
Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 666-683, doi: 10.1108/JMTM-09-2018-0314.
Wehrmeyer, W. (1996), Greening People: Human Resources and Environmental Management,
Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield.
Yong, J.Y., Yusliza, M.Y. and Fawehimini, O.O. (2019), “Green human resource management: a
systematic literature review from 2007 to 2019”,Benchmarking: An International Journal,
Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 2005-2027, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-12-2018-0438.
Yusliza, M.Y., Othman, N.Z. and Jabbour, C.J.C. (2017), “Deciphering the implementation of green
human resource management in an emerging economy”,Journal of Management Development,
Vol. 36 No. 10, pp. 1230-1246, doi: 10.1108/JMD-01-2017-0027.
Zaid, A.A., Jaaron, A.A.M. and Abdul, T.B. (2018), “The impact of green human resource management
and green supply chain management practices on sustainable performance: an empirical
study”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 204, pp. 965-979, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.062.
Zibarras, L.D. and Coan, P. (2015), “HRM practices used to promote pro-environmental behavior: a UK
survey”,The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 26 No. 16, pp. 1-22,
doi: 10.1080/09585192.2014.972429.
Zhou, J. and Shalley, C.E. (2011), “Deepening our understanding of creativity in the workplace: a
review of different approaches to creativity research”,inAPA Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1. Building and Developing the Organization. doi: 10.1037/
12169-009.
Appendix
Green human resource management
My organization
(1) Prefers to recruit employees who have environmental awareness.
(2) Uses green employer branding to attract employees.
(3) During the hiring process of an employee, considers the candidates’motivation for
environmental management.
(4) Considers environmental questions during every selection step (application completion,
interview, etc.).
(5) Provides environmental training programs on working methods to reduce environmental
degradation.
(6) Develops training programs in environment management to increase environmental
awareness among employees.
(7) Provides environmental training to employees such as reducing waste, recycling, saving paper
and electricity.
BIJ
(8) Considers environmental training as a priority when compared to other types of training.
(9) Has every employee with specific environmental goals like reducing electricity consumption
units, saving fuel by car pooling etc.
(10) Assigns environmental performance targets for every manager.
(11) Evaluates the contributions of employees to environmental management improvement.
(12) Provides cash rewards to recognize EP.
(13) Provides nonmonetary incentives to recognize EP.
(14) Publicly recognizes employees who contribute to environmental management improvement
(prizes, honors etc.).
(15) Has a clear developmental vision to guide the employee’s actions in environmental
management.
(16) Has a mutual learning climate among employees for green behavior and awareness.
(17) Has a number of formal and informal communication channels to spread green culture.
(18) Involves employees in quality improvement and problem solving on green issues.
(19) Offers practices for employees to participate in environmental management such as
newsletter, suggestion schemes, problem solving groups, low carbon champions and green
action teams.
Green organizational culture
(1) The degree dimension
When short run performance of the organization is considered, managers consider profit
and growth as dominant objectives rather than green agenda.
When long term organizational performance is considered, mangers give high priority
to EP.
Environmental values are placed at a high priority within the industry group to which my
organization belongs.
In my industry, environmental/green values are a part of all company activities and
decisions across all firms.
Improving sales and profit is the only objective of my organization. Environmental
considerations such as caring for the air quality index do not matter at all.
(2) The diffusion dimension
In my organization, any manager who is identified as a “greenie”(proenvironmental change
agent) is marginalized/isolated due to internal politics.
I believe that my organization is not supportive of the managers who try to promote green
agenda.
In my organization, development of organization wide environmental values is difficult
because there are cultural differences between the departments.
In my organization, importance of green values varies from one department to another
based on professional specialization and background (for example, accounts department
has low focus on green values; corporate social responsibility/marketing department have
high focus on green values).
Relationship of
GHRM with EP
and GOC’s
effect
Environmental values are not equally emphasized across all the offices (locations) of my
organization due to their physical/geographical separation (for example, higher focus in
corporate office compared to regional offices).
In my organization there is a resistance to green issues/change among the employees.
(3) The depth dimension
My organization ignores the criticisms of the general public relating to the emissions/
effluents arising from my company.
My organization sincerely develops environmental initiatives and practices to deal with
public criticism relating to the emissions/effluents from my company.
My organization gives importance to green issues only when customers demand green
products.
In my organization, employees resist adoption of green practices because they believe that
green issues were management “fads”(fashionable).
Most managers in my organization believe that green practices are not related to profits.
Environmental Performance
(1) In my organization, environmental management efforts have significantly reduced waste within
the production process.
(2) In my organization, environmental management efforts have significantly improved product
quality.
(3) Focusing on environmental management has enhanced the reputation of my organization.
(4) In my organization, the benefits of environmental efforts have outweighed the costs.
(5) My organization’s environmental efforts have led to improved organization’s performance.
(6) The environmental efforts of my organization have caused us to investigate alternate
technologies and procedures.
(7) My organization has reduced its water and energy consumption.
(8) My organization has reduced the purchases of nonrenewable materials, chemicals and
components.
Corresponding author
Priyanka Aggarwal can be contacted at: priyanka.agg29@gmail.com
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
BIJ
