article summary
Tony Yan 
csr.1827.pdf
Received: 28 April 2019 Revised: 23 June 2019 Accepted: 12 July 2019
DOI: 10.1002/csr.1827
R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E
Green Human Resource Management and Employee Green Behavior: An Empirical Analysis
Richa Chaudhary
Department of Humanities and Social
Sciences, IIT Patna, Patna, India
Correspondence
Richa Chaudhary, Assistant Professor,
Department of Humanities and Social
Sciences, IIT Patna, Patna, Bihta, Bihar 801106,
India.
Email: [email protected]; richa.
Funding information
Indian Council of Social Science Research,
Grant/Award Number: F.No. 02/57/GEN/
2017‐18/RP/Major
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP630
Abstract
This study was conducted with an objective to understand the role of green human
resource management (GHRM) in fostering environmental performance of employee.
Specifically, it examines the impact of GHRM practices on employee green perfor-
mance behaviors (task related and voluntary) with organizational identification as a
mediator and employee personal environmental values and gender as moderators.
Three hundred one employee from automobile sector in India participated in the
study. Using cross‐sectional research design, the proposed research model was tested
with the help of hierarchical regression analysis. GHRM was found to significantly
predict both task‐related and voluntary employee green behaviors. Organizational
identification significantly mediated the effect, whereas gender and environmental
values failed to moderate the relationship between GHRM and employee green
behaviors. The study signifies the role of HRM in achieving environmental sustainabil-
ity and emphasizes on the urgent need to embed sustainability dimension into HR
systems to achieve sustainable development goals.
KEYWORDS
environmental values, green behavior, gender, green human resource management, organizational
identification, sustainability
1 | INTRODUCTION
Sustainability has become a burning topic of discussion for the world.
Organizations have lately realized that sustenance of their business is
contingent upon the continuous supply of natural resources. The
depletion of natural resources upon which their operations depend
will disrupt not only the ecological sustainability but organization's
financial sustainability as well (Hawken, Lovins, & Lovins, 1999). Fur-
ther, corporate leaders have discovered that triple bottom line strat-
egy that involves simultaneous consideration of social,
environmental, and economic dimensions of business is the key to
achieve competitive advantage (Andriate & Fink, 2008). As a result,
companies are transforming their operations by integrating social
and environmental dimensions into their business models. Organiza-
tions throughout the world first tried to optimize their manufacturing
processes by introducing green manufacturing concepts such as
Environment wileyo
Kaizen, Six‐sigma, Lean‐Manufacturing, and Jidoka, the approaches
to waste minimization. Slowly, “greening” penetrated into various
functional domains of organizations in the form of green marketing
(Peattie & Crane, 2005), green supply chain (Srivastava, 2007), green
accounting (Owen, Gray, & Bebbington, 1997), with green human
resource management (GHRM; Renwick, Redman, & Maguire, 2013)
being the latest entry in the arena. GHRM represents a nexus between
environmental management system and HRM system of the organiza-
tion (Renwick et al., 2013). Since the role of human capital is instru-
mental to implementing corporate strategy and achieving
organizational goals, researchers have argued that it is crucial to align
HRM function with environmental management system to fulfil orga-
nization's environmental sustainability goals (Ren, Tang, & Jackson,
2018). HRM function has been credited to play a substantial role in
creating a culture of sustainability in the organizations (Yong, Yusliza,
Ramayah, & Fawehinmi, 2019). GHRM encompasses the design and
Corp Soc Resp Env Ma. 2020;27:630–641.nlinelibrary.com/journal/csr
CHAUDHARY 631
implementation of HRM practices, policies, and philosophies to sup-
port organizations' environmental goals as well as promotion of attitu-
dinal and behavioral changes in employee to improve the
environmental performance of organizations (Ren et al., 2018). Litera-
ture indicates that HRM contributes to distal organizational perfor-
mance through its influence on proximal outcomes such as employee
attitudes and behaviors (Becker & Huselid, 2006). However, as
highlighted by Renwick et al. (2013), there is a lack of understanding
around how GHRM influences employee motivation to get involved
in environmental activities. Further, the underlying psychological pro-
cesses and boundary conditions governing the above relationship are
unknown. Consequently, examining the influence of GHRM practices
on organizational environmental performance has been identified by
Renwick et al. (2013), and Dumont, Shen, and Deng (2017) as an
important research area requiring the attention of future researchers.
Addressing the above gaps, this study aims to advance knowledge
around the role of GHRM practices in fostering environmentally
responsible behaviors among employee. Specifically, it examines the
impact of GHRM practices on employee green performance behaviors
(task related and voluntary) with organizational identification as a
mediator and employee personal environmental values and gender as
moderators. This paper offers three major research contributions to
extend our understanding of the concept of GHRM. First, the study
endeavors to present a conceptual framework linking GHRM practices
with employee green performance behaviors (task related and volun-
tary) and provide an empirical validation for the same. Second, this
research attempts to add to the emergent literature on GHRM by
examining organizational identification as an underlying psychological
mechanism explaining the relationship of GHRM with employee green
performance. Third, through the inclusion of gender and environmen-
tal values in the model, the study strives to advance the scarce GHRM
literature by identifying the conditions that may stimulate or attenuate
the strength of relationship between GHRM and obligatory and volun-
tary green behaviors. In doing the above, this paper attempts to
extend the limited literature available on GHRM and open the avenues
for future research in the area.
The following section presents the theoretical framework and
research hypotheses, which is followed by methodology, results, dis-
cussion, implications, limitations, and future research directions.
2 | THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH PROPOSITIONS
GHRM by aligning the HRM practices such as recruitment and selec-
tion, training and development, performance, and compensation man-
agement with the environmental objectives of the organization can
contribute significantly toward successful formulation and implemen-
tation of environmental management system (Jabbour, de Sousa
Jabbour, Govindan, Teixeira, & de Souza Freitas, 2013). As a result,
the need to integrate sustainability into HR framework has been
highlighted to build sustainable organizations (Jabbour & Santos,
2008). GHRM involves the use of various HRM practices to reinforce
environmental goals and develop a labor force that is environmentally
aware and devoted to the cause of environmental sustainability (Masri
& Jaroon, 2017). GHRM may include giving preference to environ-
mentally aware and sensitive employee in the recruitment and selec-
tion process of the organization (green recruitment and selection),
instituting a learning and development system to improve employee
environmental awareness and skills in environmental management
(green training), judging employee performance in terms of their con-
tribution toward advancing the environmental goals of the organiza-
tion (green performance management), distributing financial and
nonfinancial rewards to employee for displaying environmental
friendly attitudes and behaviors (green compensation management),
and providing employee with the opportunities to engage and partici-
pate in environmental management activities in the organization
(green involvement).
2.1 | Employee green behavior
Employee green behavior is one among the several strategies followed
by the organizations to enhance their environmental performance and
achieve sustainability targets (DuBois & Debois, 2012). It can be
defined as the behaviors demonstrated by employee that have a ben-
eficial effect on environment (Unsworth, Dmitrieva, & Adriasola,
2013). Employee green behavior has been described as workplace
specific form of pro‐environmental behavior by researchers in the lit-
erature (Ones & Dilchert, 2012; Norton, Parker, Zacher, & Ashkanasy,
2015). Further, Stern (2000) has explained employee green behavior
as an intentional behavior of employee that helps to reduce negative
impact of human actions. It may include activities such as conserving
water, efficient use of resources, waste reduction, saving energy, and
recycling (Norton et al., 2015).
Employee green behavior can be segregated into two types: volun-
tary green behavior and task green behavior (Norton et al., 2015).
Norton et al. (2015) described task green behavior as green behaviors
that are performed within organizational constraints and are within
the ambit of required job duties. Task green behavior can be further
defined as activities formally described and identified as a part of job
description (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997). Voluntary employee green
behavior has been defined as green behaviors that involve personal
initiative and exceed organizational expectations (Norton et al.,
2015). By promoting the social, organizational, and psychological envi-
ronment, discretionary behaviors provide the context within which
task performance occurs (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993).
2.2 | GHRM and employee green behavior
GHRM can be expected to affect employee green behaviors for the
following reasons. First, communicating organization's preference for
green during recruitment and considering individuals' environmental
values in the employee selection process are likely to enhance
employee green awareness and understanding (Renwick et al., 2013).
Second, involving employee in the implementation of green initiatives
CHAUDHARY632
and providing green training are likely to enhance employee knowl-
edge, skills, and capabilities and make them more psychologically avail-
able to engage in green behaviors. Third, the HRM theories suggest
that effectiveness of HRM practices in eliciting right workplace behav-
ior is contingent on employee understanding of need and urgency to
adopt such practices (Nishii, Lepak, & Schneider, 2008). The adoption
of GHRM policies and practices is likely to signal organization's com-
mitment to contribute toward environment conservation, which is
likely to make employee work toward achievement of organization's
green goals. Lastly, promotions and rewards that recognize and appre-
ciate employee green performance motivate them to engage in and
contribute to green activities (Renwick et al., 2013). The above argu-
ments were endorsed by Dumont et al. (2017) in a study among Chi-
nese employee where they discovered that GHRM had a both direct
and indirect influence on in‐role green behaviors whereas it influenced
extra‐role green behaviors only indirectly through the creation of psy-
chological green climate. Further, in a very recent attempt, Saeed et al.
(2019) demonstrated the positive effect of GHRM practices on
employee pro‐environmental behaviors among employee from a wide
variety of industries in Pakistan.
GHRM practices may be expected to directly affect employee in‐
role green behaviors because it is officially appreciated and rewarded
and thus, becomes customary workplace behavior. But voluntary
green behavior may or may not be directly influenced by GHRM prac-
tices because these behaviors are not officially recognized and deco-
rated; rather, they are influenced by individuas' cognizance of
organization's green culture, their willingness to execute such behav-
iors, and the green habits that they follow in their daily lives (Dumont
et al., 2017).
Thus, the author proposes the following:
H1. GHRM relates positively to employee task‐
related green behaviors.
H2. GHRM relates positively to employee voluntary
green behaviors.
2.3 | Organizational identification as a mediator
It can be seen from the HRM literature that HRM practices influence
individual attitude and behavior not only directly but also indirectly via
some motivational and socio‐psychological processes (Kehoe & Wright,
2013). According to social identity theory, people are inclined to associ-
ate themselves with prestigious social groups to boost their self‐esteem
(Hogg & Abrams, 1988). Adoption of GHRM aimed at achieving envi-
ronmental sustainability is likely to enhance external image of an organi-
zation as a good corporate citizen. The enhanced prestige and
reputation of the organization strengthens employee self‐concept
and, hence, self‐esteem, which in turn boosts their identification with
the organization. Further, implementing GHRM practices by providing
green training and recognizing employee green contributions is likely
to develop employee skills and provide them with the opportunities to
participate in green initiatives (Shen, Dumont, & Deng, 2018). Skill
development and involvement in green activities will make employee
more psychologically available and find their work more meaningful,
which in turn will enhance their organizational identification.
Organizational identification is a form of social identification where
an individual develops an emotional bond or feeling of belongingness
to an organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; O'Reilly & Chatman,
1986). Organizational identification originates from enticement and
aspiration to sustain an emotionally gratifying self‐defining association
with the organization. Greater the employee identify with the organi-
zation, greater is the probability that they will firmly support the orga-
nization and execute behaviors that are beneficial and profitable for
the organization. Organizational identification can be expected to pro-
vide a strong base for GHRM because when individuals positively
identify with their organization, it may not only foster responsible
behavior toward the environment but also enhance environmental
performance. Organizational identification may also nurture extra‐role
behavior in employee that are beyond the call of formal job duties. It is
evident through the literature that workers who identify positively and
strongly with their organization are more motivated and contented
with their profession (Mael & Ashforth, 1992), execute their work
beyond their formal job obligations (Mowday, Porter, & Steers,
1982; Van Dick, 2001), achieve superior work performance (Millward
& Postmes, 2010), evince favorable and constructive organizational
citizenship behaviors (Liu, Loi, & Lam, 2011), and are determined to
maintain their organizational membership (O'Reilly & Chatman,
1986). Chang and Chen (2013) reported that green organizational
identity resulted in enhanced green behaviors and improved green
innovation performance. Green identification with the organization
acts as a catalyst for the creation of a green culture, thereby enhanc-
ing the sustainability of the organization as well as reducing employee
turnover and increasing commitment and satisfaction.
Thus, higher organizational identification is likely to result in
behaviors that benefit the organization (Brown, Dacin, Pratt, &
Whetten, 2006). When individuals identify with their organization,
they gain satisfaction in being a part of it and hence, work toward
the attainment of sustainable goals of the organization besides engag-
ing in voluntary green behavior. Therefore, it is proposed that GHRM
will increase employee organizational identification, which in turn will
enhance employee green performance behaviors.
H3. Organizational identification mediates the rela-
tionship between GHRM and employee task‐related
green behaviors.
H4. Organizational identification mediates the rela-
tionship between GHRM and employee voluntary
green behaviors.
The literature suggests that the relationship between GHRM and
employee green behaviors is not universal and may fluctuate depend-
ing on individual and organizational characteristics. For instance, Shen
et al. (2018) empirically confirmed that the relationship of GHRM with
non‐green employee performance and behavioral intentions was mod-
erated by perceived organizational support. Further, Dumont et al.
CHAUDHARY 633
(2017) established employee green values as moderator of GHRM–
employee green behaviors relationship. Further, literature suggests
that women are more environmentally conscious and engage more
often in environmental friendly behaviors than men (Chang & Wu,
2015; Xiao & Hong, 2010). Therefore, to better understand the role
of individual differences, environmental values and gender were pro-
posed as moderators of GHRM–employee green behaviors relation-
ship in the present study.
2.4 | Environmental values as a moderator
Personal values, convictions, and norms influence employee work
behaviors (Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano, & Kalof, 1999). Andersson,
Shivarajan, and Blau (2005), Chou (2014), and Schultz et al. (2005)
have reported that personal environmental values have a significant
impact on individual green behaviors. Individual values have been
identified in the literature to play an important role in determining
individual attitudes and behaviors (Low, 2013). In order to satisfy their
psychological needs of belonging and meaningful existence, individ-
uals prefer to partner with social entities having similar attributes
and values (Roeck, Marique, Stinglhamber, & Swaen, 2014). Analogous
individual and organizational values are expected to produce optimal
employee end products, such as positive and stronger organizational
identification, and favorable attitudes and behaviors (Edwards &
Cable, 2009; Paarlberg & Perry, 2007). Edwards and Shipp (2007)
stated that when there is propitious environment in the organization
that nurtures individual values and when employee green values are
in consonance with organizational values, employees are more likely
to exhibit green workplace behaviors. Alternatively, employee work-
place green behavior is the product of symmetrical individual and
organizational green values. GHRM practices and organization's sus-
tainable environment reflect organizational green values. Organiza-
tion's environmental policies and principles when communicated
effectively to potential employee will help them have a clear idea
about green goals of the organization (Dumont et al., 2017). Thus,
when individual and organizational values are in agreement, individ-
uals are more likely to identify strongly with the organization and dis-
play organizationally desired attitudes and behaviors.
On the same lines, it is expected that employee would display
more green behaviors when their environmental values are in congru-
ence with organizational green values. Since GHRM reflects the envi-
ronmental values of the organization, it is proposed that employee
environmental values will affect the nature of the relationship
between GHRM and employee green behaviors in such a way that
the aforementioned relationship will be stronger when environmental
values are high and vice versa.
Thus, the author proposes the following:
H5. Environmental values moderate the effect of
GHRM on organizational identification in a way that
the relationship will be weaker for individuals with
low environmental values than high.
H6. Environmental values moderate the indirect effect
of GHRM on employee green behaviors (task related
and voluntary) through organizational identification in
a manner that the effect of will be weaker for individuals
with low environmental values than high.
2.5 | Gender as a moderator
Due to varying psychological characteristics, men and women have
different ethical and moral inclinations (Calabrese, Costa, & Rosati,
2016). As a result, gender can be expected to be an important factor
that may influence the association of GHRM with employee green
behaviors owing to different perspectives and values of men and
women (Greening & Turban, 2000).
Through a review of literature, it has been found that organizations
having more female workforce exhibit higher levels of corporate social
responsibility engagements such as social work and environmental
projects (Williams, 2003; Setó‐Pamies, 2015; Fernandez‐Feijoo,
Romero, & Ruiz‐Blanco, 2014). Women are more concerned about
moral and social issues such as sustainability and environmental con-
servation and thus, engage more frequently in eco‐friendly behavior
than men (Wong & Wan, 2011). Moreover, whereas women more
commonly exhibit voluntary behaviors like those involved in corporate
charitable activities, men mostly focus on economic and material
aspects within the organization (Ibrahim & Angelidis, 1994; Smith,
Wokutch, Harrington, & Dennis, 2001). Women have a caring attitude,
whereas men are more justice orientated in approaching ethical issues
(Gilligan, 1982). It can be said that women's socialization stimulates an
emphasis on constructing relationships, thus, promoting corporate
social responsibility initiatives (Glass, Cook, & Ingersoll, 2016).
Many research studies have shown that women are more sensitive
to corporate social responsibility issues and give high importance to
social issues as compared to men (Alonso‐Almeida, Fernández de
Navarrete, & Rodriguez‐Pomeda, 2015). As women more commonly
display voluntary behavior and engage in charity issues, green behav-
ior both task related and voluntary is strongly expected of them. With
higher focus on social issues, women may be expected to voluntarily
and enthusiastically participate in green projects and work toward
environment conservation besides incorporating green habits in their
routine.
Since significant gender differences have been reported in environ-
mental orientation of men and women in the literature (Chang & Wu,
2015; Xiao & Hong, 2010), gender was proposed to moderate the
influence of GHRM on organizational identification and, subsequently,
employee green behaviors in a fashion that the association will be
weaker for men than women.
H7. Gender moderates the linkage of GHRM with
organizational identification in a way that the relation-
ship is weaker for men than women.
H8. Gender moderates the indirect effect of GHRM
on employee green behaviors (task related and
FIGURE
CHAUDHARY634
voluntary) through organizational identification in a
manner that the effect will be weaker for men than
women.
Figure 1 presents the proposed conceptual model.
3 | METHODOLOGY
3.1 | Participants and procedures
Data were collected from 301 employee working in automobile sector
in India. HR heads of the organizations were approached via emails
and phones for the purpose of data collection. After a discussion on
rationale of the study, some of the HR managers agreed to the request
and invited the author for data collection in their respective organiza-
tions whereas others asked the author to mail them the link to online
questionnaire, which they circulated among their employee. Out of
301 responses, 192 were collected via personal visits to the compa-
nies and the remaining 109 responses were obtained online using
Google doc questionnaire.
Approximately, 87% of the respondents were male and 95% were
below the age of 40 years. In terms of education, 44% of the partici-
pants had undergraduate degree, 49% had master's degree, and the
rest had received a professional or doctoral degree. As to organiza-
tional tenure and position in the organizational hierarchy, around
69% of the respondents had been with their present organization for
less than 5 years and 90% worked at junior and middle managerial
level.
3.2 | MEASURES
GHRM was assessed using twenty one items taken from Tang, Chen,
Jiang, Paille, and Jia (2018) and Dumont et al. (2017). The sample scale
items were “My company recruits employee who have green
1 Conceptual framework. HRM, human resource management
awareness (green recruitment and selection),” “My company develops
training programs in environment management to increase environ-
mental awareness, skills and expertise of employee (green training
and development),” “My company considers employee workplace
green behaviors in promotion (green performance management),”
“Our firm makes green benefits (transport/travel) available rather than
giving out prepaid cards to purchase green products (green compensa-
tion and reward),” and “There are a number of formal or informal com-
munication channels to spread green culture in our company (green
involvement).” The executives were asked to rate their perceptions
of implementation of GHRM practices on a Likert scale ranging from
1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
Task‐related green behavior was measured using three‐item scale by
Bissing‐Olson, Iyer, Fielding, and Zacher (2013). A sample scale item
was “I item instrument developed by adequately complete assigned
duties in environmentally‐friendly ways.” Supervisors' ratings on
employee task‐related performance were taken on a 5‐point Likert
scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).
Voluntary green behavior was measured with the scale developed
by Bissing‐Olson et al. (2013). The sample had three items, and a typ-
ical scale item is “I take initiative to act in environmentally‐friendly
ways at work.” Supervisors rated employee on their voluntary execu-
tion of green behaviors on a 5‐point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree
to 5 = strongly agree).
Organizational Identification was assessed using six‐item instrument
developed by Mael and Ashforth (1992). A typical scale item was “
When someone criticizes my company it feels like a personal insult.”
The responses were obtained from employee on a 5‐point Likert scale
(1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).
Environmental values was measured using three items adopted
from Chou (2014). Employee responded to the scale items on a 5‐
point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). An exam-
ple scale item is “I feel a personal obligation to do whatever I can to
prevent environmental degradation.” The Cronbach alpha value of
CHAUDHARY 635
the above instruments used to measure the study variables is pre-
sented in Table 1.
3.3 | DATA ANALYSIS
The data were analyzed using SPSS 24. The extent of implementation
of various GHRM practices was assessed using descriptive statistics.
The degree of association between different GHRM practices was
evaluated using correlation analysis. Hierarchical regression was used
to test the proposed direct, mediation, and moderation hypotheses
with the help of SPSS Process macro as proposed by Hayes (2013).
FIGURE 2 The mediation model showing total, direct, and indirect effect figure represent unstandardized regression coefficients. BC refers to bias c
TABLE 1 Mean, standard deviation, and intercorrelations among study variables
S. No. Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. GHRM 2.91 0.72 (0.96)
2. OI 4.01 0.68 0.351** (0.88)
3. TRGB 3.90 0.70 0.398** 0.538** (0.86)
4. VGB 3.87 0.73 0.415** 0.466** 0.769** (0.85)
5. EV 4.05 0.62 0.289** 0.537** 0.634** 0.538** (0.78)
Note. Figures in the parentheses represent Cronbach alpha values.
**Correlation is significant at the.01 level (2‐tailed).
4 | RESULTS
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations are reported in Table 1. As
can be seen, GHRM was found to correlate significantly with organiza-
tional identification, employee green values, task‐related green behav-
iors, and voluntary green behaviors.
4.1 | Direct Hypotheses
Total, direct, and mediation effects were tested using process model 4.
The effect of gender, age, education, tenure, and position in organiza-
tional hierarchy was controlled by entering them as covariates in the
model. The total effect model reveals significant positive association
between GHRM and task‐related (0.35, p < .01) and voluntary green
behaviors (0.38, p < .01; see Figures 2 and 3). Thus, H1 and H2 were
supported.
4.2 | Mediation
However, from the direct effect model, it can be discerned that the
effect of GHRM on task‐related (0.20, p < .01) and voluntary green
(0.26, p < .01) behaviors was reduced (without any change in the sig-
nificance level) after inclusion of organizational identification in the
model (see Figures 2 and 3). This indicated partial mediation, which
was later confirmed by examining the significance of indirect effects.
The indirect effect of GHRM on task‐related (0.15, BC 95% CI
of GHRM on Task‐related green behavior (n = 301). Coefficients in the orrected; 5,000 bootstrap samples were requested
FIGURE 3 The mediation model showing total, direct, and indirect effect of GHRM on voluntary greeen behavior (n = 301). Coefficients in the figure represent unstandardized regression coefficients. BC refers to bias corrected; 5,000 bootstrap samples were requested
CHAUDHARY636
[0.0938, 0.2310]) and voluntary (0.12, BC 95% CI [0.0692, 0.1963])
green behaviors through organizational identification was found to
be significant. Thus, organizational identification partially mediated
the effect of GHRM on employee green behaviors, thereby, providing
support for H3 and H4.
4.3 | Moderation
The moderation effect of environmental values and gender was
tested using hierarchical regression analysis. In the first step of the
hierarchical model, GHRM was entered along with environmental
values and gender. In second step, the interaction terms (GHRM *
EV) and (GHRM * Gender) computed by multiplying the values of
predictor (mean centered) and moderator variables were entered.
The addition of interaction terms in second step just explained
0.4% of the variance in organizational identification. Further, none
of the interaction terms had a significant effect on organizational
identification (Table 2). Thus, both environmental values and gender
did not moderate the influence of GHRM on organizational identifi-
cation. Consequently, H5 and H7 were not supported.
4.4 | Moderated mediation
Process model 9 was used to test the moderated mediation hypothe-
ses. As can be noticed from Table 2, moderated mediation was not
supported as moderated mediation index for environmental values
and gender was found to be insignificant for both task‐related and vol-
untary green behaviors. Further, the conditional indirect effect of
GHRM on task‐related and voluntary green behaviors through organi-
zational identification at various values of environmental value and
gender was not significantly different. Thus, H6 and H8 were not
supported.
5 | DISCUSSION
This study was conducted with the goal of identifying the impact of
GHRM practices on employee task‐related and voluntary green
behaviors. The results provided support for the positive effect of
GHRM on task‐related and voluntary green behaviors of employee.
An important point to be noted is that the effect of GHRM was stron-
ger on voluntary green behaviors when compared with task‐related
green behaviors. Additionally, to gather deeper insights on the nature
of relationships, an effort was made to discover the underlying psy-
chological processes and contingencies by investigating the role of
organizational identification as mediator, and environmental values
and gender as moderators. The results established organizational iden-
tification as a mediator of the relationship between GHRM and oblig-
atory and discretionary green behaviors of employee. In other words,
GHRM exerted both direct and indirect influence on employee green
performance behaviors (task related and voluntary) through
TABLE 2 Results of moderation and moderated mediation analysis
Predictor variables
OI
B SE β t
Step 1
GHRM 0.487 0.278 .212 4.311**
EV 0.591 0.178 .465 9.403**
Gender 0.624 0.364 .103 2.165*
Step 2
GHRM * EV −0.027 0.060 −.158 −0.455
GHRM * Gender −0.147 0.120 −.310 −0.123
R2 0.344
EV Gender
Effect SE BC 95% CI (Lower)
BC 95% CI (Upper)
Conditional indirect effect of GHRM on TRGB at values of the moderators
OI 3.429
1.00
0.1147 0.0378 0.0459 0.1945
OI 3.429
2.00
0.0459 0.0622 −0.0775 0.1662
OI 4.047
1.00
0.1067 0.0280 0.0600 0.1705
OI 4.047
2.00
0.0382 0.0605 −0.0805 0.1517
OI 4.664
1.00
0.0988 0.0295 0.0449 0.1587
OI 4.664
2.00
0.0300 0.0647 0.0895 0.1574
Moderated mediation index
EV −0.0128 0.0310 −0.0707 0.0501
Gender −0.0688 0.0640 −0.1965 0.0512
EV Gender
Effect SE BC 95% CI (Lower)
BC 95% CI (Upper)
Conditional indirect effect of GHRM on VGB at values of the moderators
OI 3.429
1.00
0.0951 0.0343 0.0345
0.1728
OI 3.429
2.00
0.0381 0.0523 −0.0578
0.1438
OI 4.047
1.00
0.0885 0.0255 0.0462
0.1499
OI 4.047
2.00
0.0315 0.0507 −0.0606
0.1310
OI 4.664
1.00
0.0819 0.0255 0.0360
0.1369
OI 4.664
2.00
0.0249 0.0542 −0.0766
0.1304
Moderated mediation index
EV −0.0106 0.0263 −0.0628
0.0415
(Continues)
TABLE 2 (Continued)
EV Gender
Effect SE
BC 95% CI
(Lower)
BC 95% CI
(Upper)
Conditional indirect effect of GHRM on VGB at values of the moderators
Gender −0.0570 0.0534 −0.1657
0.0421
Note. Five thousand bootstrap samples were requested.
Abbreviations: EV, environmental values; OI, organizational identification;
BC, bias corrected; R2, overall variance explained in dependent variable
by the variables in the model.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
CHAUDHARY 637
organizational identification. This was in concurrence with the results
of Dumont et al. (2017) where GHRM practices were found to signif-
icantly determine the in‐role and extra‐role green behaviors of
employee directly as well as indirectly via creation of psychological
green climate. The indirect influence of GHRM on employee perfor-
mance is also supported by the findings of Saeed et al. (2019) where
the relationship of GHRM practices with employee pro‐environmental
behavior was mediated by pro‐environmental psychological climate.
These findings indicate that adoption of GHRM practices by the orga-
nizations makes employee identify strongly with them and display per-
formance behaviors that benefit the organization. An explanation for
the above finding lies in the arguments inherent in social identity the-
ory according to which people's self‐esteem is tied to organizational
membership and as a result, they tend to identify with reputed organi-
zations to enhance their self‐concept. Adoption of GHRM practices by
an organization reflects its pro‐environmental stance and concern for
an important stakeholder group, that is, environment. This commit-
ment to environment enhances the stature of the organization in the
community, thereby, making the employee identify strongly with it
and engage in organizationally desirable performance behaviors.
Further, to uncover the conditions that may alter the intensity of
the relationship between GHRM and employee task‐related and vol-
untary green behaviors, gender and personal environmental values of
employee were proposed to moderate the relationship. However,
results failed to provide support for the moderating effect of both
environmental values and gender on the relationship of GHRM with
organizational identification. Also, no support was found for the mod-
erated mediation effect of environmental values and gender on the
indirect relationship of GHRM with task‐related and voluntary green
behaviors through organizational identification. These findings corrob-
orate the results reported by Dumont et al. (2017) where individual
green values failed to moderate the effect of GHRM practices on in‐
role green behavior of employee. It was surprising to note that
employee task‐related and extra‐role behaviors were equally influ-
enced by GHRM practices of the organization irrespective of their
personal environmental values. These results suggest that the effect
of GHRM on task‐related and voluntary green behaviors of employees
was not contingent upon environmental values and gender of
CHAUDHARY638
employees. Thus, the effectiveness of GHRM in promoting organiza-
tional identification and consequently, green behaviors can be
expected to be uniform for all employees irrespective of their personal
environmental values and gender A possible explanation for insignifi-
cant moderation could be lower variance in environmental value
scores of the respondents (SD = 0.62), indicating similar environmental
preferences of the employee. Due to accelerating pace of environ-
mental degradation, employee working in automobile industry, who
are aware of the environmental damages caused due to industrial
operations, may care and value environment equally. As a result, mod-
eration effect could have remained undetected due to lower variability
in environmental orientation of sampled employees. Further, the
above results contradict the findings of a number of research investi-
gations undertaken in the corporate social responsibility stream
(Alonso‐Almeida et al., 2015; Lamsa, Vehkapera, Puttonen, & Pesonen,
2008; Marz, Powers, & Queisser, 2003) where women were reported
to be more concerned about the social responsibility of corporations
and were significantly affected by their socially responsible actions.
A possible reason for such a finding could be unequal representation
of females in the study sample where women constituted only 17%
of the overall sample. Underrepresentation of women in the sample
could have resulted in nondetection of relatively weak moderation
effects. However, further research is encouraged to confirm the above
findings.
This study makes several important contributions to the literature.
First, by investigating the effect of GHRM practices on employee task‐
related and voluntary green behaviors, it adds to the scarce literature
that links GHRM with employee workplace behaviors. Most of the
studies have considered either the effect of general HRM practices
on employee green performance behaviors (Paillé, Chen, Boiral, &
Jin, 2014) or GHRM practices on employee general performance
behaviors (Shen et al., 2018). Second, it establishes organizational
identification as the essential socio‐psychological process via which
GHRM exercises its influence on employee green performance behav-
iors. In doing so, it contributes to the understanding of complex under-
lying mechanisms explaining the linkage of GHRM with green
performance behaviors. It also extends the existing literature where
the indirect effect of GHRM has been largely explained in terms of
mediators such as pro‐environmental psychological climate (Saeed
et al., 2019) and psychological green climate (Dumont et al., 2017)
by offering an additional explanation for the relationship through the
process of organizational identification. Third, by hypothesizing the
moderating effect of personal environmental values and gender, the
study provides an important insight on the boundary conditions of
the relationship between GHRM and employee green behaviors.
Lastly, by providing the empirical test of the hypothesized research
model using a sample of employee from automobile sector in India,
the study adds to the limited evidence on GHRM from emerging econ-
omies of the world. Given the developing nature of their economy,
such studies from emerging nations are desirable due to their increas-
ing contribution to environmental degradation. In doing the above,
this research advances the limited GHRM scholarship and makes dis-
tinct contribution to environmental management literature.
6 | THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
The present study carries important theoretical implications. This
study on GHRM by offering empirical evidence on its potential to fos-
ter pro‐environmental behavior among employee provides further
rationalization for the urgent need to integrate sustainability dimen-
sions into HRM systems of the organizations. It signifies the role of
HRM in achieving environmental sustainability and builds the case
for developing a sustainable HR system to support the cause of sus-
tainability. By presenting a conceptual framework of the relationship
between GHRM and employee green behaviors, the study adds to
the understanding of the concept of GHRM and its consequences
and hence, strengthens the theory building by expanding the nomo-
logical network of GHRM, which is still in its infancy. The study by
examining GHRM as predictor of task related and voluntary employee
green behaviors also adds to the understanding of antecedents of
employee green behaviors and hence contributes to organizational
behavior literature. Further, by elucidating the socio‐psychological
processes via which GHRM influences employee voluntary and task‐
related green behaviors, the study fulfills a major gap in the literature
where dearth of research exploring the mechanisms linking GHRM
with employee outcomes has been acknowledged. Furthermore, by
illustrating the contingencies of GHRM–employee green behaviors
relationship, the study offers a nuanced understanding of the relation-
ship from employee perspective and hence, advances the literature on
behavioral HRM. By investigating gender and environmental values as
moderator of GHRM–employee green behaviors, the study attends to
the need for research on the conditions that may stimulate or attenu-
ate the strength of the above relationship and advances the under-
standing on the role of individual differences in shaping employee
green behaviors. In addition, by focusing on environment component
of corporate social responsibility, the study makes an important con-
tribution toward environmental management in terms of minimizing
the pollution, dangerous consequences of industrial waste, and deple-
tion of natural resources.
The study also carries important implications for HR policy makers
in terms of keeping sustainability at the center of future paradigm
development in HRM (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005). The study by
advancing the understanding on how HRM can contribute toward
effective environmental management will help the policy makers
design policies to encourage the adoption of GHRM practices by the
organizations. For effective implementation of green initiatives, orga-
nizations should provide employee with the green training that will
make them appreciate the importance of green management and
equip them with the required skills and expertise to successfully exe-
cute their green responsibilities. Further, organizations should
appraise and recognize employee green performance to encourage
green behaviors. To reap even greater benefits, employee should be
given the opportunities to participate and engage in green initiatives
of the organization that will encourage them to contribute toward
achievement of green goals by bringing in more innovative solutions
to the problems. By highlighting the boundary conditions of GHRM–
CHAUDHARY 639
employee green behaviors relationship, the study provides implica-
tions for organizations' recruitment and selection process where con-
sideration should be given to gender and environmental values of the
prospective employee. Employee initiation, participation, and perfor-
mance both task related and voluntarily toward green goals should
be appreciated and recognized to motivate them and to help them
connect with the green objectives of the organization. As GHRM is
an offshoot of broader facet of corporate social responsibility, it can
be used as a tool to implement green assignments of the organization.
The study also carries implications for internal organizational commu-
nication where employee should be communicated regularly about the
green initiatives of the organization to create a favorable employee
perception regarding green practices of the organization.
7 | LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
The study also has certain limitations that give rise to interesting
directions for future research. First, the employment of cross‐sectional
research design constraints the degree to which causal inferences can
be drawn. To establish causality, future researchers are recommended
to replicate the current study using time‐lagged or experimental
research designs. Second, the nature of sample used (employee from
automobile organizations in India) may limit the generalizability of this
research. To extend the generalizability of study findings, future
researchers may replicate this research on different types of individ-
uals from wide variety of industrial, organizational, and cultural set-
tings. Third, although the study attempted to understand the
contingencies of the relationship between GHRM and employee green
behaviors, it is important to explore the moderating influence of other
individual and organizational variables such as personality and organi-
zational support for a better understanding of the relationships. In
addition, alternative mediating mechanisms can be explored to further
unfurl the dynamics of interrelationships among the study variables.
8 | CONCLUSION
In order to successfully execute the strategy of environmental sustain-
ability, it is important that organizations encourage the development
of green attitudes and behaviors among employee aligned with the
organizational green goals. In this paper, we proved GHRM as one of
the strategies to elicit and promote such attitudes and behaviors;
hence, organizations should incorporate effective “green” policies in
the HRM framework to accomplish their green performance goals.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The project on which the present report is based was funded by the
Indian Council of Social Science Research. However, the responsibility
for the facts stated, opinions expressed, and conclusions reached is
entirely that of the project director/author and not of the Indian
Council of Social Science Research. The author would like to thank
Mr. Chandan Kumar and Ms. Akriti Raj, Research Assistants under this
project, for their assistance in data collection.
ORCID
Richa Chaudhary https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2747-1430
REFERENCES
Alonso‐Almeida, M. D. M., Fernández de Navarrete, F. C., & Rodriguez‐ Pomeda, J. (2015). Corporate social responsibility perception in busi-
ness students as future managers: A multifactorial analysis. Business
Ethics: A European Review, 24(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/ beer.12060
Andersson, L., Shivarajan, S., & Blau, G. (2005). Enacting ecological sustain-
ability in the MNC: A test of an adapted value‐belief‐norm framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(3), 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10551‐005‐3440‐x
Andriate, G. S., & Fink, A. A. (2008). Managing the change to a sustainable
enterprise. In J. Wirtenberg, W. G. Russell, & D. Lipsky (Eds.), The sus-
tainable enterprise fieldbook: When it all comes together (pp. 118–140). Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf. https://doi.org/10.5848/AMACOM.978‐0‐ 814412‐79‐4_6
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organiza-
tion. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/ 10.5465/amr.1989.4278999
Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. (2006). Strategic human resources manage-
ment: Where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 32(6),
898–925. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306293668
Bissing‐Olson, M. J., Iyer, A., Fielding, K. S., & Zacher, H. (2013). Relation- ships between daily affect and pro‐environmental behavior at work: The moderating role of pro‐environmental attitude. Journal of Organiza- tional Behavior, 34(2), 156–175. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1788
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the Criterion Domain
to Include Elements of Contextual Performance. In N. Schmitt, W. C.
Borman (Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations (pp. 78–98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contex-
tual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research.
Human Performance, 10(2), 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15327043hup1002_3
Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. (2005). Talentship, talent segmentation,
and sustainability: A new HR science paradigm for a new strategy def-
inition. Human Resource Management, 44(2), 129–136. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/hrm.20054
Brown, T. J., Dacin, P. A., Pratt, M. G., & Whetten, D. A. (2006). Identity,
intended image, construed image, and reputation: An interdisciplinary
framework and suggested terminology. Journal of the Academy of Mar-
keting Science, 34(2), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0092070305284969
Calabrese, A., Costa, R., & Rosati, F. (2016). Gender differences in cus-
tomer expectations and perceptions of corporate social responsibility.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 116, 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2015.12.100
Chang, C.‐H., & Chen, Y.‐S. (2013). Green organizational identity and green innovation. Management Decision, 51(5), 1056–1070. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/MD‐09‐2011‐0314
Chang, M.‐C., & Wu, C.‐C. (2015). The effect of message framing on pro‐ environmental behavior intentions: An information processing view.
British Food Journal, 117(1), 339–357. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ‐ 09‐2013‐0247
CHAUDHARY640
Chou, C.‐J. (2014). Hotels' environmental policies and employee personal environmental beliefs: Interactions and outcomes. Tourism Manage-
ment, 40, 436–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.08.001
DuBois, C. L. Z., & Debois, D. A. (2012). Strategic HRM as social design for
environmental sustainability in organization. Human Resource Manage-
ment, 51(6), 799–826.
Dumont, J., Shen, J., & Deng, X. (2017). Effects of green HRM practices on
employee workplace green behavior: The role of psychological green
climate and employee green values. Human Resource Management,
56(4), 613–627. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21792
Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. (2009). The value of value congruence. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 654–677. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0014891
Edwards, J. R., & Shipp, A. J. (2007). The relationship between person
environment fit and outcomes: An integrative theoretical framework.
In C. Ostroff, & T. A. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on organizational fit
(pp. 209–258). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Fernandez‐Feijoo, B., Romero, S., & Ruiz‐Blanco, S. (2014). Women on boards: Do they affect sustainability reporting? Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21(6), 351–364. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1329
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's
development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Glass, C., Cook, A., & Ingersoll, A. R. (2016). Do women leaders promote
sustainability? Analyzing the effect of corporate governance composi-
tion on environmental performance. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 25(7), 495–511.
Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. (2000). Corporate social performance as a
competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business and
Society, 39(3), 254–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 000765030003900302
Hayes, A.F..(2013).Introduction to mediation,moderation,and conditional pro-
cess analysis: A regression‐based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Hawken, P., Lovins, A. B., & Lovins, L. H. (1999). Natural capitalism: Creating
the next industrial revolution. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology
of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.
Ibrahim, N. A., & Angelidis, J. P. (1994). Effect of board members' gender on
corporate social responsiveness orientation. Journal of Applied Business
Research, 10(1), 35–41.
Jabbour, C. J. C., de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., Govindan, K., Teixeira, A. A., &
de Souza Freitas, W. R. (2013). Environmental management and oper-
ational performance in automotive companies in brazil: the role of
human resource management and lean manufacturing. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 47, 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2012.07.010
Jabbour, C. J. C., & Santos, F. C. A. (2008). The central role of human
resource management in the search for sustainable organizations. Inter-
national Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(12), 2133–2154. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190802479389
Kehoe, R. R., & Wright, P. M. (2013). The impact of high‐performance human resource practices on employee attitudes and behaviors. Journal
of Management, 39, 366–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0149206310365901
Lamsa, A. M., Vehkapera, M., Puttonen, T., & Pesonen, H. L. (2008). Effect
of business education on women and men students' attitudes on cor-
porate responsibility in society. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1),
45–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐007‐9561‐7
Liu, Y., Loi, R., & Lam, L. W. (2011). Linking organizational identification and
employee performance in teams: The moderating role of team‐member exchange. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(15),
3187–3201. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.560875
Low, K. C. P. (2013). Value matters or do values really make a difference.
Educational Research, 4(4), 330–339.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial
test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123.
Marz, J. W., Powers, T. L., & Queisser, T. (2003). Corporate and individual
influences on managers' social orientation. Journal of Business Ethics,
46(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024795705173
Masri, H., & Jaroon, A. A. M. (2017). Assessing green human resources
management practices in Palestinian manufacturing context: An empir-
ical study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 474–489. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.087
Millward, L. J., & Postmes, T. (2010). Who we are affects how we do: The
financial benefits of organisational identification. British Journal of Man-
agement, 21(2), 327–339.
Mowday, R., Porter, L., & Steers, R. (1982). Employee—Organization Link- ages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover. New
York: Academic Press.
Nishii, L. H., Lepak, D. P., & Schneider, B. (2008). Employee attributions of
the “why” of HR practices: Their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 61(3),
503–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744‐6570.2008.00121.x
Norton, T. A., Parker, S. L., Zacher, H., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2015).
Employee green behavior: A Theoretical framework, multilevel review,
and future research agenda. Organization & Environment, 28(1),
103–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575773
Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (2012). Employee green behaviors. In S. E. Jack-
son, D. S. Ones, & S. Dilchert (Eds.), Managing human resources for
environmental sustainability (pp. 85–116). San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐ Bass.
O'Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psycho-
logical attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and
internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,
71, 492–499. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐9010.71.3.492
Owen, D., Gray, R., & Bebbington, J. (1997). Green accounting: Cosmetic
irrelevance or radical agenda for change? Asia‐Pacific Journal of Accounting, 4(2), 175–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10293574.1997.10510519
Paarlberg, L. E., & Perry, J. L. (2007). Values management: Aligning
employee values and organization goals. The American Review of Public
Administration, 37(4), 387–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0275074006297238
Paillé, P., Chen, Y., Boiral, O., & Jin, J. (2014). The impact of human
resource management on environmental performance: An employee
level study. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(3), 451–466. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10551‐013‐1732‐0
Peattie, K., & Crane, A. (2005). Green marketing: Legend, myth, farce or
prophesy? Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 8(4),
357–370. https://doi.org/10.1108/13522750510619733
Ren, S., Tang, G., & Jackson, S. E. (2018). Green human resource manage-
ment research in emergence: A review and future directions. Asia
Pacific Journal of Management, 35(3), 769–803. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10490‐017‐9532‐1
Renwick, D. W. S., Redman, T., & Maguire, S. (2013). Green human
resource management: A review and research agenda. International
CHAUDHARY 641
Journal of Management Reviews, 15(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1468‐2370.2011.00328.x
Roeck, K. D., Marique, G., Stinglhamber, F., & Swaen, V. (2014). Under-
standing employee responses to corporate social responsibility:
Mediating role of overall justice and organizational identification. Inter-
national Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(1), 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.781528
Saeed, B. B., Afsar, B., Hafeez, S., Khan, I., Tahir, M., & Afridi, M. A. (2019).
Promoting employee's proenvironmental behavior through green
human resource management practices. Corporate Social Responsibility
and Environmental Management, 26(2), 424–438. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/csr.1694
Schultz, P. W., Gouveia, V. V., Cameron, L. D., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P., &
Franek, M. (2005). Values and their relationship to environmental con-
cern and conservation behavior. Journal of Cross‐Cultural Psychology, 36(4), 457–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105275962
Setó‐Pamies, D. (2015). The relationship between women directors and corporate social responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and Envi-
ronmental Management, 22(6), 334–345. https://doi.org/10.1002/ csr.1349
Shen, J., Dumont, J., & Deng, X. (2018). employee perceptions of green
HRM and non‐green employee work outcomes: The social identity and stakeholder perspectives. Group & Organization Management,
43(4), 594–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601116664610
Smith, W. J., Wokutch, R. E., Harrington, K. V., & Dennis, B. S. (2001). An
examination of the influence of diversity and stakeholder role on cor-
porate social orientation. Business and Society, 40(3), 266–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/000765030104000303
Srivastava, S. K. (2007). Green supply‐chain management: A state‐of‐the‐ art literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews,
9(1), 53–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468‐2370.2007.00202.x
Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally signifi-
cant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407–424. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/0022‐4537.00175
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value‐ belief‐norm theory of support for social movements: The case of envi- ronmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81–97.
Tang, G., Chen, Y., Jiang, Y., Paille, P., & Jia, J. (2018). Green human
resource management practices: scale development and validity. Asia
Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 56(1), 31–55. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/1744‐7941.12147
Unsworth, K., Dmitrieva, A., & Adriasola, E. (2013). Changing behaviour:
increasing the effectiveness of workplace interventions in creating
pro‐environmental behaviour change. Journal of Organizational Behav- ior, 34(2), 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1837
Van Dick, R. (2001). Identification in organizational contexts: Linking the-
ory and research from social and organizational psychology.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 265–283. https:// doi.org/10.1111/1468‐2370.00068
Williams, R. J. (2003). Women on corporate boards of directors and their
influence on corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 42(1),
1–10. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021626024014
Wong, T. K., & Wan, P. (2011). Perceptions and determinants of environ-
mental concerns: The case of Hong Kong and its implications for
sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 19(4), 235–249. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.429
Xiao, C., & Hong, D. (2010). Gender differences in environmental behav-
iours in China. Population and Environment, 32, 88–104. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11111‐010‐0115‐z
Yong, J. Y., Yusliza, M.‐Y., Ramayah, T., & Fawehinmi, O. (2019). Nexus between green intellectual capital and green human resource manage-
ment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 215, 364–374.
How to cite this article: Chaudhary R. Green human resource
management and employee green behavior: An empirical anal-
ysis. Corp Soc Resp Env Ma. 2020;27:630–641. https://doi.org/
10.1002/csr.1827
