Green Human Resource Management

R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E

Green human resource management: Development of a valid measurement scale

Muzammel Shah

Management Sciences, Qurtuba University of

Science and Information Technology,

Peshawar, Pakistan

Correspondence

Muzammel Shah, Management Sciences,

Qurtuba University of Science and

Information Technology, Peshawar, Pakistan.

Email: [email protected]

Abstract

The objective of the study was to develop a valid measurement scale for green human

resource management (HRM). Even though the common practices of green HRM have

been presented in much of the literature, the previous studies focused only on a small

number of functions in integrating environmental management with HRM. Addition-

ally, the measurement of green HRM practices still calls for empirical validation. The

two‐stage methodology of structural equation modeling in AMOS was employed for

data analysis. Exploratory factor analysis revealed seven dimensions of the construct

measured by 28 items. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the factor structure.

The measuring instruments revealed convergent and discriminant validity. Several

model fit indices indicated the model fitness. The study provided supplementary

evidence on the underlying structure of the construct that can be valuable to

researchers and practitioners in this area.

KEYWORDS

confirmatory factor analysis, convergent validity, discriminant validity, environmental management,

exploratory factor analysis, fit indices, human resource management, structural equation modeling

1 | INTRODUCTION

Sustainability and environmental protection is currently a global con-

cern. Organizations are allocating more resources to tackle environ-

mental problems (Paillé, Chen, Boiral, & Jin, 2014). Corporations

primarily want to stabilize the industrial advancement and demand

environmental management (Daily & Huang, 2001). Environmental

management is the approach embraced by a company to establish

the environmental management policies and strategies for resolving

environmental issues (Lee, Kang, Hsu, & Hung, 2009). It contains

environmentally conscious practices of green organizations (Pane

Haden, Oyler, & Humphreys, 2009). The development of green man-

agement took place as a result of implementation of environmental

management practices that offered diverse benefits to organizations

(Molina‐Azorín, Claver‐Cortés, López‐Gamero, & Tarí, 2009; Wagner,

2007). A few advantages related to this implementation included

decrease in total expenses, increased collaboration, better operating

performance, and enrichment in business values and principles (Hart,

1997; Jabbar & Abid, 2014).

In the framework of environmental protection, effective green

management requires significant human resources (HR; Daily &

Huang, 2001). Aligning HR functions with environmental management

goals can aid in the effective design and implementation of environ-

mental management (Jabbour & Santos, 2008; Jackson, Renwick,

Jabbour, & Muller‐Camen, 2011). Green human resource management

(GHRM) is defined as the incorporation of green management ele-

ments into job design, staffing, training and development, motivation,

and maintenance functions of human resource management (HRM) to

improve employee pro‐environmental behavior, meet employee

expectations, and achieve organizational objectives. Uddin and Islam

(2015) pointed out that HRM can play a useful role in promoting

environmental management activities. HRM has additional scope and

potential to increase organization's pro‐environmental performance.

Taylor, Beechler, and Napier (1996) generalized that workers accepted

culture of green management when organizations provided incentives

in the form of green rewards. Employees were inspired and came up

with novel waste reduction opinions when offered incentives (Denton,

1999). Dechant and Altman (1994) found that employee perceptions

Received: 2 October 2018 Revised: 31 December 2018 Accepted: 11 January 2019

DOI: 10.1002/bse.2279

Bus Strat Env. 2019;28:771–785. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environmentwileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/bse 771

were vital and were keen toward working in a company that will

improve their value profile. A firm pro‐environmental stance improves

its attractiveness toward applicants (Bauer & Aiman‐Smith, 1996).

Further, applicants' intention to work with ecofriendly firm was

greater together with higher acceptance of employment offer. To

carry out the extra responsibility of contributing in environmental

work required the provision of rewards and reinforcement (Forman

& Jorgensen, 2001). Organizations must adopt an approach of

attaining the most of HR to achieve green objectives. Mishra, Sarkar,

and Kiranmai (2014) argued that it is essential to incorporate green

concept into HRM.

Even though the common practices of GHRM have been sug-

gested in much of the literature, the previous studies narrowly

measured the functions and practices of GHRM. Nevertheless, the

dimensions of GHRM calls for empirical validation. Thus, the develop-

ment of a valid measurement scale was essential for further research

in this subject. It will help to provide an in‐depth understandings of

its implications for environmental management and individual or

organizational performance. This study was carried out with the

objective to develop and validate a measurement scale for GHRM.

2 | LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 | Green human resource management

Roome (1992) stated that the ability to manage the environmental

issues is restrained by the approach adopted by organizations to tackle

environmental issues and organize their resources. In the era of

environmental management, GHRM has become the buzz word. The

number of studies on greening of management increased in 1990

(Hale, 1995; Wehrmeyer, 1996). The principal reason for this increase

was the launch of International Organization for Standardization

14000 and the growth of green management system (Chan, 2011;

Jabbour & Santos, 2008). With large number of scholarly work on

green management (Daily & Huang, 2001; Govindarajulu & Daily,

2004), it became evident that business needs the support of HRM.

Wehrmeyer (1996) conducted the groundbreaking work on GHRM

in his book “Greening People.” Daily and Huang (2001) specified that

HRM support was vital to green management implementation.

Jackson et al. (2011) asserted that the deliberate contribution of HR

in strategic planning activities is necessary for corporate environmen-

tal management practices.

GHRM revealed the HR side of environmental management

(Renwick, Redman, & Maguire, 2013). Opatha and Arulrajah (2014)

defined GHRM as the practices related to the formation, implementa-

tion, and sustaining of a structure that make employees pro‐

environmental. It involves changing the usual workforce to green

workforce to accomplish green objectives and participate in environ-

mental sustainability. To Rani and Mishra (2014), GHRM is the process

of utilizing every worker interface in a way that encourage and main-

tain practical corporate exercises as well as creating awareness. The

practices of high‐commitment, high‐performance, and strategic HRM

have been embraced by the concept of GHRM. Mishra, Sarkar, and

Kiranmani (2014) theorized that it is composed of a system of specific

HRM practices that shows a company orientation toward environmen-

tal safety. According to Boiral (2002), GHRM focuses on the uncer-

tainty of environments and the environmental consequences of

firms' commercial actions. The current study also developed a defini-

tion of GHRM based on study findings. GHRM is defined as the incor-

poration of green management elements into job design, staffing,

training and development, motivation, and maintenance functions of

HRM to improve employee pro‐environmental behavior, meet

employee expectations, and achieve organizational objectives.

Through this definition, we delimited the domain of the construct to

generate representative measuring items. The objectives of HRM are

twofold (Shah & Aman, 2019): first, to achieve organizational objective

and, second, to meet employee expectations. Incorporating green

management aspects in HRM adds a third objective, which is improve-

ment of employee pro‐environmental behavior. The previous defini-

tions failed to take into consideration the functional aspect of HRM.

They relied on only a few practices of HRM for improving pro‐

environmental behavior in organization. Employee commitment to

and participation in green initiatives may benefit other stakeholders.

2.2 | Functions and practices of GHRM

According to Decenzo and Robbins (2005), HRM comprised four

major functions, namely, staffing, training and development, motiva-

tion, and maintenance. There are underlying practices associated with

these functions. The next section describes how these underlying

practices align with the concept of GHRM. The practices were

intended to be incorporated in GHRM measurement scale.

2.2.1 | Staffing function

Green job analysis and design

Job analysis is a systematic process through which we analyze job

duties, responsibilities, and working conditions as well as the human

requirements of a job (Dessler & Tan, 2006). Job description and job

specification are the two tangible outcomes of job analysis. A job

description is a document that defines job tasks and responsibilities

as well as the working conditions of a job. From a green management

perspective, it can serve to identify several job duties and responsibil-

ities related to environmental management (Renwick et al., 2013;

Renwick, Redman, & Maguire, 2008; Wehrmeyer, 1996). Firms have

combined environmental and societal responsibilities and to the best

of their abilities in each job to protect the environment. Several com-

panies have incorporated at least one task related to environmental

management in job descriptions. Further, job descriptions and job

specification must cover tasks related to organizational, environmen-

tal, and societal obligations, green reporting, and health and safety

responsibilities. Furthermore, certain firms use cross‐functional teams

to effectively handle the environmental problems of the business

(Crosbie & Knight, 1995; Jabbour, Santos & Nagano, 2010; May &

Flannery, 1995; Revill, 2000; Wehrmeyer, 1996). Dangelico (2015)

argued that the foundation of employee green teams significantly

influenced both green reputation and green performance.

Environmental protection duty of a firm require multidisciplinary

teamwork. Presently, numerous businesses have created

772 SHAH

environment‐related ranks to emphasize entirely on green manage-

ment features of the company. Likewise, several firms have designed

their current jobs in a more ecofriendly fashion by integrating green

duties and responsibilities.

Green recruitment and selection

Jackson et al. (2011) and Ahmad (2015) regarded green recruitment

and selection (GRS) as an essential element of GHRM. Dechant and

Altman (1994) found that employee perception was vital and were

keen toward working in a company that will improve their value

profile. A firm practical outlook toward environmental protection

improves firm's attractiveness (Bauer & Aiman‐Smith, 1996). Further,

applicants' intention to work with ecofriendly firm was greater along

with higher acceptance of employment offer. Friedman (2003) claimed

that individuals would like to work for pro‐environmental companies.

The motivation among incumbents to work for the firms was greater

toward pro‐environmental companies (Brekke & Nyborg, 2008).

Further, when incumbents in different firms were offered with parallel

wages, they choose to move toward socially responsible firms.

Grolleau, Mzoughi, and Pekovic (2012) noted the influence of green

criteria of a firm staffing. A firm commitment to environmental man-

agement improved its reputation. Guerci, Montanari, Scapolan, and

Epifanio (2016) found a significant positive association between

recruiting effort and attracting job applicants. The three features of

GRS recognized by Renwick et al. (2013) were green criteria to hire

applicants, green employer branding, and applicants' green awareness.

Green awareness includes behavioral elements that allow an

organization to attain green objectives. Environmental management

is eventually enhanced when individuals develop pro‐environmental

information as a result of operational process (Del Brío, Fernández, &

Junquera, 2007). Such individuals are of value to organization in

terms of environmental management. Numerous selection tools can

be employed to confirm that job incumbents have green awareness

and are optimistic about green concerns (Milkovich & Boudreau,

2000). Ehnert, Parsa, Roper, Wagner, and Muller‐Camen (2016)

referred to green employer branding as a firm's aspect and reputation

associated with environmental management that can be developed

through GHRM. Applicants can recognize a good fit between a com-

pany and their own beliefs through green employer branding (Jones &

Willness, 2013). Jabbour (2011) stated that applicants can be attracted

to organization with progressive green indicators. Job applicants gather

data about a company green performance and are willing to utilize their

energy for an organization with proper green atmosphere. Thus, green

employer branding is a useful technique of hiring prospective individ-

uals who are positive about green issues. Organizations should use

green criteria to evaluate and appoint individuals. Hiring companies

can emphasize environmental features in job analysis. Queries associ-

ated to green information, standards, and views can be questioned.

2.2.2 | Training and development function

Green training and development

Organizational change activities to manage green problems often used

education programs (Jackson, Schuler, & Jiang, 2014; Stalcup, Deale, &

Todd, 2014). It exposed green practices and conveyed company values

to notify individuals about desired change throughout the early pursuit

of environmental protection. Wiernik, Ones, and Dilchert (2013) postu-

lated that individual behavior can be shaped through intervention‐based

methods. Such methods direct the philosophy of education and motiva-

tion related to learning, development, and organizational change.

Green training (GT) indicates a scheme of events that stimulate

workers to acquire environmental protection abilities and pay attention

to environmental concerns (Jabbour, 2011). Pellegrini, Rizzi, and Frey

(2018) predicted a positive association between GT and in‐role and

ex‐role sustainable behavior. Fernández, Junquera, and Ordiz (2003)

reckoned on that employee awareness and skills about green activities

can be improved through training. All members of the firm should be

trained in green management courses. According to Tang, Chen, Jiang,

and Jia (2018), GT involved three elements: knowledge management,

green awareness, and environmental protection activities. GT can

improve individuals' awareness of pro‐environmental actions. Pun,

Fung, and Wong (1998) made point that individuals can realize the sig-

nificance of environmental protection through GT practices. Further,

it make them sensitive to environmental control or protection proce-

dures. Firms need to develop specified GT programs tailored to the

requirement of a business (Perron, Côté, & Duffy, 2006). Moreover,

organizations should utilize validated instruments to assess the conse-

quent training outcomes. The establishment of an efficient and effec-

tive green management structure was reliant upon GT (Daily & Huang,

2001). Further, the effective management of GHRM practices required

GT initiatives in organization. Environmental management training was

significant, but education programs were not very robust. Further, the

findings revealed that lack of provision of green know‐hows and the

absence of upper management support were the main subjects of focus

on expanding learning programs (Unnikrishnan & Hegde, 2007).

Del Brío et al. (2007) described GT as part of the company's knowl-

edge management program that assists employees to exercise green

practices. Govindarajulu and Daily (2004) asserted that workers devel-

oped skills in dealing with difficult environmental issues. Further,

employees get training as part of organization knowledge management

initiatives that broadens their understanding of environmental protec-

tion. Roy and Thérin (2008) claimed that it improves employee know‐

how of gathering information on environment. Sound environmental

training mediated the manifestation of environmental management

practices (Sarkis, Gonzalez‐Torre, & Adenso‐Diaz, 2010). Businesses

that encouraged new and actual green management practices constantly

delivered a routine environmental management training within organi-

zation. Jabbar and Abid (2014) found that talent acquisition, training,

motivation, and compensation significantly related to the development

of green management values. The commitment level of employees at all

levels of organization determined the association of GT and environ-

mental management (Teixeira, Jabbour, & de Sousa Jabbour, 2012).

Developing a pro‐environmental workplace requires integrated training

programs linked to evaluation and performance management.

2.2.3 | Motivation function

Green performance management

Jabbour and Santos (2008) refer to green performance management

(GPM) as the practice of appraising individuals' performance through

SHAH 773

remunerations in the course of green management practices. Compa-

nies need to identify an efficient way of executing GPM. Implementing

a general GPM standard is therefore a priority for numerous compa-

nies. Tang et al. (2018) reported that GPM is composed of four

elements: developing green objectives, creating green indicators,

appraising members' green results, and exercising disbenefits.

Clair, Milliman, and Whelan (1996) indicated that developing

green objectives involves translating ecofriendly goals into action

plans for workforce. Setting green performance indicators requires

creation of a set of environmental benchmarks for all employees in

appraisal and communication of green guidelines. Performance

appraisal was most effective for both executive and staff in influenc-

ing the usefulness of compensation (Ahmad, 2015). In the practice of

performance management, exercise of vibrant green indicators was

crucial. Appraising managers' green results plays a major role in green

management, making them responsible for green performance. Indi-

viduals who do not meet green performance standards are dealt with

disbenefits (Renwick et al., 2013). Disbenefit is a negative measure

that may aptly drive individuals to make every effort for environmen-

tal objectives in their forthcoming job.

Green compensation management

Mandip (2012) and Jabbour, Santos, and Nagano (2010) referred to

green compensation management (GCM) as the practice of using

rewards, aimed at hiring and motivating workforce to work toward

environmental objectives. A mix of business‐specific incentives and

benchmarking best practice in industry will stabilize the problems of

resource allocation (Lothe & Myrtveit, 2003).

Ramus and Montiel (2005) recognized the significance of non‐

monetary rewards in influencing strategy execution in European

businesses. It was observed that perceived supervisory support and

enhanced recognition improved employee commitment toward

implementing environmental strategies. Jackson and Seo (2010) pre-

dicted that rewards were beneficial when individual performance

was linked to company's objectives. According to Jackson et al.

(2011), non‐monetary rewards such a praise and recognition were

significant for motivating employees. Pellegrini et al. (2018) stated

that reward positively affected sustainable behavior. Tang et al.

(2018) theorized that along with financial incentives, employees

should be paid with non‐monetary rewards such as green recognition,

green tax incentives, and green travel benefits.

Green health and safety

Green health and safety (GHS) covers the old‐fashioned health and

safety administration and certain other features of environmental

management of a company. It includes environmental protection and

community livelihood programs. The provision of green workplace

for all employees is the central function of GHS management. Busi-

nesses constantly devote resources to make various environmental‐

related initiatives to decrease worker stress and job‐related sickness

instigated by harmful work setting. Some firms have developed poli-

cies to maintain a promising workplace to avoid health issues. Environ-

mental management and its associated cost lead to improvement of

employee's health and local communities. Thereby, it improves a firm

image as a suitable employer and socially responsible citizen.

2.2.4 | Maintenance function

Green labor relations and employee involvement

In the context of GHRM, employee relations and collective bargaining

are essential in executing company environmental management plans

and programs. Labor relations and union actions might support

member involvement and input in green suggestion activities,

problem‐solving circles, and workers' experimentation with green

ideas (Renwick et al., 2008, 2013).

Florida and Davison (2001) contended that the performance of

green management system can be enhanced through employee

green involvement (GI). Internal drivers were associated with green

consciousness (Chinander, 2001). The development of valuable

ecofriendly programs was contingent upon the amount of response

that employee receive on particular environmental problem. Organiza-

tion dedication, individual autonomy, recognition, and reward were

important factors to promote efficient green management practices

(Govindarajulu & Daily, 2004).

HRM aspects comprising individuals' empowerment, training,

teamwork, and environmental management training were associated

with company environmental actions (Daily & Huang, 2001). GI com-

prised five components, namely, green learning environment, green

vision, inspiring GI, communication, and supporting green practices

(Tang et al., 2018). The staff members should be knowledgeable

regarding green matters in organization, which require various com-

munication channels and green learning environment. Green vision is

the pattern of principles, which inspire green behavior. It directs indi-

viduals toward participation in ecofriendly activities (Harris & Crane,

2002; Renwick et al., 2013). Such an environment inspires individuals

to be aware about each other's conduct regarding green initiatives.

Various channels of communication can develop a green culture. In

such a culture, individuals can develop their green behaviors and

awareness.

2.2.5 | Measurement of GHRM

Clair et al. (1996) suggested that GHRM should take account of green

idea, training, appraising individuals' green performance, and offering

rewards. Improvement in green performance can be determined by

providing training on green initiatives, non‐monetary rewards, collabo-

ration, considering environmental objectives, and organizational

culture (Jabbour & Santos, 2008). Renwick et al. (2008) identified six

components of GHRM, namely, recruitment, training and develop-

ment, performance appraisal, reward management, employment

relations, and exit. Sudin (2011) reported that GHRM construct is

composed of top management support, recruitment and selection,

performance appraisal, training and development, employee relations,

and reward system. Meta‐analysis of publications on GHRM

conducted by Cherian and Jacob (2012) published in Emerald and

ScienceDirect journals during 1992 to 2012 identified four dimensions,

which includes recruitment, training and development, reward and

compensation, and employee empowerment. Renwick et al. (2013)

proposed that the components of staffing and learning on environ-

mental awareness can be incorporated in concept of GHRM. Prasad

(2013) proposed six areas where HRM can have green approach.

774 SHAH

These included sourcing and acquiring talent, onboarding, induction,

learning and development, performance management, and compensa-

tion management. Majority of the studies (Cherian & Jacob, 2012;

Jabbour et al., 2010; Prasad, 2013; Zibarras & Coan, 2015) ponder

that GHRM practices consist of staffing, training and development,

performance management, reward, human relations and employee

involvement.

Even though the common practices of GHRM have been sug-

gested in much of the literature, considerable number of previous

studies narrowly measured GHRM. Such studies were unsuccessful

in sufficiently addressing the requirements of organizations' policy

makers (Fernández et al., 2003). The outcomes were not comprehen-

sive to demonstrably state a set of effective GHRM practices in indus-

tries (Jabbour & Santos, 2008). The multidimensional nature of GHRM

should be kept in mind while developing a measurement scale for

GHRM (Tang et al., 2018). To describe the level of accomplishment

in GHRM, organizations require certain indicators. Thus, it was

essential to develop a valid measurement instrument for GHRM. The

current study was carried out with the objective to develop and

empirically validate a measurement scale for GHRM.

3 | RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 | Proposed dimensions and measurement items

All possible relevant indicators and measures of GHRM were analyzed

and collected through an extensive literature review to create a listing

of proposed items measuring various dimensions of GHRM. Through

definition, the domain of the construct was delimited to generate rep-

resentative measuring items. Moreover, the proposed dimensions and

associated items were evaluated and affirmed by two assistant profes-

sor in management sciences. Seven HRM practices and 81 items mea-

suring these practices were identified and selected, which exhibited

actual HRM practices that affect environmental management. The

dimensions were clearly stated and explained. All the similar items

were then grouped into relevant dimensions of GHRM as shown in

Appendix A. The dimension green job design (GJD) was represented

by 7 items, GRS by 17 items, green training and development (GTD)

by 16 items, GPM by 13 items, GCM by 12 items, GHS by 3 items,

and green labor relations (GLR) by 16 items, respectively. All these

GHRM measures were then incorporated into a 5‐point Likert scale

questionnaire. Two assistant professors of management studies

agreed on seven HRM dimensions and their measuring items as valid

indicators of GHRM construct.

3.2 | Data collection and sampling procedure

Data were collected from 378 respondents. The population of the

study consists of 19 International Organization for Standardization

certified companies listed on Pakistan Stock exchange. The companies

operated in 10 different industries including cement, chemical indus-

try, commercial banks, engineering, investment sector, oil and gas,

transport, textile, power generation, and technology and communica-

tion. A sampling frame was developed from the population, which

contained the list of potential respondents. The minimum required

sample size was 412, which was calculated through (Cochran, 1977)

equation “n = z2 s2 ̸d2.” However, the method of oversampling was

employed to get the desired response rate of 60%. Through equal

allocation, 33 organizational members were randomly selected, which

gave a sample size of 627 respondents. The link of the questionnaire

was mailed to the participants on their official email address. Follow‐

up of respondents was done through reminders in emails, phone calls,

and SMS messages. The response rate was 60%.

4 | RESULTS

4.1 | Demographic features of the participants (N = 378)

The sample consists of 378 managerial level employees of which 18

were female and 360 were male participants. Of the total participants,

69 (18%) were HR professionals, 58 (15%) were top‐level managers,

88 (23%) were middle‐level managers, and 163 (43%) were lower level

managers. In addition, 100 (26%) participants were from small compa-

nies having less than 200 employees, 166 (63%) from mid‐sized com-

panies having 200 to 1,000 employees, and 112 (29%) from large

companies having more than 1,000 employees. One hundred sixteen

(30%) participants were having experience of less than 2 years, 175

(46%) participants having experience of 2 to 5 years, 50 (13%) partic-

ipants having experience of 5 to 10 years, and 37 (0.9%) participants

having more than 10 years of experience.

4.2 | Exploratory factor analysis

To explore the factor structure, an exploratory factor analysis with

principal component technique (Hotelling, 1933) in SPSS was per-

formed. The Promax rotation method with Kaiser Normalization

(Kaiser & Rice, 1974) was employed to identify the linear combination

of variables and their respective items. Two criteria were used for

retaining items. First, a cutoff value of 0.5 was considered for retaining

items. Second was item deletion criteria. The items that loaded

on more than one factor should be deleted (Fabrigar, Wegener,

MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999; Henson & Roberts, 2006; Osborne &

Costello, 2009). Maskey, Fei, and Nguyen (2018) conducted a meta‐

analysis of 35 articles published from 1999 to 2016 in which majority

of the researcher used such criteria. Seven factors were extracted,

which accounted for 84% variance in the model. Out of the total 81

items, only 28 items were explored to be associated with seven fac-

tors in the model. All the items exhibited factor loadings greater than

0.50, demonstrating acceptable reliability of the scale. Among the

items, GPM4 has the highest loading of 0.963 followed by GPM2

(0.925) and GLR2 (0.903). The item GCM6 exhibited the lowest load-

ing of 0.504 followed by JTD8 (0.552) and GJD2 (0.571). No items

loaded on multiple factors, which indicated the discriminant validity

of the scale. All the items loaded on single factor were significant at

p < 0.01, which indicated unidimensionality of the construct. The item

factor loadings are offered in Table 1, and the explored items in their

respective dimensions are presented in Table 2.

SHAH 775

4.3 | Confirmatory factor analysis

A confirmatory factor analysis in AMOS (version 23) was employed

to validate and confirm the factor structure. The model fitness was

determined through several fit indices, namely, CMIN/DF (Marsh &

Hocevar, 1985), goodness of fit index (GFI; Jöreskog & Sörbom,

1989), normed fit index (NFI; Bollen, 1989), root mean square

residual (PMR), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI; Bentler & Bonett, 1980),

root mean square of approximation (Browne & Cudeck, 1993), and

comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990). Reliability and validity

analyses were performed to confirm and validate the factor

structure.

4.4 | Reliability and validity analyses

The reliability of construct was determined by assessing the internal

and composite reliability of the subconstructs. The Cronbach's α

co‐efficient of reliability was employed to determine the internal

reliability of the scale (Awang, 2012). The results showed that all

Cronbach's α values were greater than 0.70, which approved the

internal reliability of the measurement scale.

The critical ratio (CR) values of the subscales were computed to

determine the composite reliability of the scale. Hu and Bentler

(1999) suggested a CR value of greater than 0.60 as acceptable for

appropriate composite reliability of the construct. All the CR values

as displayed in Table 3 were greater than the threshold value of

0.60, which demonstrated the composite reliability of construct.

Average variance extracted (AVE; Fornell & Larcker, 1981) was

computed for subconstructs of the scale to confirm the convergent

validity. Hu and Bentler (1999) considered an AVE > 0.50 as an accept-

able value. All the subconstructs demonstrated AVE values greater

than the standard value of 0.50 as showed in Table 3, which indicated

that the scale demonstrated convergent validity. Moreover, Chin,

Gopal, and Salisbury (1997) suggested the criteria that all factor loading

of items should be significant and greater than 0.60. All the items

exhibited significant factor loadings, which were greater than 0.60.

This demonstrated the convergent validity of the scale.

Fornell and Larcker (1981) and Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and

Tatham (2006, 2010) suggested the criteria for determining

TABLE 1 Results of exploratory factor analysis

Constructs Items

Rotated factor loadings

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

GLR GEI5 0.758 GLR1 0.746 GLR2 0.903

GRS GRS4 0.675 GRS5 0.904 GRS7 0.751

GPM GPM2 0.925 GPM4 0.963

0.746 GPM7 0.871 GPM9 0.774 GPM11 0.642 GPM13

GCM GCM2 0.838 GCM5 0.711

0.504 0.637

GCM6 0.799 GCM7 GCM11

GJD GJD1 0.774 GJD2 0.571

0.758 0.871GJD5

GJD6

GTD GTD4 0.730 0.836

GTD6 0.552 0.824

GTD8 GTD13

GHS GHS1 0.752 GHS2 0.647 GHS3 0.688

Note. GCM: green compensation management; GHS: green health and safety; GJD: green job design; GLR: green labor relations; GPM: green performance management; GRS: green recruitment and selection; GTD: green training and development.

Extraction method: Principal component analysis. Rotation method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.

Rotation converged in six iterations.

776 SHAH

discriminant validity of the scale, that is, CR > AVE > MSV (maximum

shared variance) and squared correlation > MSV. The results of the

validity analysis showed that the values of CR > AVE and MSV and

the square of correlation of each dimension were greater than its

MSV value as presented in Table 4. Thus, the scale met the criteria

of discriminant validity.

The questionnaire was also presented to two assistant professors

in management studies. The professors studied the subject matter of

the scale and suggested minor changes. Further, they validated the

content of the questionnaire.

4.5 | First‐order factor analysis

Structural equation modeling in AMOS was used to perform first‐

order factor analysis of the seven dimensions, namely, GLR, GRS,

GPM, GCM, GJD, GCD, and GHS. The model fitness was analyzed

through good of fit criteria. All the model fit indices met the thresh-

old values: CMIN/DF = 1.283, GFI = .923, PMR = 0.28, CFI = 0.964,

NFI = 0.938, TLI = 0.958, and RMSE = 0.048.While conducting the

analysis, the parameters of one of the items of each of the seven

dimensions was constrained to 1.0 to estimate standardized esti-

mates of all other items. As evident in Figure 1, all the items

displayed factor loadings greater than 0.50. Similarly, the correlation

among seven dimensions was also computed. The highest correlation

was between GJD and GHS (r = 0.99) followed by GLR and GRS

(r = 0.97) and GPM and GTD (r = 0.93). The lowest correlation

was between GRS and GPM (r = 0.72) followed by GLR and GPM

(r = 0.76).

4.6 | Second‐order factor analysis

In AMOS, a second‐order factor analysis was executed. A latent

factor GHRM was inserted in the first‐order model to see the correla-

tion among seven dimensions. Numerous fit indices were used to

analyze the model fitness. All the fit indices values satisfied the criteria

of model fitness: GFI = 0.916, NFI = 0.903, CFI = 0.930, TLI = 0.924,

CMIN/DF = 1.326, PMR = 0.042, and RMSE = 0.053. To obtain

the standardized factor loadings of all items, the parameters of

one of the item of each subconstruct was constrained to 1. As

depicted in Figure 2, the regression weight between the latent

construct GHRM and all the factors was significant (p < 0.01). The

factor GRS demonstrated the highest factor loading of 0.98 followed

by GTD (0.95), GCM (0.93), GJD (0.92), GLR (0.91), and GPM (0.86),

respectively.

TABLE 2 Dimensions and their measurement items

Dimensions Measuring items

GJD JD1. My company has integrated several environmental protection responsibilities in each position. JD2. My company has included green and social needs of the company in job description and specification. JD5. My company has incorporated green capabilities as a distinctive element in job specification. JD6. My company has designed and executed innovative positions to emphasize on environmental protection aspects.

GRS RS4: Our company has incorporated “green aware” criteria in HR staffing policy. RS5: My company practices the use of paperless recruitment and selection process. RS7: We appeal to green job applicants who practice green criteria choose employer (green employer branding).

GTD TD4: My company assesses who need training in environmental management. TD6: My company evaluates whether the incumbent has manager and peer support to apply the learned content on the job. TD8: My organization uses environmental protection elements as the central themes of green training. TD13: My organization delivers environmental management training to improve employee awareness, skills, and know‐how in

environmental management.

GPM PM2: Our company establishes green targets, objectives, and duties for each employee across organization. PM4: In my company, there is communication of green goals. PM7: The use of green criteria to evaluate performance. PM9: My company keeps track of non‐compliance or not meeting green objectives. PM11: My company reinforces compliance of meeting environmental goals. PM13: Identification of “Green Superstars” (remarkably talented individuals who perform beyond the standards) and

distribution of prizes based on their green contributions.

GCM CM2: Our compensation system recognizes and rewards contributions in environmental protection. CM5: My company rewards green skills acquisition CM6: My company rewards for learning a green curricula. CM7: My company uses non‐monetary rewards for contributions in environment management such as paid time off,

special leave, and gifts to employees and their families. CM11: My organization recognizes green initiatives of employees via organization wide publicity and public praise.

GHS HS1: My organization provides green workplace for all. HS2: My organization takes green initiatives to decrease worker anxiety and work‐related sickness instigated by

harmful work setting. HS3: My organization develops and executes strategies to sustain a favorable work setting to avoid several fitness

problems to develop health and safety of workforce.

GLR EI5: Our company emphasizes a culture of environmental protection. Offering green practices. LR1: My organization offers opportunities to individuals to take part in green suggestion schemes. LR2: My organization presents green whistle‐blowing and helplines.

Note. GCM: green compensation management; GHS: green health and safety; GJD: green job design; GLR: green labor relations; GPM: green performance management; GRS: green recruitment and selection; GTD: green training and development; HR: human resource.

SHAH 777

5 | DISCUSSION

5.1 | Conclusion

The findings revealed that GHRM is a multidimensional construct

composed of seven dimensions, namely, GJD, GRS, GTD, GPM, GCM,

GHS, and GLR, which can be measured by 28 items. Among the seven

dimensions, four dimensions, namely, staffing, training and develop-

ment, performance management, and reward management, were

accepted and suggested by numerous previous studies (Mishra et al.,

2014; Paillé et al., 2014; Renwick et al., 2008; Tang et al., 2018). Previ-

ously, several studies (Cherian & Jacob, 2012; Clair et al., 1996; Jabbour

et al., 2010; Jabbour & Santos, 2008; Prasad, 2013; Renwick et al.,

2008; Tang et al., 2018; Zibarras & Coan, 2015) explained the key

components of GHRM and emphasized the development of GHRM

scale. Clair et al. (1996) observed that GHRM contained green

idea, training, appraising individuals' green performance, and offering

remunerations. Improvement in green performance was determined

by providing training on green initiatives, non‐monetary rewards, col-

laboration, considering environmental objectives, and organizational

culture (Jabbour & Santos, 2008). Renwick et al. (2008) identified six

components of GHRM, namely, recruitment, training and development,

performance appraisal, reward management, employment relations,

and exit. Sudin (2011) revealed that the GHRM construct is composed

of top management support, recruitment and selection, performance

appraisal, training and development, employee relations, and reward

system. Meta‐analysis of publications on GHRM conducted by Cherian

and Jacob (2012) published in Emerald and ScienceDirect journals during

1992 to 2012 identified four dimensions, which includes recruitment,

training and development, reward and compensation, and employee

empowerment. Renwick et al. (2013) concluded that the components

of staffing and education on environmental awareness can be incorpo-

rated in the concept of GHRM. Prasad (2013) found six areas where

HRM can have green approach. These included sourcing and acquiring

talent, onboarding, induction, learning and development, performance

management, and compensation management. Tang et al. (2018) devel-

oped a GHRM scale in the context of China, which consists of five con-

structs, namely, GRS, GT, GPM, GPR, and GI. The developed scale was

theoretically justified in previous literature and empirically validated.

5.2 | Discussion and implications

The current study adds to the shared knowledge on GHRM by offer-

ing supplementary evidence on the underlying structure of the

construct. Previous researches (Dechant & Altman, 1994; Jabbour,

de Sousa Jabbour, Govindan, Teixeira, & de Souza Freitas, 2013;

Jackson et al., 2011; Mishra et al., 2014; Paillé et al., 2014; Renwick

et al., 2013; Taylor et al., 1996) emphasized the incorporation of green

TABLE 3 Cronbach's α, CR values, and items factor loadings of subconstructs

Dimensions Items Factor loadings Cronbach's α CR

GLR GEI5 0.758 0.96 0.946 GLR1 0.746 GLR2 0.903

GRS GRS4 0.675 0.93 0.956 GRS5 0.904 GRS7 0.751

GPM GPM2 0.925 0.92 0.970 GPM4 0.963 GPM7 0.746 GPM9 0.871 GPM11 0.774 GPM13 0.642

GCM GCM2 0.838 0.95 0.979 GCM5 0.711 GCM6 0.504 GCM7 0.637 GCM11 0.799

GJD GJD1 0.774 0.94 0.976 GJD2 0.571 GJD5 0.758 GJD6 0.871

GTD GTD4 0.730 0.92 0.921 GTD6 0.836 GTD8 0.552 GTD13 0.824

GHS GHS1 0.752 0.90 0.912 GHS2 0.647 GHS3 0.688

Note. AVE: average variance extracted; CR: critical ratio; GCM: green compensation management; GHS: green health and safety; GJD: green job design; GLR: green labor relations; GPM: green performance manage- ment; GRS: green recruitment and selection; GTD: green training and development.

CR = (ΣҚ)2/[(ΣҚ)2 + (Σ1 − Қ2)].

TABLE 4 Results of validity analysis of the construct

Dimensions CR AVE MSV GLR GRS GPM GCM GJD GTD GHS

GLR 0.946 0.746 0.087 0.864

GRS 0.956 0.784 0.209 0.295*** 0.885

GPM 0.970 0.844 0.131 0.153** 0.069 0.918

GCM 0.979 0.904 0.131 0.268*** 0.157** 0.362*** 0.951

GJD 0.976 0.909 0.075 0.273*** 0.127* 0.027 0.090a 0.953

GTD 0.921 0.746 0.209 0.286*** 0.458*** 0.113* 0.213*** 0.177*** 0.864

GHS 0.912 0.779 0.075 0.211*** 0.074 0.028 0.107* 0.084 0.274*** 0.883

Note. CR: critical ratio; GCM: green compensation management; GHS: green health and safety; GJD: green job design; GLR: green labor relations; GPM: green performance management; GRS: green recruitment and selection; GTD: green training and development.

AVE = ΣҚ2/n. CR = (ΣҚ)2/[(ΣҚ)2 + (Σ1 − Қ2)].

Significance of Correlations: *p < 0.050; **p < 0.010; ***p < 0.001. aThe underlying mathematical equations showing how AVE and CR values were calculated.

778 SHAH

components into HRM and confirmed the significance of HRM in

environmental management. The current study revealed that GHRM

is a multidimensional construct that consists of seven components,

namely, GJD, GRS, GTD, GPM, GCM, GHS, and GLR, which are mea-

sured by 28 items.

The GJD dimension emphasize the incorporation of green ele-

ments into jobs. It calls for an integration of environmental protection

duties in each position, emphasizing its actual practice in organization.

Organizations should include its green and social requirements in job

descriptions and job specifications. Renwick et al. (2013) proposed

that hiring companies can stress environmental features in job descrip-

tions and specifications. Job specification should include green

capabilities as a distinctive elements. Moreover, a company need to

design innovative roles and positions to give emphasis to environmen-

tal protection aspects.

GRS highlighted that environmental management should be an

essential element of a company strategic and HR planning process.

This requires the development of strong progressive vision to direct

individuals' activities in environmental protection. Achieving environ-

mental protection objectives needs an organization to become a green

employer. Ehnert et al. (2016) refer to green employer branding as a

firm's image and status associated with green management. Firms

develop green brand through green HR practices. Job applicants

match and determine a fit between a company's and their own values

through green employer branding. It include practices of paperless

recruitment and selection process and incorporation of “green aware”

criteria in HR staffing policy (Jones & Willness, 2013). Hiring practices

should be tailored to attract job applicants who practice green criteria

to choose employer. A recruitment policy should be developed to hire

individuals who are competent as well as well‐informed about

environmental protection issues. The scrutiny committee should use

green criteria for shortlisting candidates. Organizations should social-

ize new incumbents in a way to adopt to organizations' philosophy

of green awareness.

GTD dimension involves individual and organizational learning

activities regarding environmental management. A culture of

FIGURE 1 First‐order model of green human resource management. GCM: green compensation management; GHS: green health and safety; GJD: green job design; GLR: green labor relations; GPM: green performance management; GRS: green recruitment and selection; GTD: green training and development

SHAH 779

environmental protection should prevail by offering a mutual learning

environment for green awareness and behavior. An organization that

periodically delivers environmental management training can improve

environmental mindfulness, abilities, and know‐how of workforce.

Training needs in environmental management need to be periodically

assessed in organization. Organizations can use environmental protec-

tion elements as the central themes of GT. Fernández et al. (2003)

suggested that employee awareness and skills about green activities

can be improved through training. Members of the firm should be

trained in green management courses. It should evaluate whether

the incumbent has manager and peer support to apply the learned

content on the job.

GPM requires the establishment of green objectives for all

employees across the organization. Clair et al. (1996) recommended

that developing green objectives for all workers highlights transforming

environmental objectives into action plans for all workforce. The green

goals should be communicated to employees. Green criteria should be

used to evaluate employee performance. Ahmad (2015) proposed that

vivid green performance indicators were crucial in performance

management practice. It should keep a track of non‐compliance or not

meeting green objectives. The company performance management

system reinforces the meeting of environmental goals. A company

identifies “Green Superstars” (remarkably talented individuals who

perform beyond the standards) and distributes prizes based on their

green contributions. An organization compensation system can be

based on recognition and rewarding contributions in environmental

protection. A company can reward green skills acquisition or learning

a green curricula. The company uses non‐monetary rewards for

contributions in environment management such as special leave, gifts,

paid time off, and family trips. Organizations need to recognize

green initiatives of staffs via extensive publicity and public praise.

Ahmad (2015) noted that for both executives and staff, the most

significant facet of GPM was performance evaluations, which

affected the procedure and usefulness of following rewards and

compensation.

GHS dimension entails an organization responsibility to offer a

green workplace for all. Organizations take green initiatives to

decrease worker concern and work‐related illness brought about by

harmful work setting. It should develop and implement strategies to

maintain a favorable work setting to avoid a number of health

problems to develop health and safety of workforce. GLR require an

organization to provide opportunities to individuals to take part in

FIGURE 2 Second‐order model of green human resource management. GCM: green compensation management; GHS: green health and safety; GJD: green job design; GLR: green labor relations; GPM: green performance management; GRS: green recruitment and selection; GTD: green training and development

780 SHAH

green suggestion activities. Organizations should establish a green

whistle‐blowing system and helplines for grievance handling.

Organizations should constantly deliver training to the union members

in environmental management and support them in collective

bargaining.

5.3 | Limitations and future directions

Findings of the present study are not conclusive, and it would be

useful to study the GHRM concept in other contexts and develop a

more comprehensive measurement scale for GHRM. One more

limitation is that the information was gathered from respondents in a

single point of time. It would be valuable to use a case study or longi-

tudinal data to obtain a detailed interpretation of the construct of

GHRM. Finally, additional research on the multidimensional nature of

GHRM is needed.

ORCID

Muzammel Shah https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2287-3673

REFERENCES

Ahmad, S. (2015). Green human resource management: Policies and

practices. Cogent Business & Management, 2(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/23311975.2015.1030817

Awang, Z. (2012). Structural equation modeling using AMOS graphic.

Penerbit Universiti Teknologi MARA.

Bauer, T. N., & Aiman‐Smith, L. (1996). Green career choices: The influence of ecological stance on recruiting. Journal of Business and Psychology,

10(4), 445–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02251780

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models.

Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0033‐2909.107.2.238

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit

in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3),

588–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐2909.88.3.588

Boiral, O. (2002). Tacit knowledge and environmental management. Long

Range Planning, 35(3), 291–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024‐ 6301(02)00047‐X

Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural

equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 17(3), 303–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124189017003004

Brekke, K. A., & Nyborg, K. (2008). Attracting responsible employees: Green

production as labor market screening. Resource and Energy Economics,

30(4), 509–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2008.05.001

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model

fit. Sage Focus Editions, 154, 136–136.

Chan, E. S. (2011). Implementing environmental management systems in

small‐ and medium‐sized hotels: Obstacles. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 35(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1096348010370857

Cherian, J. P., & Jacob, J. (2012). A study of green HR practices and its

effective implementation in the organization: A review. International

Journal of Business and Management, 7(21), 25–33. https://doi.org/ 10.5539/ijbm.v7n21p25

Chin, W. W., Gopal, A., & Salisbury, W. D. (1997). Advancing the theory of

adaptive structuration: The development of a scale to measure faithful-

ness of appropriation. Information Systems Research, 8(4), 342–367. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.8.4.342

Chinander, K. R. (2001). Aligning accountability and awareness for

environmental performance in operations. Production and Operations

Management, 10(3), 276–291.

Clair, J. A., Milliman, J., & Whelan, K. S. (1996). Toward an environmentally

sensitive ecophilosophy for business management. Industrial &

Environmental Crisis Quarterly, 9(3), 289–326. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/108602669600900302

Cochran, W. G. (1977). The estimation of sample size. Sampling Techniques,

3, 72–90.

Costello, A. B. (2009). Getting the most from your analysis. Pancreas, 12(2),

131–146.

Crosbie, L., & Knight, K. (1995). Strategy for sustainable business: Environ-

mental opportunity and strategic choice. McGraw‐Hill Companies.

Daily, B. F., & Huang, S. C. (2001). Achieving sustainability through

attention to human resource factors in environmental management.

International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(12),

1539–1552. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570110410892

Dangelico, R. M. (2015). Improving firm environmental performance and

reputation: The role of employee green teams. Business Strategy and

the Environment, 24(8), 735–749. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1842

Decenzo, D. A., & Robbins, S. P. (2005). Fundamentals of human resource

management 8th. Wiley.

Dechant, K., & Altman, B. (1994). Environmental leadership: From compli-

ance to competitive advantage. Academy of Management Perspectives,

8(3), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1994.9503101163

Del Brío, J. Á., Fernández, E., & Junquera, B. (2007). Customer interaction

in environmental innovation: The case of cloth diaper laundering.

Service Business, 1(2), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628‐006‐ 0011‐x

Denton, K. D. (1999). Employee involvement, pollution control and pieces

to the puzzle. Environmental Management and Health, 10(2), 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1108/09566169910259769

Dessler, G., & Tan, C. H. (2006). Human resource management: An Asian

perspective. Pearson Prentice Hall.

Ehnert, I., Parsa, S., Roper, I., Wagner, M., & Muller‐Camen, M. (2016). Reporting on sustainability and HRM: A comparative study of sustain-

ability reporting practices by the world's largest companies.

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(1), 88–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1024157

Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999).

Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological

research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/1082‐989X.4.3.272

Fernández, E., Junquera, B., & Ordiz, M. (2003). Organizational culture and

human resources in the environmental issue: A review of the literature.

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(4), 634–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958519032000057628

Florida, R., & Davison, D. (2001). Gaining from green management:

Environmental management systems inside and outside the factory.

California Management Review, 43(3), 64–84. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 41166089

Forman, M., & Jorgensen, M. S. G. (2001). The social shaping of the

participation of employees in environmental work within enterprises— Experiences from a Danish context. Technology Analysis & Strategic Man-

agement, 13(1), 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320120040455

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models

with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing

Research, 18, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

Friedman, F. (2003). Practical guide to environmental management.

Environmental Law Institute.

SHAH 781

Govindarajulu, N., & Daily, B. F. (2004). Motivating employees for environ-

mental improvement. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 104(4),

364–372. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570410530775

Grolleau, G., Mzoughi, N., & Pekovic, S. (2012). Green not (only) for profit:

An empirical examination of the effect of environmental‐related stan- dards on employees' recruitment. Resource and Energy Economics,

34(1), 74–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2011.10.002

Guerci, M., Montanari, F., Scapolan, A., & Epifanio, A. (2016). Green and

non‐green recruitment practices for attracting job applicants: Exploring independent and interactive effects. International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 27(2), 129–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09585192.2015.1062040

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006).

Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Uppersaddle River: Pearson

Prentice Hall.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2010).

Multivariate data analysis. Pearson.

Hale, M. (1995). Training for environmental technologies and environmen-

tal management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 3(1–2), 19–23. https:// doi.org/10.1016/0959‐6526(95)00060‐R

Harris, L. C., & Crane, A. (2002). The greening of organizational culture:

Management views on the depth, degree and diffusion of change.

Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(3), 214–234. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810210429273

Hart, S. L. (1997). Beyond greening: Strategies for a sustainable world.

Harvard Business Review, 66(11), 1–10.

Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in

published research: Common errors and some comment on improved

practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 393–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282485

Hotelling, H. (1933). Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into

principal components. Journal of Educational Psychology, 24(6), 417.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covari-

ance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.

Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Jabbar, M. H., & Abid, M. (2014). GHRM: Motivating employees towards

organizational environmental performance. MAGNT Research Report,

2(4), 267–278.

Jabbour, C. J. C. (2011). How green are HRM practices, organizational

culture, learning and teamwork? A Brazilian study. Industrial and

Commercial Training, 43(2), 98–105. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 00197851111108926

Jabbour, C. J. C., de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., Govindan, K., Teixeira, A. A., &

de Souza Freitas, W. R. (2013). Environmental management and

operational performance in automotive companies in Brazil: the role

of human resource management and lean manufacturing. Journal of

Cleaner Production, 47, 129–140.

Jabbour, C. J. C., & Santos, F. C. A. (2008). The central role of human

resource management in the search for sustainable organizations. The

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(12),

2133–2154. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190802479389

Jabbour, C. J. C., Santos, F. C. A., & Nagano, M. S. (2010). Contributions of

HRM throughout the stages of environmental management: Methodo-

logical triangulation applied to companies in Brazil. The International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(7), 1049–1089. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09585191003783512

Jackson, S. E., Renwick, D. W. S., Jabbour, C. J. C., & Muller‐Camen, M. (2011). State‐of‐the‐art and future directions for green human resource management. German Journal of Research in Human Resource Manage-

ment, 25(2), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/239700221102500203

Jackson, S. E., Schuler, R. S., & Jiang, K. (2014). An aspirational framework

for strategic human resource management. Academy of Management

Annals, 8(1), 1–56. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.872335

Jackson, S. E., & Seo, J. (2010). The greening of strategic HRM scholarship.

Organization Management Journal, 7(4), 278–290. https://doi.org/ 10.1057/omj.2010.37

Jones, D. A., & Willness, C. R. (2013). Corporate social performance,

organizational reputation and recruitment. In K. Y. Trevor Yu & D. M.

Cable (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of recruitment (pp. 298–313). USA: Oxford Univeristy Press.

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: A guide to the program and

applications. Spss.

Kaiser, H. F., & Rice, J. (1974). Little jiffy, mark IV. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 34(1), 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 001316447403400115

Lee, A. H., Kang, H. Y., Hsu, C. F., & Hung, H. C. (2009). A green supplier

selection model for high‐tech industry. Expert Systems with Applica- tions, 36(4), 7917–7927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.11.052

Lothe, S., & Myrtveit, I. (2003). Compensation systems for green strategy

implementation: Parametric and non‐parametric approaches. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12(3), 191–203. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/bse.359

Mandip, G. (2012). Green HRM: People management commitment to

environmental sustainability. Research Journal of Recent Sciences, ISSN,

2277, 2502.

Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor

analysis to the study of self‐concept: First‐and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological Bulletin,

97(3), 562–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐2909.97.3.562

Maskey, R., Fei, J., & Nguyen, H. O. (2018). Use of exploratory factor anal-

ysis in maritime research. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics,

34(2), 91–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2018.06.006

May, D. R., & Flannery, B. L. (1995). Cutting waste with employee involve-

ment teams. Business Horizons, 38(5), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0007‐6813(95)90033‐0

Milkovich, G. T., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). Human Resource Management.

Boston: Richard D. Irwin.

Mishra, R. K., Sarkar, S., & Kiranmai, J. (2014). Green HRM: Innovative

approach in Indian public enterprises. World Review of Science, Technol-

ogy and Sustainable Development, 11(1), 26–42. https://doi.org/ 10.1504/WRSTSD.2014.062374

Molina‐Azorín, J. F., Claver‐Cortés, E., López‐Gamero, M. D., & Tarí, J. J. (2009). Green management and financial performance: A literature

review. Management Decision, 47(7), 1080–1100. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/00251740910978313

Opatha, H. H. D. N. P., & Arulrajah, A. A. (2014). Green human resource

management: Simplified general reflections. International Business

Research, 7(8). https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v7n8p101

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

Pane Haden, S. S., Oyler, J. D., & Humphreys, J. H. (2009). Historical,

practical, and theoretical perspectives on green management.

Management Decision, 47(7), 1041–1055. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 00251740910978287

Pellegrini, C., Rizzi, F., & Frey, M. (2018). The role of sustainable human

resource practices in influencing employee behavior for corporate

sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(8),

1221–1232. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2064

782 SHAH

Perron, G. M., Côté, R. P., & Duffy, J. F. (2006). Improving environmental

awareness training in business. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(6–7), 551–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.07.006

Prasad, R. (2013). Green HRM—Partner in sustainable competitive growth. Journal of Management Sciences and Technology, 1(1), 15–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468‐2370.2011.00328.x

Pun, K. F., Fung, Y. K., & Wong, F. Y. (1998, December). Identification

of critical factors for total quality environmental management. In

Proceedings of the 3rd annual international conference on industrial

engineering theories, applications and practice (No. 114, pp. 1–9).

Ramus, C. A., & Montiel, I. (2005). When are corporate environmental

policies a form of green washing? Business & Society, 44(4), 377–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650305278120

Rani, S., & Mishra, K. (2014). Green HRM: Practices and strategic imple-

mentation in the organizations. International Journal on Recent and

Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication, 2(11), 3633–3639.

Renwick, D., Redman, T., & Maguire, S. (2008). Green HRM: A review,

process model, and research agenda, University of Sheffield Manage-

ment School Discussion Paper, 44(0), 1–46.

Renwick, D. W. S., Jabbour, C. J. C., Muller‐Camen, M., Redman, T., & Wilkinson, A. (2016). Contemporary developments in Green (environmental)

HRM scholarship. International Journal of Human Resource Management,

27(2), 114–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1105844

Renwick, D. W. S., Redman, T., & Maguire, S. (2013). Green human

resource management: A review and research agenda*. International

Journal of Management Reviews, 15(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1468‐2370.2011.00328.x

Revill, C. (2000). The “greening” of personnel. Human Resource Manage- ment an Assessment, International Journal of Applied HRM, 1(3), 1–30.

Roome, N. (1992). Developing environmental management strategies.

Business Strategy and the Environment, 1(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/bse.3280010104

Roy, M. J., & Thérin, F. (2008). Knowledge acquisition and environmental

commitment in SMEs. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental

Management, 15(5), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.145

Sarkis, J., Gonzalez‐Torre, P., & Adenso‐Diaz, B. (2010). Stakeholder pressure and the adoption of environmental practices: The mediating

effect of training. Journal of Operations Management, 28(2), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2009.10.001

Shah, M., & Aman, Q. (2019). The impact of human resource management

practices on leadership styles: The mediating role of employee trust.

City University Research Journal, 9(1).

Stalcup, L. D., Deale, C. S., & Todd, S. Y. (2014). Human resources practices

for environmental sustainability in lodging operations. Journal of Human

Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 13(4), 389–404. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/15332845.2014.888508

Sudin, S. (2011). Strategic green HRM: A proposed model that supports

corporate environmental citizenship. 2011 International Conference on

Sociality and Economics Development, 10, 79–83.

Tang, G., Chen, Y., Jiang, Y., & 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

Taylor, S., Beechler, S., & Napier, N. (1996). Toward an integrative model

of strategic international human resource management. Academy of

Management Review, 21(4), 959–985. https://doi.org/10.5465/ amr.1996.9704071860

Teixeira, A. A., Jabbour, C. J. C., & de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L. (2012). Rela-

tionship between green management and environmental training in

companies located in Brazil: A theoretical framework and case studies.

International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 318–329. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.009

Uddin, M. M., & Islam, M. R. (2015). Green HRM: Goal attainment through

environmental sustainability. The Journal of Nepalese Business Studies,

IX(1), 13–19.

Unnikrishnan, S., & Hegde, D. S. (2007). Environmental training and cleaner

production in Indian industry—A micro‐level study. Resources, Conser- vation and Recycling, 50(4), 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. resconrec.2006.07.003

Wagner, M. (2007). Integration of environmental management with other

managerial functions of the firm: Empirical effects on drivers of eco-

nomic performance. Long Range Planning, 40(6), 611–628. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.lrp.2007.08.001

Wehrmeyer, W. (1996). Greening people: Human resource and environmental

management. New York: Greenleaf.

Wiernik, B. M., Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (2013). Age and environmental

sustainability: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(7/ 8), 826–856. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP‐07‐2013‐0221

Zibarras, L. D., & Coan, P. (2015). HRM practices used to promote pro‐ environmental behavior: A UK survey. International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 26(16), 2121–2142. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09585192.2014.972429

How to cite this article: Shah M. Green human resource

management: Development of a valid measurement scale. Bus

Strat Env. 2019;28:771–785. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2279

SHAH 783

APPENDIX A

DIMENSIONS OF GREEN HRM WITH PROPOSED MEASURING ITEMS

Dimensions Proposed measuring items

Green job design JD1. My company has integrated several environmental protection responsibilities in each position. JD2. My company has included green and social needs of the company in job description and specification. JD3. My company utilizes team collaboration as job design method for effectively achieving green targets. JD4. My company has incorporated environmental aspect as a task in job description. JD5. My company has incorporated green capabilities as a distinctive element in job specification. JD6. My company has designed and executed innovative positions to emphasize on environmental

protection aspects. JD7: Our organization has incorporated environmental consciousness as a core competency in competency

model for talent.

Green recruitment and selection

RS1: In my company, the scrutiny committee use green criteria for shortlisting candidates. RS2: Our company hires individuals who have environmental awareness. RS3: We attract green job applicants, who are competent as well as well‐informed about environmental

protection issues. RS4: Our company has incorporated “green aware” criteria in HR staffing policy. RS5: My company practices the use of paperless recruitment and selection process. RS6: We perform green practices to attract green job candidates. RS7: We attract green job applicants who practice green criteria to choose employer

(green employer branding). RS8: My company makes use of green aspects in testing candidates. RS9: In my company, job candidates are evaluated against green aspects in job interview. RS10: In my company, preference in selection is given to “green aware” candidates. RS11: In our company, orientation programs highlight concern for workers health, safety, and green

working conditions. RS12: Our company socializes new incumbents in a way to adopt to organizations' philosophy of

green awareness. RS13. My company delivers general green orientation. RS14. My company provides job‐specific green orientation. RS15: My company makes job incumbents acquainted with greening initiatives of the organization. RS16: My company inspires incumbents to participate in green interpersonal citizenship behavior. RS17: My company has developed orientation programs presenting environmental protection initiatives

of existing employees.

Green training and development

TD1: My company assesses whether organization has budget, time, and expertise for conducting green training.

TD2: My company assesses whether employees possess the necessary skills to master the content of the training program.

TD3: My company assesses in which green aspects the employee need training. TD4: My company assesses who need training in environmental management. TD5: My company assesses what aspects of environmental management need to be emphasized

during the training. TD6: My company evaluates whether the incumbent has manager and peer support to apply the learned

content on the job. TD7: My company has incorporated training to develop emotional connection of employees in

environmental management. TD8: My organization uses environmental protection elements as the central themes of green training. TD9: We facilitate incumbents to grow and gain awareness in environmental management, green skills,

and outlook. TD10: My organization practices knowledge management by developing a culture of knowledge gaining

and sharing among employees. TD11: We link environmental protection training and understanding to performance to generate

protective solutions. TD12: We design training contents to enhance employee capabilities and awareness in

environmental protection. TD13: My organization delivers environmental management training to improve employee awareness,

skills, and know‐how in environmental management. TD14: My organization extensively uses online and web‐based training components and collaborative media. TD15: In my company, job rotation in green tasks is a critical segment of career development plans of managers. TD16: We involve employees in green events and assist them in environmental management learning.

Green performance management

PM1: We develop an understanding and familiarity of green issues across organization. PM2: Our company establishes green targets, objectives, and duties for each employee across organization. PM3: In my company, managers have established goals to attain green targets incorporated in

periodic evaluations. PM4: My company focuses on communication of green goals. PM5: My company uses green performance indicators in our performance evaluation. PM6: My company uses green performance standards as a yardsticks in performance evaluation of

workforce at all levels. PM7: The use of green criteria to evaluate performance. PM8: We constantly assess and record green incidents in workplace. PM9: My company keeps track of non‐compliance or not meeting green objectives. PM10: My company takes into account green incidents while evaluating employee performance.

784 SHAH

(Continued)

Dimensions Proposed measuring items

PM11: My company reinforces compliance of meeting environmental goals. PM12: Our company performance management system uses disbenefits for non‐compliance or not

achieving environmental management targets. PM13: Identification of “Green Superstars” (remarkably talented individuals who perform beyond the

standards) and distribution of prizes based on their green contributions.

Green compensation management

CM1: My company makes use of monetary rewards for green accomplishments of individuals in organization. CM2: Our compensation system recognizes and rewards contributions in environmental protection. CM3: Our company compensates for green skills acquisition and accomplishments by individuals. CM4: Our company makes use of monetary rewards for contributions in environment management

such as salary increase, cash incentives, bonuses, and so forth. CM5: My company rewards green skills acquisition CM6: My company rewards for learning a green curricula. CM7: My company uses non‐monetary rewards for contributions in environment management such as

paid time off, special leave, and gifts to employees and their families. CM8: My company provides green benefits such as transportation and travelling allowance. CM9: My company provides financial or tax incentives to its employees. CM10: My organization uses recognition‐based rewards in environmental management for workforce. CM11: My organization recognizes green initiatives of employees via organization‐wide publicity and

public praise. CM12: My company appreciates green initiatives of employees.

Green health and safety HS1: My organization provides green workplace for all. HS2: My organization takes green initiatives to decrease worker anxiety and work‐related sickness

instigated by harmful work setting. HS3: My organization develops and executes strategies to sustain a favorable work setting to avoid

several fitness problems to develop health and safety of workforce.

Green involvement and labor relations

EI1: Our company has a strong progressive vision to direct the individuals' activities in environmental protection.

EI2: In our company, employees take part in quality enhancement and problem solving in environmental problems.

EI3: My company offers a shared culture of learning for green awareness and behavior. EI4: In our firm, employees are offered opportunities to take part in environment management practices. EI5: My organization stresses values of green safety presenting green practices. EI6: My company encourages green involvement. EI7: Our company uses various formal and informal communication ways to develop green values. EI8: My company has established a focused communications structure, which permits workers to share

ideas on worker skills and motivations. EI9: My company promotes feedback, training, and excellence in communications. LR1: My organization offers opportunities to individuals to take part in green suggestion schemes. LR2: My organization has procedure of helplines and green whistle‐blowing. LR3: My organization delivers green management training to members of the union. LR4: My organization provides joint sessions in resolving green problems of organization. LR5: My organization provides gain sharing relative to green initiatives or programs. LR6: My organization recognizes union as an important stakeholder in green management. LR7: My organization offers prospects about green workplace agreement to unions for collective

bargaining with management.

Note. HR: human resource; HRM: human resource management.

Source: Developed from Clair et al. (1996), Cherian and Jacob (2012), Friedman (2003), Jabbour and Santos (2008), Mishra et al. (2014), Opatha and Arulrajah (2014), Prasad (2013), Renwick et al. (2008), Renwick, Jabbour, Muller‐Camen, Redman, and Wilkinson (2016), Sudin (2011), Tang et al. (2018), Uddin and Islam (2015), and Wehrmeyer (1996).

SHAH 785

Copyright of Business Strategy & the Environment (John Wiley & Sons, Inc) is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.