Green Human Resource Management

Received: 21 February 2019 Revised: 23 May 2019 Accepted: 11 June 2019

DOI: 10.1002/bse.2359

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

Pathways towards sustainability in manufacturing organizations: Empirical evidence on the role of green human resource management

Jing Yi Yong1 | Mohd‐Yusoff Yusliza2 | Thurasamy Ramayah3,4 |

Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour5 | Simone Sehnem6,7 | Venkatesh Mani5

1 School of Business, INTI International College

Penang, Bayan Lepas, Malaysia

2 School of Maritime Business and

Management, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu,

Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia

3 School of Management, Universiti Sains

Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia

4 Department of Management, Sunway

University Business School, Bandar Sunway,

Selangor, Malaysia

5 Montpellier Business School, Montpellier,

France

6 Universidade do Oeste de Santa Catarina— UNOESC, Chapecó, Brazil

7 Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina— UNISUL, Florianópolis, Brazil

Correspondence

Mohd‐Yusoff Yusliza, School of Maritime Business and Management, Universiti Malaysia

Terengganu, 21030 Kuala Terengganu,

Terengganu, Malaysia.

Email: [email protected]

Funding information

Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia, Grant/

Award Number: 203/PPAMC/6730125

© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ER212

Abstract

Green human resource management (HRM) practices can help organizations align

their business strategies with the environment. Anchored in the resource‐based view

of the firm, this study examines the influence of green HRM practices on sustainabil-

ity using cross‐sectional data obtained from 112 large manufacturing firms in

Malaysia. The results show that green recruitment and green training have positive

effects on sustainability. However, green analysis and job description, green selection,

green performance assessment, and green reward were not found to have any signif-

icant influence on sustainability. The model presented in this paper offers useful

insights into the positive role of green HRM in the sustainability of manufacturing

firms, and as previous studies exploring the link between green HRM and sustainabil-

ity using empirical data from Malaysian manufacturing firms are scarce, this research

is of significant importance for scholars and practitioners. The scope of this study

focuses on emerging economies with a limited number of variables that are contex-

tual and specific to the Malaysian economy. Future research could explore the rela-

tionship between green HRM and other variables that may contribute to the

present framework in other contexts. Future studies may also consider each dimen-

sion of green HRM, or indeed other elements of green HRM, in relation to the differ-

ent aspects of sustainability.

KEYWORDS

green human resource management, Malaysia, manufacturing firms, sustainability, sustainable

human resource

1 | INTRODUCTION

There are several motivators that may encourage companies to

adopt sustainable practices (Raut, Narkhede, & Gardas, 2017). In par-

ticular, a company may work to mitigate its environmental and social

impacts (Menezes, Filho, & Drigo, 2017), in line with the interna-

tional treaties and regulatory frameworks that various countries

(Kanstrup, Swift, Stroud, & Lewis, 2018; Quesada, Klenke, & Mejía‐

P Environment wiley

Ortíz, 2018), groups, continents, the United Nations, and other enti-

ties encourage and propagate globally (Gençay, Birben, & Durkaya,

2018).

According to the resource‐based view (RBV; Wright, Dunford, &

Snell, 2001), human resources are considered unique resources of a

firm; they cannot be easily copied by competitors, and they are capa-

ble of generating unique competitive advantage for firms. In this con-

text, it is believed that the alignment of human resources and

Bus Strat Env. 2020;29:212–228.onlinelibrary.com/journal/bse

YONG ET AL. 213

environmental issues in firms can have synergistic effects. In order to

stand out among their competitors, firms often invest in practices

(Dey, Malesios, De, Chowdhury, & Abdelaziz, 2019), including unique

differentiation practices (Schedlitzki, 2019), and the internalization of

values and attributes relevant to managers (Geiger, Grossman, &

Schrader, 2019). This manifests as a set of actions ranging from the

hiring of employees with environmental awareness to investing in

selective processes that evaluate a candidate's commitment and

coherence with respect to people and the environment (Saeed et al.,

2018), offering training that clarifies the company's environmental

and social commitments and desired postures, and performance eval-

uations and rewards that give value to the company's sustainable goals

(Gholami, Rezaei, Saman, Sharif, & Zakuan, 2016; Yong, Yusliza,

Ramayah, & Fawehinmi, 2019).

Presently, companies whose business models are aligned with the

premises of sustainability (Sehnem, Campos, Julcovski, & Cazella,

2019) act as determinants of circularity in terms of resources. Thus,

their organizational structures require a workforce focused on sustain-

ability issues (Singh, 2018). New product launches and their associated

processes or the management of a sustainable production chain

require employees with appropriate beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, and

decision‐making skills. Furthermore, this workforce must exhibit a

“green culture” outlook (Masri & Jaaron, 2017) and have the capacity

to offer products and services to society that place value and impor-

tance on permanence of the planet. In short, green human resource

management (HRM) is in vogue (Zaid, Jaaron, & Bon, 2018).

Literature on green HRM and sustainability is limited and shows

mixed results. For instance, Masri and Jaaron (2017) explore the link

between green HRM and manufacturing firms' sustainability in the

context of developing nations, establishing six green management

practices that have positive links with sustainability. On the other

hand, Yong et al.'s (2019) study in the Malaysian context proves that

green structural capital is not linked to green HRM. Others acknowl-

edge the importance of future studies in examining this relationship

for organizational sustainability and society as a whole.

Green HRM practices constitute a necessary change in the

manufacturing industry (Yong et al., 2019). Time is of the essence

in terms of green HRM initiatives that foster environmental manage-

ment practices, reducing environmental degradation and encouraging

protection and renewal (Jackson, Renwick, Jabbour, & Muller‐Camen,

2011). Green HRM is still in the early stages of development, with

some companies following green practices (Jain & D'lima, 2018)

and others using green HRM as a human resources strategy that

supports pro‐environmental corporate management (Bombiak &

Marciniuk‐Kluska, 2018). Further, Jackson and Seo (2010) state that

firms that are proactive in terms of “greening” may be more produc-

tive, resulting in competitive advantage. Conversely, firms without a

comprehensive program of green HRM have potential limitations,

resulting in ineffective environmental management (Renwick,

Jabbour, Muller‐Camen, Redman, & Wilkinson, 2015). Environmental

human resource (HR) practices help enhance processes by improving

efficiency, eliminating environmental waste, and fostering green

behavior, resulting in greater efficiency and cost reduction. It is still

unclear as to whether a company's desire to become sustainable is

supported and/or influenced by green HRM practices, such as green

analysis and job description, green recruitment, green selection,

green training, green performance assessment, and green rewards.

However, there is little evidence in the academic literature that

confirms this relationship, especially in this nascent, emerging field of

research (Haddock‐Millar, Sanyal, & Müller‐Camen, 2016; Pinzone,

Guerci, Lettieri, & Redman, 2016; Saeed et al., 2018). Further, recent

calls by researchers for more empirical studies into different organiza-

tional contexts, comparing emerging countries and developed coun-

tries, consolidates the importance of green HRM practices in the

development of sustainable strategy and environment. However,

although the literature demonstrates a link between green HRM and

the Asian service industry (Kim, Kim, Choi, & Phetvaroon, 2019; Pham,

Tučková, & Jabbour, 2019), there is more to explore in terms of green

HRM in large manufacturing companies in Asia. This study will exam-

ine the relationship between green HRM and sustainability through

the lens of RBV in large manufacturing firms from Malaysia.

Malaysia's manufacturing industry is well suited to a study of sus-

tainability because Malaysia has an average 6.7% annual growth rate

of CO2 emissions (Sadorsky, 2014), and the manufacturing industry

is the highest contributor to environmental degradation; many

manufacturing companies create waste and pollution, threatening

the existence of life on earth (Zailani, Jeyaraman, Vengadasan, &

Premkumar, 2012).

This paper will address the following important research question:

What is the relationship between green HRM practices

(encompassing green analysis and job description, green recruitment,

green selection, green training, green performance assessment, and

green rewards) and sustainability? Thus, this paper's contribution is

twofold: First, it will explore the relationship between green HRM

and sustainability in an Asian context, the results of which will con-

tribute to the ongoing development of theories within the field of sus-

tainability and business strategy. Second, the results may provide

actionable insights for practitioners, who can use these results to their

strategic advantage.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 will

discuss the theoretical background and the literature on green HRM

and sustainability and outline the hypotheses. The details of the

research methodology will be explained in Section 3, followed by a

presentation of the results and analysis in Section 4. Section 5 will

elaborate on the theoretical and practical implications, conclusions,

limitations, and possibilities for future research.

2 | LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 | Theoretical background

According to the RBV theory, a firm's resources are the tangible and

intangible assets that are tied, semipermanently, to the firm. Examples

include brand names, in‐house knowledge, skilled manpower, efficient

procedures, and machinery and trade contracts. These resources are

YONG ET AL.214

valuable, rare, and cannot be easily imitated by others. Possessing

such resources provides strategic competitive advantage over com-

petitors in the market place (Wernerfelt, 1984). Over time, scholars

have highlighted the growing importance of internal resources as

sources of competitive advantage and, of people in particular, as inter-

nal resources that are strategically important to a firm's success and

sustainability (Wright et al., 2001). Further, in the literature on strate-

gic management, the applications and implications of RBV have led to

an increased convergence of strategic HRM and strategic manage-

ment in general (Wright et al., 2001). Huselid (1995) argues that gen-

eral HR practices, and particularly those aligned with a company's

competitive strategy, can help create competitive advantage. In a sim-

ilar vein, Koch and McGrath (1996) investigate the relationship

between HR planning, recruitment, staffing practices, and labor pro-

ductivity. They argue that “a highly productive workforce is likely to

have attributes that make it a particularly valuable asset to the organi-

sation” (Koch & McGrath, 1996).

Scholars' increased emphasis on sustainable strategy has rein-

forced the importance of HR practices and sustainability. Jabbour

and Santos (2008) identify the link between HR practices and organi-

zational sustainability through the RBV lens. Similarly, Jackson and Seo

(2010) assert that those companies that pay attention to greening

their human resources may be more productive, resulting in competi-

tive advantage. The central role of HRM is in the search for sustain-

able organizations. Institutional and societal pressures, evolutionary

processes, regeneration, organizational competitiveness (Bombiak &

Marciniuk‐Kluska, 2018), and the desire to optimize natural resources

whenever possible (Sehnem, Vazquez‐Brust, Pereira, & Campos, 2019)

focus managers on human attributes that contribute to firms' sustain-

ability (Macke & Genari, 2019). HR departments are set up with strict

guidelines in terms of natural resources (Renwick et al., 2015). The

benefits resulting from the implementation of green HRM practices

include an increase in staff ecological awareness, which in turn fur-

thers the organization's sustainability practices (Bombiak &

Marciniuk‐Kluska, 2018).

People can be seen as organizational resources that can leverage

management strategies and plans for sustainability (Yong et al.,

2019). Business models that extend the product value chain (Sehnem,

2019; Sehnem, Campos, et al., 2019), environmentally focused princi-

ples, and ecologically sound premises (Sehnem, Vazquez‐Brust, et al.,

2019) are all important factors in the search for sustainability. Further-

more, the use of big data systems and balancing the constant desire to

generate profits with environmental awareness, as well as valuing

human potential and respecting the social needs of specific ethnic

groups, communities, and regions (Singh, 2018), are all integral factors

in environmental sustainability.

In order to pinpoint the relationship between green HRM practices

and organizational sustainability, this research paper employs an RBV

perspective, which will determine how HRM greening efforts help to

achieve sustainability and strategic advantage. This research will

employ an approach similar to that of Gholami et al. (2016), Gloet

(2006), Jabbour and Santos (2008), Jabbour (2011), Jabbour and

Jabbour (2016), Jackson et al. (2011), Renwick et al. (2015), Singh

(2018), Yong et al. (2019), and Zibarras and Coan (2015), inter alia, in

order to build an empirical model using data from large Malaysian

manufacturing firms.

2.2 | Green HRM

Green HRM refers to “the systematic, planned alignment of typical

human resource management practices with the organization's envi-

ronmental goals” (Jabbour, 2013, pp. 147–148). The area of green

HRM is of significance within organizations as it contributes to other

departments such as green management, green operations, green mar-

keting, and green supply chain management. Green HRM is consid-

ered to have a holistic view, which aligns employees with the

company's environmental strategy. Activities with a green focus are

difficult to initiate as they require systemic change, and any change

has to be initiated, implemented, and accepted by employees, as this

is one of green HRM's primary aims (Mishra, Sarkar, & Kiranmai,

2014). Previous researchers argue that the manner in which HRM is

greened is often studied in terms of a continuum comprising all

HRM practices—analysis and job descriptions, recruitment and selec-

tion, training and development, performance and appraisal, and

rewards (Renwick, Redman, & Maguire, 2013).

2.2.1 | Green analysis and job description

Job analysis has grown in importance due to changes in the workforce

and in jobs themselves. A clear delineation of the roles and responsi-

bilities of a certain position, through job analysis, ensures that every

level of the organizational structure understands its contribution and

adds value to the product/service development. Job analysis also

ensures that incumbents deliver on their values with minimum overlap

and wastage of resources. Many companies have indicated that job

analysis improves administrative efficiency, enhances the organiza-

tion's work environment, reduces costs, and improves productivity

(Roscoe, Subramanian, Jabbour, & Chong, 2019; Siddique, 2004).

Hence, job analysis and job descriptions are essential elements in

recruiting the correct candidates.

From the green perspective, green analysis and job description,

which include “environmental issues in all the job descriptions trans-

forms the commitment to the environment into an employees' obliga-

tion beside the usual activities of their jobs” (Jabbour, Santos, &

Nagano, 2010, p. 1057). In an organization that is working towards

the sustained improvement of environmental performance, green

analysis and job descriptions should focus on positions that demand

environmental knowledge, particularly employees who are directly

involved in the improvement of environmental performance;

encouraging employees to broaden their environmental knowledge;

and empowering employees to engage in environmental management

issues (Jabbour, 2011). Furthermore, a job description can be used to

specify environmental aspects of the position, such as environmental

reporting or health and safety duties (Mishra, Sarkar, & Singh, 2012).

YONG ET AL. 215

2.2.2 | Green recruitment

Attracting high‐quality employees is a key challenge for HR in the “tal-

ent war.” Job seekers prefer organizations that reflect their personal

values. Due to increasing environmental awareness, the environmental

reputation and image of a recruiting organization play an increasingly

prominent role in recruitment drives (Renwick et al., 2013). Firms are

beginning to recognize that gaining a reputation as a green employer

is an effective way to attract potential talent (Phillips, 2007).

The environmental performance of a company can be used in the

recruitment process to attract talent (Jabbour, 2011). In the race to

attract the most talented and innovative employees, companies such

as General Electric present a picture of themselves as having rich envi-

ronmental awareness in order to boost their recruiting leverage (Huff,

2007). Web‐based recruitment allows recruiters to provide more

information on their environmental management activities compared

with more traditional media such as newspaper advertising or bro-

chures (Renwick et al., 2013).

Interestingly, Tang, Chen, Jiang, Paillé, and Jia (2017) categorize

green recruitment and selection into three aspects: (a) candidates'

green awareness, (b) green employer branding, and (c) green criteria

used to attract candidates. They stress that candidates' green aware-

ness (i.e., green consciousness, conscientiousness, and how candi-

dates' green values align with the organization's values) can help

firms to achieve their environmental goals; green employer branding

is used to attract potential employees, and evaluation and selection

of employees are based on green criteria.

2.2.3 | Green selection

Recruitment and selection are often used interchangeably, but Bratton

and Gold (2012) provide clarification: Recruitment is the process of

generating a pool of capable people to apply for employment, whereas

selection is the process by which managersuse specific instruments to

choose a candidate from a pool of applicants, in line with management

goals and legal requirements. Selecting the correct candidate is essen-

tial for business success. Mathis and Jackson (2011) argue that an

organization is less likely to succeed without qualified employees.

In terms of the green perspective, green selection is the “selection

of people committed and sensitive to the environmental issue, with a

potential contribution to the environmental management of a com-

pany” (Jabbour et al., 2010, p. 1057). Thus, an organization that is

focused on environmental management should select people who

are committed and sensitive to environmental issues. Nevertheless,

there is limited literature on the selection of environmentally commit-

ted employees or personnel with the requisite technical knowledge of

environmental management (Jabbour, 2011).

2.2.4 | Green training

Training activities are often among the first areas to be targeted by

HRM when organizational change is necessary (Jackson et al., 2011).

The training of the workforce has long been recognized as an

important ingredient in promoting and implementing environmental

management practices in an organization (Madsen & Ulhoi, 2001).

Green training, also known as environmental training, “provides

employees with the needed knowledge about the environmental pol-

icy of a company, its practices, and necessary attitudes” (Jabbour

et al., 2010, p. 1057).

Green training tends to be the most effective HR practice for

supporting environmental management (del Brío, Junquera, & Ordiz,

2008) and is a key factor in both the development of environmental

awareness in employees and the initial process of implementing envi-

ronmental strategies (Unnikrishnan & Hegde, 2007). Green training

may increase employees' environmental performance and might

include environmental legal issues, instructions for the use of new

devices, and corporate codes of conduct. (Muster & Schrader, 2011).

Sammalisto and Brorson (2008) argue that green training serves

two purposes: (a) teaching employees the company's environmental

policy and daily procedures and (b) changing employees' attitudes

and increasing their environmental awareness. Green training is now

widespread in some countries. For instance, in the United Kingdom,

a CIPD/KPMG survey reported that 42% of organizations educate

and train employees in environmentally friendly business practices

(Phillips, 2007).

2.2.5 | Green performance assessment

Performance assessments are generally used for administering sala-

ries, identifying an employee's strengths and weaknesses, and pro-

viding performance feedback, in order to increase operational

competence and improve corporate growth while also heightening

transformational processes and performance. Without a formal per-

formance assessment process, discipline is weakened in an organiza-

tion, and employees' ability to improve may be hampered. However,

assessment programs must be developed carefully in order to fully

capitalize on employees' talents and efforts (Mathis & Jackson,

2011).

From a green perspective, green performance assessment refers

to “the appraisal and registration of employees' environmental per-

formance throughout their careers in a company and provides them

with feedback about their performance to prevent undesirable atti-

tudes or reinforce exemplary behaviour” (Jabbour et al., 2010, p.

1057). Some companies have set environmental goals for their

employees and evaluate their contributions to environmental man-

agement as one criterion in the performance assessment program.

This is more often the case in companies with an ISO 14001 certifi-

cation (Jabbour, 2011).

Effective performance assessment provides useful feedback for

employees and can support continuous improvement in a firm's envi-

ronmental achievements (Jackson et al., 2011). Jabbour et al. (2010)

show that performance assessment impacts on environmental man-

agement when companies have annual goals for pollution prevention

and the development of environmental innovations.

YONG ET AL.216

2.2.6 | Green rewards

Rewards work to attract, retain, and motivate the best employees

while also cultivating the development of new knowledge, actions,

and abilities in order to achieve organizational goals (Jerez‐Gómez,

Céspedes‐Lorente, & Valle‐Cabrera, 2007). Rewards are powerful

tools that can link organizational interests with employees' interests;

they can direct employees' attention to the most important aspects

of their work and motivate them to exert maximum effort (Jackson

et al., 2011).

Green rewards are defined as “the implementation of a system of

financial and nonfinancial rewards for employees with a distinct

potential to contribute to environmental management” (Jabbour

et al., 2010, p. 1058). Several organizations have developed reward

systems to incentivize environmental performance. Jackson et al.

(2011) argue that monetary and nonmonetary rewards are powerful

tools in supporting environmental management activities. A

CIPD/KPMG survey estimated that 8% of firms in the United Kingdom

were rewarding green behaviors with financial incentives or recogni-

tion (Phillips, 2007).

2.3 | Sustainability

Sustainability has become a primary focus for many organizations due

to climate change and regulatory and social pressures towards greater

environmental and social responsibility. Sustainability has garnered

increasing attention from corporate executives and gained a promi-

nent place in the strategic goals of many organizations (Chouinard,

Ellison, & Ridgeway, 2011).

The triple bottom line principle has been introduced to describe

the three pillars of sustainability, that is, economic, environmental,

and social (Elkington, 1997). Economic sustainability is vital to corpo-

rate financial success; an organization must be able to produce goods

and services on a continual basis while also making a profit in order to

survive. Environmental sustainability considers the impact of business

on the environment. The conservation of natural resources is essential

for sustainable economic production and intergenerational equity.

Social sustainability embodies the humanitarian context of business,

which emphasizes fairness in distribution and opportunity and relates

to issues of health and education, income inequality, and poverty

(Aggerholm, Andersen, & Thomsen, 2011; Harris, 2003).

Sustainability means that business success is determined not solely

in financial terms, such as profits and return on investment, but also

accounts for environmental and social dimensions (Gardberg &

Fombrun, 2006). Sustainability means addressing the needs of today

without compromising future needs, emphasizing intergenerational

equity. This translates directly to preserving the availability of

resources for future generations (Brundtland & Khalid, 1987).

Organizational practices, especially those that are people‐oriented

with a green focus, are critical for overall sustainability. Jabbour and

Santos (2008) show that organizations now require a standard of

development that favors the economic, environmental, and social

dimensions equally. Sustainability can be used as a reference point in

developing solutions to face environmental and societal challenges

(Kuckertz & Wagner, 2010).

As sustainability moves up the business agenda, HRM has been

identified as a key player in developing the competencies, collabora-

tive strategies, and organizational capabilities that are required to sup-

port an organization's journeys to sustainability (Wirtenberg, Harmon,

Russell, & Fairfield, 2007). HRM has the highest potential for incorpo-

rating sustainability into the organizational scope of seeking prosper-

ity, environmental integrity, and social equity (de Souza Freitas,

Jabbour, Mangili, Filho, & de Oliveira, 2012).

HRM practices, such as hiring the right people, supported by per-

formance evaluation and reward systems, can direct employee

mindset and actions towards achieving sustainability goals for the

organization (Siti Nabiha, 2015). Sustainability principles can be

embodied in HRM systems that generate and sustain the long‐term

economic, physical, and social well‐being of an organization's work-

force (Taylor, Osland, & Egri, 2012). Employees are the people who

execute eco‐policies and create green corporate culture; thus, suc-

cessful greening is challenging if personnel are not correctly trained.

Jabbour and Santos (2008) suggest that HRM plays a crucial role in

the development of sustainable organizations through HR practices

that promote environmental performance, innovation, and effective

diversity management. On the other hand, Yusliza, Ramayah, and

Othman (2015) claim that green HRM actually supports the paradig-

matic understanding of the concept of the “triple bottom line,” which

means that green HRM involves HR practices aligned with the three

sustainability pillars of economic, environment, and social balance.

Despite widespread attention, the role of HRM systems in achieving

sustainability goals has not been widely studied (Aguinis & Glavas,

2012).

2.4 | Development of hypotheses

Organizations are increasingly concerned with sustainability, and the

HR function is positioned to assist in developing and implementing

sustainability strategies (Cohen, Taylor, & Muller‐Carmen, 2010). De

Souza Freitas et al. (2012) carried out a case study in a leading

Brazilian company, and the results show that organizations seeking

to achieve sustainability need the assistance of HR in designing a com-

munication system that bridges the gap between practices and sus-

tainable values. Jackson and Seo (2010) also suggest that HRM is

the solution for achieving environmental sustainability in an organiza-

tion. Given this position, green HRM practices (green analysis and job

description, green recruitment, green selection, green training, green

performance assessment, and green rewards) are proposed as tools

for attaining business sustainability.

To the best of our knowledge, the area of green analysis and job

description has received little attention in terms of green HRM prac-

tices. Jabbour (2011) provides us with the empirical evidence that

job description has a significant influence on employee involvement

in environmental management activities, and the existing structure

YONG ET AL. 217

of job positions enables the acquisition of environmental knowledge

adopted in those companies. These findings indicate that the incorpo-

ration of environmental aspects in job analysis and description is rare,

despite the fact that job description influences employees' participa-

tion in environmental activities.

Pfeffer (2010) highlights that the direct and indirect effects of

HRM systems, from job design to stress due work hours, on

employees' health and lives can be enormous. Hence, organizations

are concerned about the social impacts of their HRM systems and

consider these impacts as part of their sustainability strategy as well

as pay and economic stability. However, whether green analysis and

job description can lead to sustainability has yet to be explored empir-

ically. Hence, this study hypothesizes the following:

H1. Green analysis and job description is positively

related to sustainability.

With regards to green recruitment and green selection, previous

researchers have either grouped these two practices together as one

variable (i.e., green recruitment and selection) or refer to these prac-

tices as green hiring. Green reputation has become one of the most

important criteria in attracting candidates. For instance, Guerci,

Montanari, Scapolan, and Epifanio (2016) discovered that prospective

job applicants in the Italian labor market still value green‐related issues

in their career choices, even though the Italian economy has been in a

major recession for many years. Recruiting candidates with a green

mindset can make it easier for companies to attract professionals

who understand sustainable processes and provides the employer with

an opportunity to stand out among competitors (Ahmad, 2015).

On the basis of the economic dimension of sustainability,

Longoni, Luzzini, and Guerci (2016) and Zaid et al. (2018) show that

green hiring is positively related to the economic performance of an

organization. Green HRM influences the economic performance of a

company by creating and structuring a motivated and committed

workforce that generates economic value (Longoni et al., 2016).

From the environmental perspective of sustainability, contradictory

findings have been highlighted by previous researchers. For instance,

green recruitment and selection (Masri & Jaaron, 2017; Yusoff,

Nejati, Kee, & Amran, 2018) and green hiring (Longoni et al., 2016;

Zaid et al., 2018) were found to be related positively to environmen-

tal performance; however, Guerci, Longoni, and Luzzini (2016) found

no relationship between green hiring and environmental perfor-

mance. Green HRM practices may cultivate employees' motivation

and abilities in terms of environmental management and provide

them with the opportunity to contribute to environmental develop-

ment (Longoni et al., 2016). In addition, Zaid et al. (2018) indicate

that green hiring within the green HRM bundle positively influences

the social performance of the organization. Therefore, the following

hypotheses are postulated:

H2. Green recruitment is positively related to

sustainability.

H3. Green selection is positively related to sustainability.

According to Jabbour (2011), green training or environmental

training is an important investment, and companies should provide

continuous training. Ji, Huang, Liu, Zhu, and Cai (2012) and Liu, Li,

Zhu, Cai, and Wang (2014) indicate that, in the Chinese context,

green training is a major factor in motivating the workforce to pur-

sue environmental sustainability goals. Companies with more intense

levels of training are also those that have a more proactive

environmental attitude and hence equally high sustainability

performance.

Empirically, green training and development was found to

relate positively to all three dimensions of sustainability: economic

performance (Longoni et al., 2016; Zaid et al., 2018), environmental

performance (Guerci, Longoni, & Luzzini, 2016; Longoni et al.,

2016; Masri & Jaaron, 2017; Yusoff et al., 2018; Zaid et al., 2018),

and social performance (Zaid et al., 2018). On the basis of these

arguments and the aforementioned literature, the current study

argues that organizations that practice green training are more likely

to attain sustainability. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is

posited:

H4. Green training is positively related to sustainability.

Green performance assessment focuses on environmental inci-

dents, deployment of environmental responsibilities, and the commu-

nication of environmental concerns and policy. However,

organizations face challenges in measuring environmental perfor-

mance standards across different departments and gaining usable

data on employees' environmental performance (Renwick et al.,

2013). Despite the challenges, performance assessment is still being

used as an indicator to determine rewards and variable remuneration

for employees (Jabbour, 2011). The use of environmental rewards

and recognition can be seen to have a significant impact on

employee willingness to generate eco‐initiatives (Renwick et al.,

2013). Some companies in the United States have recognized

employees who have contributed to the accomplishment of environ-

mental goals by providing preferred parking, time off, gift certifi-

cates, and paid vacations (Govindarajulu & Daily, 2004).

Most researchers discuss green performance assessment and

green rewards under one category and term it “green performance

management and compensation”. On the basis of the empirical

research, green performance management and compensation were

related positively to all three dimensions of sustainability: economic

performance (Longoni et al., 2016; Zaid et al., 2018), environmental

performance (Guerci, Longoni, & Luzzini, 2016; Longoni et al., 2016;

Masri & Jaaron, 2017; Yusoff et al., 2018; Zaid et al., 2018), and social

performance (Zaid et al., 2018). To gain empirical evidence of the

hypothesized outcome, the following hypotheses were framed:

H5. Green performance assessment is positively related

to sustainability.

H6. Green rewards are positively related to

sustainability.

YONG ET AL.218

2.5 | Conceptual model

The aim of this study is to examine the impact of green HRM prac-

tices on sustainability. The proposed conceptual model is shown in

Figure 1.

3 | METHODOLOGY

3.1 | Survey and data collection

The present study aims to determine the impact of green HRM on sus-

tainability through a correlational design. The research scope is con-

fined to the organizational level utilizing cross‐sectional empirical

examination. To test the conceptual model, a survey instrument and

measurement scales were designed. A pretest was performed to check

the content validity of the scale, which was then improved with the

help of four academics and four experts from the industry. A revised

version of the questionnaire was finalized and then used to test the

proposed hypotheses. The measurement scales used in the question-

naire comprised items representing green HRM practices (i.e., green

analysis and job descriptions, green recruitment, green selection,

green training, green performance assessment, and green rewards)

and sustainability.

The study population was made up of large manufacturing firms in

Malaysia. In Malaysia, a large firm is an organization with more than

200 employees. Large manufacturing firms were selected because of

their sensitivity to environmental issues (Guerci, Longoni, & Luzzini,

2016), because they have formalized HR practices (Tzafrir, 2005),

and because they are subject to government rules (Amran, Ooi, Nejati,

Zulkafli, & Lim, 2012).

In the present study, the sampling frame was all large manufactur-

ing firms in Malaysia, which were obtained from the Federation of

Malaysian Manufacturers (FMM) Directory 2015 (FMM, 2015). Using

the FMM Directory 2015, a total of 661 large manufacturing firms

were identified on the basis of the number of employees in the direc-

tory. Considering the small sampling frame of the study and the likeli-

hood of a low response from a mail survey (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016),

all large manufacturing firms were included in the study. Hence, the

census method was employed in this study.

As the current study focuses on environmental issues and aspects

of business (HRM and sustainability), our target respondents were

FIGURE 1 Conceptual model

those employees who possessed knowledge of these two categories.

Therefore, 661 structured close‐ended questionnaires were distrib-

uted to the HR director or HR manager who was actively participating

in HRM in large manufacturing firms in Malaysia.

The questionnaires, together with return envelopes, were mailed

to 661 companies that were listed in the FMM and met the inclusion-

ary criteria. Each return envelope was coded with a number for the

purpose of monitoring which large manufacturing firms responded.

The questionnaires, together with a cover letter, were distributed to

HR directors or HR managers via postal mail to large manufacturing

firms in Malaysia. The cover letter explained the nature and objectives

of the study and highlighted the strict confidentiality of respondent

information. Data were collected between September 2016 and

January 2017.

3.2 | Measurements

Sustainability was measured using a 15‐item scale adapted from Zhu,

Sarkis, and Lai (2008), Laosirihongthong, Adebanjo, and Tan (2013),

and Paulraj (2011). A 7‐point Likert‐type scale ranging from 1 (not at

all) to 7 (to a very great extent) was applied in answer to each item.

Six dimensions were used to measure green HRM practices, namely,

green analysis and job description (three items), green recruitment

(two items), green selection (two items), green training (three items),

green performance assessment (three items), and green rewards (two

items). These measurement items were adapted from Jabbour (2011)

and Yong and Mohd‐Yusoff (2016). A 7‐point Likert‐type scale ranging

from 1 (not at all) to 7 (to a very great extent) was applied in answer to

each item.

Previous studies confirm that data become significantly less accu-

rate if measured by scale points numbering either less than five or

more than seven (Johns, 2010). Although the 5‐point Likert‐scale is

commonly used in research, the present study employed a 7‐point

Likert‐type scale. This is because a short scale may be cognitively eas-

ier, but it may not differentiate respondents' opinions (Weisberg,

Krosnick, & Bowen, 1996). On the other hand, Cox (1980) and Preston

and Colman (2000) argue that human information processing capabil-

ity can be maximized by using a 7‐point response scale. Table 1 shows

the references for all the selected items in the research questionnaire.

As highlighted above, all the selected items were validated by the

literature.

4 | RESULTS

The total population of this study comprised 661 large manufacturing

firms listed in the FMM Directory 2015. However, after excluding the

eight firms used for the interviews and four companies used for the

pretesting of the questionnaire, the population of the study was

649. Hence, a total of 649 questionnaires were mailed to respondents.

After a reminder via telephone call, 112 completed questionnaires

were received, giving a response rate of 17.3%. This response rate

can be considered acceptable, given that the minimum sample size

TABLE 1 Constructs/items used in the research questionnaire

Construct Definition Item Adapted from

Sustainability Integration of economic, environmental, and

social performance, which not only positively

affects the natural environment and society,

but also results in long‐term economic benefits and competitive advantage for the firm.

ECP1: Decrease in costs for materials purchasing.

ECP2: Decrease in costs for energy consumption.

ECP3: Decrease in fees for waste treatment.

ECP4: Decrease in fees for waste discharge.

ECP5: Decrease in fines for environmental

accidents.

ENP1: Improved compliance with environmental

standards.

ENP2: Reduction in airborne emissions.

ENP3: Reduction in energy consumption.

ENP4: Reduction in material usage.

ENP5: Reduction in consumption of hazardous

materials.

SCP1: Improved overall stakeholder welfare.

SCP2: Improvement in community health and

safety.

SCP3: Reduction in environmental impacts and

risks to the general public.

SCP4: Improved occupational health and safety of

employees.

SCP5: Improved awareness and protection of the

claims and rights of people in the community

being served.

Zhu et al. (2008);

Laosirihongthong et al.

(2013); Paulraj (2011)

Green

analysis and job

description

Including environmental issues in all job

descriptions translates commitment to

the environment into employees' obligations,

on top of their usual activities.

GAJ1: Enable involvement in managing

environmental activities.

GAJ2: Enable acquisition of knowledge on

environmental management.

GAJ3: Demanding knowledge on environmental

management.

Jabbour (2011); Yong and

Mohd‐Yusoff (2016)

Green

recruitment

The activities of either internal or external

recruitment shows a company's preference

for candidates committed to the environment.

GR1: The environmental performance of a

company attracts new employees.

GR2: The company prefers to hire employees who

have environmental knowledge.

Jabbour (2011); Yong and

Mohd‐Yusoff (2016)

Green selection Selection of people who are committed and

sensitive to environmental issues, with

potential to contribute to the environmental

management of a company.

GS1: Employee selection takes environmental

motivation into account.

GS2: All selection steps consider environmental

questions.

Jabbour (2011); Yong and

Mohd‐Yusoff (2016)

Green training Provides employees with the required knowledge

on the environmental policy of a company,

its practices, and necessary attitudes.

GT1: Environmental training is continuous.

GT2: Environmental training is a priority.

GT3: Environmental training is an important

investment.

Jabbour (2011); Yong and

Mohd‐Yusoff (2016)

Green

performance

assessment

Appraisal and register of employees'

environmental performance throughout their

career in a

company and providing them with feedback

about their performance in order to prevent

undesirable attitudes or to reinforce

exemplary behavior.

GP1: Every employee has specific environmental

goals to achieve.

GP2: Contributions to environmental management

are assessed.

GP3: Individual performance assessment results

are recorded.

Jabbour (2011); Yong and

Mohd‐Yusoff (2016)

Green rewards Implementation of a system of financial and

nonfinancial rewards for employees with

a distinct potential to contribute to

environmental management.

GRW1: Cash rewards are provided to recognize

environmental performance.

GRW2: Environmental performance is recognized

publicly.

Jabbour (2011); Yong and

Mohd‐Yusoff (2016)

YONG ET AL. 219

was targeted at 98, the commonly reported low response rate from

mail surveys (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016) and the generally low response

rate for this type of correlational study in Malaysia.

As suggested by Hair, Hult, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2017), this study

employed the G‐Power software to calculate the sample size. On the

basis of the threshold of effect size = medium, alpha = .05, power = .8,

and predictors = 6, the minimum sample size needed to achieve an

acceptable power of .8 was 98. A total of 112 completed question-

naires that were usable for further analysis were collected,

representing a response rate of 17.3%. This response rate can be

TABLE 2 Measurement model

Construct

First‐order item

Second‐order item Loading CR AVE

Green analysis and

job description

GAJ1 .887 .946 .854

GAJ2 .956

GAJ3 .927

Green

performance

assessment

GP1 .961 .965 .901

GP2 .958

GP3 .928

Green recruitment GR1 .925 .931 .87

GR2 .941

Green rewards GRW1 .940 .948 .901

GRW2 .958

Green selection GS1 .972 .968 .938

GS2 .965

Green training GT1 .949 .963 .897

GT2 .969

GT3 .921

Economic

performance

ECP1 .880 .943 .768

ECP2 .877

ECP3 .921

ECP4 .929

ECP5 .764

Environmental

performance

ENP1 .765 .916 .685

ENP2 .862

ENP3 .840

ENP4 .877

ENP5 .790

Social performance SCP1 .847

SCP2 .931 .947 .781

SCP3 .910

SCP4 .837

SCP5 .890

Sustainability EP Economic

performance

.884 .931 .818

ENV Environmental

performance

.939

SOC Social

performance

.891

Abbreviations: AVE, average variance extracted; CR, composite reliability.

YONG ET AL.220

considered acceptable, and previous research has commonly reported

low response rates in social science studies (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013).

This level of usable response rate is comparable with similar survey‐

based studies, which range between 10% and 21% in manufacturing

firms in Malaysia (Behyan, Mohamad, & Omar, 2015; Fernando &

Hor, 2017; Fernando & Wah, 2017; Fernando, Jabbour, & Wah,

2019; Lazim & Ramayah, 2010; Sundram, Ibrahim, & Govindaraju,

2011). Data collection involving manufacturing firms in Malaysia pre-

sents various challenges. Low response rates are common for this type

of correlational study in Malaysia.

Therefore, the 112 respondents in this study can be considered

adequate considering the minimum power needed in social science

management research is .80, and this sample size of 112 has a power

higher than .8.

4.1 | Demographic profile of responding firms

Most of the firms were from the electrical and electronics industry

(25.0%). The biggest category of manufacturing firms in this study

had 201 to 500 employees (42.0%), and the number of employees in

HR departments ranged from 5 to 10 employees (35.7%). Most of the

large manufacturing firms studied had been established for more than

20 years (61.6%). The sample also indicates that the large manufactur-

ing firms participating in the current research are mostly multinational

corporations (52.7%). Notably, most large manufacturing firms com-

plied with ISO 9000 certification (88.4%) and ISO 14000 certification

(71.4%). Regarding geographical location, most firms were located in

Penang (47.3%), followed by Selangor (15.2%) and Johor (10.7%).

4.2 | Data analysis

4.2.1 | Measurement model

In order to analyze the research model developed for this study, partial

least squares (PLS) analysis using SmartPLS 3.2.8 software (Ringle,

Wende, & Becker, 2015) was used. SmartPLS is a second‐generation

statistical software that can analyze smaller data sets which are

nonnormal. Survey research data is generally nonnormal, and as such

this technique is the most suitable for our analysis. We tested the

measurement model, followed by an examination of the structural

model, following the guidelines in the literature (see Anderson &

Gerbing, 1988; Hair et al., 2017).

The model we developed included a second‐order factor for sus-

tainability. Thus, we first tested the first‐order factors, followed by

the second‐order factor validity and reliability. As suggested by Hair

et al. (2017) and Mahmud, Ramayah, and Kurnia (2017), we used fac-

tor loadings, average variance extracted (AVE), and composite reliabil-

ity (CR) to test the convergent validity, followed by the discriminant

validity.

As shown in Table 2, all the first‐order factors showed loadings of

more than .7, AVE > .5, and CR > .7, showing that the measures are

both valid and reliable. The second‐order factors also passed the three

criteria, and so both the first‐ and second‐order factors are valid and

reliable. Discriminant validity was tested (see Table 3) using the HTMT

criterion (Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2015), which passed the .85

threshold (Kline, 2011), indicating that discriminant validity was

established.

4.2.2 | Structural model

To test the hypotheses, we ran a bootstrapping procedure with a

resampling rate of 5,000 (Hair et al., 2017) to obtain the t values, p

values, and bootstrapped confidence intervals. The results are shown

in Table 4.

We tested the six hypotheses, and, as shown in Table 4, only two

were found to be significant. Specifically, green recruitment

(β = .244, t = 1.672, p < .01) with f 2 of .025 and green training

(β = .264, t = 2.056, p < .01) with f 2 of .045 were significant, whereas

TABLE 3 Discriminant validity (HTMT criterion)

Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Green analysis and job

description

2. Green recruitment .724

3. Green reward .524 .669

4. Green performance

assessment

.602 .759 .883

5. Green selection .633 .822 .777 .837

6. Green training .611 .603 .649 .687 .650

7. Sustainability .256 .409 .358 .364 .368 .410

YONG ET AL. 221

green analysis and job description, green selection, green performance

assessment, and green reward were not significant. Thus, only H2 and

H4 were supported. The R2 was .186, which indicates that 18.6% of

the variance in sustainability can be explained by the constructs pro-

posed in this model. Sustainability performance is influenced by many

other factors, but as we have focused on green HRM practices, R2

should be high. An R2 value of 18.6% is deemed acceptable as we con-

ducted a power analysis using Daniel Soper's online calculator (avail-

able at: https://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc/calculator.aspx?id=9)

to calculate the post‐hoc power analysis, and the results indicated a

power of .97. Furthermore, R2 is dependent on the area of research

(Hair et al., 2017). We also tested predictive relevance using the

blindfolding procedure with an omission distance of 9; the Q2 value

was .12, and because the value is greater than 0 (Fornell & Cha,

1994), we can confirm the predictive relevance of the model.

5 | DISCUSSION

The originality of this research lies in the examination of the relation-

ship between green HRM practices and sustainability. As far as we

know, this is the first work testing this theoretical framework in light

of empirical evidence from Malaysia, contributing to a better overall

understanding of sustainability in large manufacturing firms.

TABLE 4 Hypothesis testing

Hypothesis Std beta Std error t v

H1 Analysis Sustainability −.105 0.115 0.

H2 Recruitment Sustainability .244 0.146 1.

H3 Selection Sustainability −.015 0.208 0.

H4 Training Sustainability .264 0.128 2.

H5 Assessment Sustainability .009 0.213 0.

H6 Reward Sustainability .074 0.163 0.

5.1 | Theoretical contributions

On the basis of the RBV theory, this study hypothesized that green

HRM practices (i.e., green analysis and job description, green recruit-

ment, green selection, green training, green performance assessment,

and green rewards) would have a positive relationship with sustain-

ability. The findings indicated that in fact, only two green HRM prac-

tices showed a statistically significant and positive relationship with

sustainability: green recruitment and green training.

HRM practices have been proposed as a way of transforming

employees into valuable, rare, and inimitable resources that can pro-

mote firms' goals (Barney, 1991; Barney, Ketchen, & Wright, 2011;

De Saá‐Pérez & García‐Falcón, 2002). These findings imply that green

HRM may provide environmentally committed employees and diffuse

environmental values throughout the firm, which, in turn, can help to

attain business sustainability. However, this work adds to the body

of literature on green HRM and confirms that there are two main prac-

tices capable of enhancing the alignment of business strategy and the

environment: green recruitment and green training.

The present study reveals that green analysis and job description

have no significant influence on sustainability. This might be because

the incorporation of environmental aspects in job analysis and descrip-

tion is rare (Jabbour, 2011), especially in the Malaysian context.

Besides, even if companies have included environmental issues in their

job descriptions and made environmental commitment employees'

responsibility, only those employees in the environment, health, and

safety department seem to be affected. Furthermore, most of the

firms comply with ISO 14000 standards. ISO 14000 is a global series

of environmental management systems standards, ensuring that the

companies manage their environmental responsibilities properly.

Empirically, previous researchers such as Comoglio and Botta (2012)

and Iraldo, Testa, and Frey (2009) have indicated that environmental

management systems implementation influenced environmental per-

formance positively. Hence, the influence of green analysis and job

description on sustainability may simply not be apparent in the con-

text of Malaysian large manufacturing firms.

In terms of the relationship between green recruitment and sus-

tainability, the results demonstrated a positive relationship between

these two variables. Seemingly, large manufacturing firms have

adopted green recruitment, showing firms' preference for candidates

who are committed to the environment. With this level of commit-

ment, a firm is likely to attain sustainability, especially in terms of

alue p value BCI LL BCI UL f2 VIF

915 .180 −0.297 0.068 .003 2.002

672 .048 0.023 0.494 .025 3.831

071 .472 −0.311 0.375 0 4.423

056 .020 0.061 0.466 .045 1.946

040 .484 −0.321 0.37 0 4.311

454 .325 −0.163 0.346 .003 3.004

YONG ET AL.222

environmental performance. This reflects the findings of Masri and

Jaaron (2017), whereby, in manufacturing organizations in a Palestin-

ian context, they found that green recruitment and selection had a

positive influence on environmental performance. This result implies

that, in order to combat environmental issues in the manufacturing

industry, HR managers considered the environmental commitment of

a candidate as a priority in the recruitment process. Recruiting people

who are committed to environmental protection may increase the

company's environmental performance. Companies can use green

recruitment to attract high‐quality candidates who can add value to

the organization, strongly considering potential candidates' concern

for the environment. Consequently, employees who exhibit this con-

cern are more likely to reduce the environmental impacts and risks

to the general public. These findings are in line with the ideas set

out by Ahmad (2015), who suggests that recruiting candidates with a

green mindset provides the employer with a competitive advantage

and leads to sustainable performance.

No significant relationship was found to exist between green

selection and sustainability. From an economic perspective, this result

contradicts the results of Longoni et al. (2016), which show that, in

multiple industries in Italy, green hiring has a positive and significant

influence on financial performance. A reasonable explanation for these

contradictory findings is that large manufacturing firms in this research

might be in the early stage of adopting green selection. Therefore, the

effect of green selection on economic performance may not be appar-

ent. However, from an environmental perspective, this result is consis-

tent with the research of Guerci, Longoni, and Luzzini (2016), who

found no relationship between green hiring and environmental perfor-

mance, but contrasts with the findings of Longoni et al. (2016), Masri

and Jaaron (2017), Yusoff et al. (2018), and Zaid et al. (2018). This

nonsignificant relationship could also be due to the fact that candi-

dates are selected on the basis of their skills and expertise in the rele-

vant department, and their environmental knowledge is only a value‐

added element. As Craig (2015) states, it is crucial to hire a candidate

who possesses the required skillset; otherwise, the firm can lose out,

with a high turnover of staff and less effective overall performance.

This argument is illustrated in the Malaysian context, where the Prime

Minister unveiled a four‐pronged strategy to improve Malaysia's

manufacturing sector through higher productivity, contribution, inno-

vation, and more high‐skilled workers (Saieed, 2018). Thus, green

selection does not necessarily lead to sustainability, because this

manufacturing industry is still focused on the skills and expertise of

an employee.

In terms of green training, the results show that there is a positive

relationship between green training and sustainability. This finding is

similar that of Zaid et al. (2018), in which green training had a positive

influence on sustainable performance. Seemingly, green training can

develop the environmental knowledge of employees, build their envi-

ronmental awareness, motivate their creativity for green innovation,

and encourage their environmental commitment, all of which contrib-

ute to the improvement of environmental performance. Through

green training, employees are encouraged to find ways to decrease

paper and energy consumption and reduce the use of environmentally

damaging materials in their products, particularly applicable to

employees in the manufacturing industry. Hence, with continuous

green training, companies should be able to improve their economic

and environmental performance. Furthermore, the manufacturing

industry is perceived as having a significant impact on the environ-

ment, and there has been a long‐term emphasis on environmental

compliance (Guerci, Longoni, & Luzzini, 2016). Furthermore, this rela-

tionship suggests that green training can help companies acquire and

develop employees who can better protect the environment as well

as society. In addition, green training that provides employees with

environmental knowledge increases the environmental awareness of

employees and puts an emphasis on their well‐being; this in turn tends

to reduce risks to the general public and thus contributes to the long‐

term social benefit of both internal employees and external communi-

ties (Paulraj, 2011).

The results show a nonsignificant relationship between green per-

formance assessment and sustainability. This is in line with the argu-

ment given by Renwick et al. (2013) in which they state that firms

are facing challenges in measuring employees' environmental perfor-

mance. The results obtained are somewhat contradictory with those

of Zaid et al. (2018), who found a significant relationship between

green performance management and compensation and sustainable

performance. Most of the large manufacturing firms in this study have

been established for more than 20 years. Thus, it is not surprising that

these companies routinely try to lower their costs to stay competitive

in the marketplace. As Lawton (2012) indicates, long‐established com-

panies need to control their costs, and such controls may lead ulti-

mately to a more efficient and adaptable company. Thus, although

companies might adopt green performance assessment, their eco-

nomic performance might not be directly linked to green performance

assessment. Besides, in the large Malaysian manufacturing firms stud-

ied in this research, employees' green goals and responsibilities and

individual green assessment may apply only to employees in the envi-

ronment, health, and safety department. This limited adoption seems

to have been insufficient to promote overall sustainability.

In examining the relationship between green rewards and sustain-

ability, this study found no significant relationship between these two

variables. Green reward is designed to motivate employees to pro-

mote environmental management; hence, this practice is more likely

to directly affect employee performance than to affect the sustainabil-

ity of the companies. Renwick et al. (2013) point out that environmen-

tal rewards and recognition may increase the willingness of employees

to produce environmental initiatives. This could be the reason behind

the nonsignificant finding in the context of Malaysian large

manufacturing firms. From an environmental perspective, the

nonsignificance of this relationship might be because green rewards

are not extensively used within large Malaysian manufacturing firms

to encourage the environmental contributions of employees. The lim-

ited use of this practice, therefore, may not lead to significant environ-

mental improvement. Additionally, Govindarajulu and Daily (2004)

suggest that relying on rewards does not lead to significant improve-

ment in environmental performance, but such improvement can be

attained if it is combined with clear communication, feedback, and

YONG ET AL. 223

empowerment. This finding contradicts Pfeffer (2010), who highlights

the profound effect of an organizational reward system on human

health. A further possible explanation for this result is that this prac-

tice places a particular emphasis on the environmental perspective,

whereas concern for community is not emphasized. Therefore, in the

context of this study, this practice is possibly unable to accomplish

sustainability for companies as a whole.

According to de Souza Freitas et al. (2012) and Rimanoczy and

Pearson (2010), HRM can guide firms' sustainability through reviewing

values and assumptions in order to rearrange the organizational cul-

ture and cultivate an understanding of sustainability, which will then

be reflected in employees' daily actions. Hence, although the outcome

of green HRM on sustainability is inconclusive, the significant influ-

ence of green recruitment and green training on sustainability clearly

suggests that large manufacturing firms should strongly consider ele-

vating the adoption of green HRM practices to achieve long‐term

sustainability.

Additionally, past HRM research conceptualizes the contribution

of HRM practices in terms of a company's sustainability (de Souza

Freitas et al., 2012; Jabbour & Santos, 2008). However, the relation-

ship has not been tested empirically, and the measures of sustainabil-

ity have yet to be fully investigated. By conceptualizing sustainability

and examining how it operates on a company level, this research has

identified and examined a construct that can be empirically tested.

Thus, this study extends existing research by substantiating the mea-

surement of sustainability and empirically demonstrating the contribu-

tions of green HRM practices to business sustainability. This

contribution will also enable future research to examine the relation-

ship between sustainability and other constructs that are considered

important to these studies.

In conclusion, insignificant results require further investigation in

order to add to the discussion and provide new insights in the field

of green HRM. Thus, future research in the field of green HRM could

further investigate the links between green analysis and job descrip-

tion, green selection, green performance assessment, green rewards,

and sustainability in different contexts to establish and confirm syner-

gies and contradictions.

5.2 | Managerial implications

Aside from the theoretical implications, there are several implications

for practitioners and policy makers. This section discusses the key

points for large manufacturing firms and policy makers based on the

findings of this study.

From a practical perspective, this study has several implications,

especially for business professionals and policy makers. The concep-

tual model presented in this study is intended to give a guide for

manufacturing firms, illustrating the outcome of the implementation

of green HRM on business sustainability. Due to the scarcity of natural

resources and the environmental issues raised in the recent years, the

industry plays a very crucial role in mitigating environmental issues.

Hence, by using this model of green HRM in manufacturing industries,

practitioners can build and improve green‐oriented human resources

and adopt green HRM as a strategy to attain business sustainability.

The findings imply that manufacturing firms in Malaysia that adopted

green HRM (i.e., green recruitment and green training) had improved

business sustainability. Green HRM practices provide additional bene-

fits to a company in terms of environmental performance and social

performance as well as typical financial performance. Once manage-

ment has opted for sustainability as an area of focus, the company

should look at reshaping organizational culture by applying green

HRM practices to employees. Through this, employees gain awareness

of the importance of going green and commit themselves to the orga-

nization's environmental and social mission and personally strive

towards sustainability goals.

Last, but not the least, the manufacturing industry in Malaysia is

reported to have poor environmental performance, and yet it is the

one of the biggest contributors to Malaysia's economy. This study

points out that green HRM practices may help in achieving business

sustainability. The government of Malaysia must make available clear

and effective environmental policies that provide strategic direction

in order to encourage manufacturing firms to go green. In conjunction

with this initiative, the government might provide more incentives and

environmental training to encourage manufacturers to apply green

HRM practices.

5.3 | Limitations of the study

Although this study's findings are both robust and important, there are

some limitations that must be acknowledged. The limitations of this

study stem from the framework and its application. First, although

the variables selected for the framework can be considered adequate

for studies on green HRM practices in organizations, it is believed that

other variables can also contribute to this framework. Furthermore,

the framework must be further refined and adjusted to include other

organizations and other countries, and a cross‐country study may

enhance the generalizability of the findings and may affect the results.

Moreover, the data collection phase in this study occurred at a single

point in time. Finally, the subjective measurements used (self‐assess-

ment) in the questionnaire have their own inherent limitations,

although they have been previously used.

5.4 | Future research directions

Despite the limitations, this research may be extended to include other

green HRM practices and to empirically investigate how each green

HRM practice influences the different dimensions of sustainability. It

should be noted that green HRM practices ought to be evaluated in

terms of their different dimensions, either at the individual or organiza-

tional level. Further instruments of green HRM suitable for future test-

ing have been developed by Pham et al. (2019), Roscoe et al. (2019),

Paillé, Chen, Boiral, and Jin (2014), Al Kerdawy (2018), Dumont, Shen,

and Deng (2016), Guerci, Longoni, and Luzzini (2016), Kim et al.

(2019), Longoni et al. (2016), Masri and Jaaron (2017), Shah (2019),

YONG ET AL.224

Saeed et al. (2018), and Tang et al. (2017). Additionally, this study may

be enhanced by using samples from other industries and firm sizes,

using longitudinal data to establish causal relationships among indepen-

dent and dependent variables, or using multiple cases to further inves-

tigate the relation between green HRM practices and sustainability.

The possible associations with the triple bottom line of sustainability

could be further explored, as well as the inclusion of constructs such

as environmental knowledge and awareness, environmental concern,

pro‐environmental behavior, HR roles and competencies, stakeholder

pressure, top management commitment, relative advantage, and green

intellectual capital. Finally, given the time limitations of this study, as

well as considering environmental aspects in the management of the

organization, future frameworks could be explored by focusing on envi-

ronmental performance as the ultimate goal.

We hope that this study will offer an alternative lens to those who

study the impact of green HRM practices and sustainability.

5.5 | Conclusion

In Malaysia, the manufacturing industry is one of the main contribu-

tors to the country's economy, but it is also the highest contributor

to environmental issues. Hence, aggressively pursuing the adoption

of environmentally friendly activities, such as green HRM practices,

is becoming crucial in order to mitigate environmental problems. The

benefits of adopting green HRM, such as cost reduction and talent

attraction and retention, have been examined in the literature (Sawang

& Kivits, 2014).

Sustainability has become increasingly important to businesses as a

result of rapid depletion of natural resources and concerns over envi-

ronmental issues. Industry pioneers and global companies are now

paying much more attention to sustainability. In order to deal with a

challenging business climate, companies are seeking new approaches

—such as green HRM—to remain competitive and sustainable in the

dynamic business world of today. Human resources, with its key func-

tion in strategy planning, offers a new opportunity for companies in

terms of cost reduction, value creation, and eventually achieving sus-

tainability by adopting green HRM practices.

The present study examines the influence of green HRM practices

(i.e., green analysis and job description, green recruitment, green selec-

tion, green training, green performance assessment, and green

rewards) on sustainability, using the theoretical basis of RBV, and brid-

ges an important research gap in the literature. On the basis of the

aforementioned discussion, the findings reveal that only green recruit-

ment and green training will lead to sustainability in the Malaysian

manufacturing industry. This implies that, in order to achieve sustain-

ability, HR managers should prioritize candidates with environmental

knowledge during the recruitment process and also provide

environmental‐related training (i.e., waste management, recycling and

energy management) for employees.

Despite its limitations, we hope that this first step, considering

green HRM as a pathway to sustainability in Malaysia, is significant

and merits further investigation. Also, many of the findings in the

present study throw up interesting contradictions to the existing liter-

ature. Thus, we encourage future researchers to study these relation-

ships in different industries, using these findings as their reference for

the Malaysian context.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was supported by the Exploratory Research Grant Scheme

(ERGS) from the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (203/

PPAMC/6730125).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mohd‐Yusoff Yusliza has received a research grant from the Ministry of

Higher Education, Malaysia. T. Ramayah is a member of the same

research grant for Mohd‐Yusoff Yusliza

ORCID

Mohd‐Yusoff Yusliza https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3925-3737

Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour https://orcid.org/0000-0002-

6143-4924

Simone Sehnem https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2416-4881

REFERENCES

Aggerholm, H. K., Andersen, S. E., & Thomsen, C. (2011). Conceptualising

employer branding in sustainable organisations. Corporate

Communications: An International Journal, 16(2), 105–123. https://doi. org/10.1108/13563281111141642

Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don't know about cor-

porate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of

Management, 38(4), 932–968. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0149206311436079

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

tices. Cogent Business & Management, 2(1), 1030817.

Al Kerdawy, M. M. A. (2018). The role of corporate support for employee

volunteering in strengthening the impact of green human resource

management practices on corporate social responsibility in the

Egyptian firms. European Management Review. https://doi.org/

10.1111/emre.12310

Amran, A., Ooi, S. K., Nejati, M., Zulkafli, A. H., & Lim, B. A. (2012).

Relationship of firm attributes, ownership structure and business net-

work on climate change efforts: Evidence from Malaysia. International

Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 19(5),

406–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2012.720292

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in

practice: A review and recommended two‐step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐ 2909.103.3.411

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage.

Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 014920639101700108

Barney, J., Ketchen, D., & Wright, M. (2011). The future of resource‐based theory: Revitalization or decline? Journal of Management, 37(5),

1299–1315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310391805

Behyan, M., Mohamad, O., & Omar, A. (2015). Influence of

internationalisation orientation on export performance: in the perspec-

tive of Malaysian manufacturing firms. Journal of Business & Industrial

Marketing, 30(1), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM‐05‐2012‐0091

YONG ET AL. 225

Bombiak, E., & Marciniuk‐Kluska, A. (2018). Green human resource man- agement as a tool for the sustainable development of enterprises:

Polish young company experience. Sustainability, 10, 1739–1761. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061739

Bratton, J., & Gold, J. (2012). Human resource management: Theory and

practice (5th ed.). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/

10.1007/978‐1‐137‐00095‐8

Brundtland, G., & Khalid, M. (1987). UN Brundtland commission report.

Our Common Future.

Chouinard, Y., Ellison, J., & Ridgeway, R. (2011). The sustainable economy.

Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2011/10/

the‐sustainable‐economy. Date Accessed: 15 January 2019.

Cohen, E., Taylor, S., & Muller‐Carmen, M. (2010). HR's role in corporate social responsibility and sustainability. Society for Human Resource

Management (SHRM) report, SHRM, Alexandria, VA.

Comoglio, C., & Botta, S. (2012). The use of indicators and the role of envi-

ronmental management systems for environmental performances

improvement: A survey on ISO 14001 certified companies in the auto-

motive sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 20(1), 92–102. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.08.022

Cox, E. P. III (1980). The optimal number of response alternatives for a

scale: A review. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378001700401

Craig, M. (2015). Cost effectiveness of retaining top internal talent in con-

trast to recruiting top talent. Competition Forum, 13(2), 203–209.

De Saá‐Pérez, P., & García‐Falcón, J. M. (2002). A resource‐based view of human resource management and organizational capabilities develop-

ment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(1),

123–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190110092848

de Souza Freitas, W. R., Jabbour, C. J. C., Mangili, L. L., Filho, W. L., & de

Oliveira, J. H. C. (2012). Building sustainable values in organizations

with the support of human resource management: Evidence from one

firm considered as the ‘Best Place to Work’ in Brazil. Journal of Human Values, 18(2), 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971685812454483

del Brío, J. A., Junquera, B., & Ordiz, M. (2008). Human resources in

advanced environmental approaches—A case analysis. International Journal of Production Research, 46(21), 6029–6053. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00207540701352094

Dey, P. K., Malesios, C., De, D., Chowdhury, S., & Abdelaziz, F. B. (2019).

Could lean practices and process innovation enhance supply chain sus-

tainability of small and medium‐sized enterprises? Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(4), 582–598. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2266

Dumont, J., Shen, J., & Deng, X. (2016). Effects of green HRM practices on

employee workplace green behaviour: The role of psychological green

climate and employee green values. Human Resource Management, 56,

613–627. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21792

Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st cen-

tury business. Stony Creek, CT: New Society Publishers.

Fernando, Y., Jabbour, C. J. C., & Wah, W. X. (2019). Pursuing green

growth in technology firms through the connections between environ-

mental innovation and sustainable business performance: does service

capability matter? Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 141, 8–20.

Fernando, Y., & Hor, W. L. (2017). Impacts of energy management prac-

tices on energy efficiency and carbon emissions reduction: a survey

of Malaysian manufacturing firms. Resources, Conservation & Recycling,

126, 62–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.07.023

Fernando, Y., & Wah, W. X. (2017). The impact of eco‐innovation drivers on environmental performance: empirical results from the green tech-

nology sector in Malaysia. Sustainable Production and Consumption,

12, 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2017.05.002

FMM (2015). FMM Directory of Malaysian Industries 2015 (46th ed.).

Malaysia: Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers.

Fornell, C., & Cha, J. (1994). Partial least squares. In R. P. Bagozzi (Ed.),

Advanced methods in marketing research (pp. 52–78). Cambridge: Blackwell.

Gardberg, N. A., & Fombrun, C. J. (2006). Corporate citizenship: Creating

intangible assets across institutional environments. Academy of

Management Review, 31(2), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.5465/ amr.2006.20208684

Geiger, S. M., Grossman, P., & Schrader, U. (2019). Mindfulness and sus-

tainability: Correlation or causation? Current Opinion in Psychology,

28, 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.09.010

Gençay, G., Birben, Ü., & Durkaya, B. (2018). Effects of legal regulations on

land use change: 2/B applications in Turkish forest law. Journal of Sus-

tainable Forestry, 37(8), 804–819. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10549811.2018.1486717

Gholami, H., Rezaei, G., Saman, M. Z. M., Sharif, S., & Zakuan, N. (2016).

State‐of‐the‐art green HRM system: Sustainability in the sports center in Malaysia using a multi‐methods approach and opportunities for future research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 124, 142–163. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.105

Gloet, M. (2006). Knowledge management and the links to HRM: Develop-

ing leadership and management capabilities to support sustainability.

Management Research News, 29(7), 402–413. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/01409170610690862

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

Guerci, M., Longoni, A., & Luzzini, D. (2016). Translating stakeholder pres-

sures into environmental performance—The mediating role of green HRM practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Manage-

ment, 27(2), 262–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09585192.2015.1065431

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

nongreen recruitment practices for attracting job applicants: Exploring

independent and interactive effects. The International Journal of Human

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

Haddock‐Millar, J., Sanyal, C., & Müller‐Camen, M. (2016). Green human resource management: A comparative qualitative case study of a

United States multinational corporation. International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 27(2), 192–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09585192.2015.1052087

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on

partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS‐SEM) (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Harris, J. M. (2003). Sustainability and sustainable development. Interna-

tional Society for Ecological Economic Internet Encyclopaedia of

ecological economics. Retrieved from http://isecoeco.org/pdf/susdev.

pdf. Date Accessed: 15 January 2019.

Henseler, J., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing

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

Huff, C. (2007, August 17). Green recruiting helps bring in top talent.

Retrieved from https://www.workforce.com/2007/08/17/green‐ recruiting‐helps‐bring‐in‐top‐talent/. Date Accessed: 15 January 2019.

Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management prac-

tices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance.

Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 635–672.

YONG ET AL.226

Iraldo, F., Testa, F., & Frey, M. (2009). Is an environmental management

system able to influence environmental and competitive performance?

The case of the eco‐management and audit scheme (EMAS) in the European Union. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(16), 1444–1452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.05.013

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

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

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

Jabbour, C. J. C. (2013). Environmental training in organisations: From a lit-

erature review to a framework for future research. Resources,

Conservation and Recycling, 74, 144–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. resconrec.2012.12.017

Jabbour, C. J. C., & Jabbour, A. B. L. d. S. (2016). Green human resource

management and green supply chain management: Linking two emerg-

ing agendas. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12(3), 1824–1833.

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: Introduction to the special issue. German Jour-

nal of Research in Human Resource Management, 25(2), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/239700221102500203

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

Jain, N., & D'lima, C. (2018). Green HRM—A study on the perception of Generation Y as prospective internal customers. International Journal

of Business Excellence, 15(2), 199. https://doi.org/10.1504/

ijbex.2018.091916

Jerez‐Gómez, P., Céspedes‐Lorente, J., & Valle‐Cabrera, R. (2007). Organi- zational learning and compensation strategies: Evidence from the

Spanish chemical industry. Global Business and Organizational Excel-

lence, 26(3), 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.20144

Ji, L., Huang, J., Liu, Z., Zhu, H., & Cai, Z. (2012). The effects of employee

training on the relationship between environmental attitude and firms'

performance in sustainable development. The International Journal of

Human Resource Management, 23(14), 2995–3008. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09585192.2011.637072

Johns, R. (2010). Likert items and scales. Survey Question Bank: Methods

Fact Sheet, 1, 1–11.

Kanstrup, N., Swift, J., Stroud, D. A., & Lewis, M. (2018). Hunting with lead

ammunition is not sustainable: European perspectives. Ambio, 47(8),

846–857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280‐018‐1042‐y

Kim, Y. J., Kim, W. G., Choi, H. M., & Phetvaroon, K. (2019). The effect of

green human resource management on hotel employees' eco‐friendly behavior and environmental performance. International Journal of Hos-

pitality Management, 76, 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijhm.2018.04.007

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling.

New York NY: Guilford Press.

Koch, M. J., & McGrath, R. G. (1996). Improving labor productivity: Human

resource management policies do matter. Strategic Management

Journal, 17, 335–354. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097‐ 0266(199605)17:5<335::AID‐SMJ814>3.0.CO;2‐R

Kuckertz, A., & Wagner, M. (2010). The influence of sustainability orienta-

tion on entrepreneurial intentions—Investigating the role of business experience. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 524–539. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.09.001

Laosirihongthong, T., Adebanjo, D., & Tan, K. C. (2013). Green supply chain

management practices and performance. Industrial Management & Data

Systems, 113(8), 1088–1109. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS‐04‐2013‐ 0164

Lawton, T. C. (2012, March 23). How legacy airlines can be competitive

again. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/eco-

nomic‐intelligence/2012/03/23/how‐legacy‐airlines‐can‐be‐competi- tive‐again‐. Date Accessed: 24 January 2019.

Lazim, H. M. & Ramayah, T. (2010). Maintenance strategy in Malaysian

manufacturing companies: a total productive maintenance (TPM)

approach. Business Strategy Series, 11(6), 387–396. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/17515631011093098

Liu, Z., Li, J., Zhu, H., Cai, Z., & Wang, L. (2014). Chinese firms' sustainable

development—The role of future orientation, environmental commit- ment, and employee training. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,

31(1), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490‐012‐9291‐y

Longoni, A., Luzzini, D., & Guerci, M. (2016). Deploying environmental

management across functions: The relationship between green human

resource management and green supply chain management. Journal of

Business Ethics, 151, 1081–1095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐ 016‐3228‐1

Macke, J., & Genari, D. (2019). Systematic literature review on sustainable

human resource management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 208,

806–815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.091

Madsen, H., & Ulhoi, J. P. (2001). Greening of human resources: Environ-

mental awareness and training interests within the workforce.

Industrial Management & Data Systems, 101(2), 57–63. https://doi. org/10.1108/02635570110384320

Mahmud, I., Ramayah, T., & Kurnia, S. (2017). To use or not to use:

Modelling end user grumbling as user resistance in pre‐ implementation stage of enterprise resource planning system. Informa-

tion Systems, 69, 164–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2017.05.005

Masri, H. A., Jaaron, 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

Mathis, R. L., & Jackson, J. H. (2011). Human resource management (13th

ed.). USA: South‐Western Cengage Learning.

Menezes, E., Filho, S., & Drigo, E. (2017). Analysis of organizational and

human factors in the local production arrangement of the hotel chain

to avoid social and environmental impacts, case study of Maragogi,

Alagoas, Brazil. Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput., 487, 421–433.

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

approach in Indian public enterprises. World Review of Science,

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

Mishra, R. K., Sarkar, S., & Singh, P. (2012). Today's HR for a sustainable

tomorrow. India, New Delhi: Allied Publishers.

Muster, V., & Schrader, U. (2011). Green work‐life balance: A new perspec- tive for Green HRM. German Journal of Research in Human Resource

Management, 25(2), 140–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 239700221102500205

Paillé, P., Chen, Y., Boiral, O., & Jin, J. (2014). The impact of human

resource management on environmental performance: An employee‐

YONG ET AL. 227

level study. Journal of Business Ethics, 121, 451–466. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10551‐013‐1732‐0

Paulraj, A. (2011). Understanding the relationships between internal

resources and capabilities, sustainable supply management and organi-

zational sustainability. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 47(1),

19–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745‐493X.2010.03212.x

Pfeffer, J. (2010). Building sustainable organizations: The human factor.

Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(1), 34–45.

Pham, N. T., Tučková, Z., & Jabbour, C. J. C. (2019). Greening the hospital- ity industry: How do green human resource management practices

influence organizational citizenship behavior in hotels? A mixed‐ methods study. Tourism Management, 72, 386–399. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tourman.2018.12.008

Phillips, L. (2007). Go green to gain the edge over rivals. People Manage-

ment, 13(17), 9.

Pinzone, M., Guerci, M., Lettieri, E., & Redman, T. (2016). Progressing in the

change journey towards sustainability in healthcare: The role of 'Green'

HRM. Journal of Cleaner Production, 122, 201–211. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.031

Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response cate-

gories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and

respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104(1), 1–15. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0001‐6918(99)00050‐5

Quesada, G. C., Klenke, T., & Mejía‐Ortíz, L. M. (2018). Regulatory chal- lenges in realizing integrated coastal management‐lessons from Germany, Costa Rica, Mexico and South Africa. Sustainability, 10(10),

3772–3793. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103772

Raut, R. D., Narkhede, B., & Gardas, B. B. (2017). To identify the critical

success factors of sustainable supply chain management practices in

the context of oil and gas industries: ISM approach. Renewable and Sus-

tainable Energy Reviews, 68, 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rser.2016.09.067

Renwick, D. W. S., Jabbour, C. J. C., Muller‐Camen, M., Redman, T., & Wilkinson, A. (2015). Contemporary developments in green (environ-

mental) HRM scholarship. International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 27(2), 114–128.

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

Rimanoczy, I., & Pearson, T. (2010). Role of HR in the new world of sus-

tainability. Industrial and Commercial Training, 42(1), 11–17. https:// doi.org/10.1108/00197851011013661

Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.‐M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH. http://www.smartpls.com

Roscoe, S., Subramanian, N., Jabbour, C. J., & Chong, T. (2019). Green

human resource management and the enablers of green organisational

culture: Enhancing a firm's environmental performance for sustainable

development. Business Strategy and the Environment, in press. https://

doi.org/10.1002/bse.2277

Sadorsky, P. (2014). The effect of urbanization on CO2 emissions in emerg-

ing economies. Energy Economics, 41, 147–153. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.eneco.2013.11.007

Saeed, B. B., Afsar, B., Hafeez, S., Khan, I., Tahir, M., & Afridi, M. A. (2018).

Promoting employee's proenvironmental behavior through green

human resource management practices. Corporate Social Responsibility

and Environmental Management, 26, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ csr.1694

Saieed, Z. (2018, October 31). PM unveils four‐pronged strategy to boost manufacturing. The Star Online. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.

com.my

Sammalisto, K., & Brorson, T. (2008). Training and communication in the

implementation of environmental management systems (ISO14001):

A case study at the University of Gavle, Sweden. Journal of Cleaner

Production, 16(3), 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006. 07.029

Sawang, S., & Kivits, R. A. (2014). Greener workplace: Understanding

senior management's adoption decisions through the Theory of

Planned Behaviour. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management,

21(1), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2013.848418

Schedlitzki, D. (2019). Developing apprentice leaders through critical

reflection. Higher Education, Skills and Work‐based Learning, 9, 237–247. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL‐09‐2018‐0095

Sehnem, S. (2019). Circular business models: Initial exploratory research.

Environmental Quality Management. USA (Article in Press), 28, 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.21609

Sehnem, S., Campos, L. M. S., Julcovski, D. J., & Cazella, C. F. (2019). Circu-

lar business models: Level of maturity. Management Decision, (in press),

57, 1043–1066. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD‐07‐2018‐0844

Sehnem, S., Vazquez‐Brust, D., Pereira, S. C. F., & Campos, L. M. S. (2019). Circular economy: Benefits, impacts and overlapping (p. 2019). Supply

Chain Management: An International Journal. (in press)

Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research methods for business: A skill‐ building approach (7th ed.). London: John Wiley & Sons.

Shah, M. (2019). Green human resource management: Development of a

valid measurement scale. Business Strategy and the Environment.

https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2279

Siddique, C. M. (2004). Job analysis: A strategic human resource manage-

ment practice. The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 15(1), 219–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958519032 000157438

Singh, S. K. (2018). Sustainable people, process and organization manage-

ment in emerging markets. Benchmarking: An International Journal,

25(3), 774–776. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ‐02‐2018‐0038

Siti Nabiha, A. K. (2015, October 13). Greening is saving. Retrieved from

https://cmp.smu.edu.sg/amb/article/20151013/greening‐saving. Date Accessed: 15 January 2019.

Sundram, V. P. K., Ibrahim, A. R., & Govindaraju, V. G. R. C. (2011). Supply

chain management practices in the electronics industry in Malaysia:

consequences for supply chain performance. Benchmarking: An Interna-

tional Journal, 18(6), 834–855. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 14635771111180725

Tang, G., Chen, Y., Jiang, Y., Paillé, P., & Jia, J. (2017). Green human

resource management practices: scale development and validity. Asia

Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 56(1), 31–55.

Taylor, S., Osland, J., & Egri, C. P. (2012). Guest editors' introduction:

Introduction to HRM's role in sustainability: Systems, strategies, and

practices. Human Resource Management, 51(6), 789–798. https://doi. org/10.1002/hrm.21509

Tzafrir, S. S. (2005). The relationship between trust, HRM practices

and firm performance. International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 16(9), 1600–1622. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09585190500239135

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

production in Indian Industry—A micro‐level study. Resources,

Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2013). Research Methods for Business: A Skill‐ Building Approach (6th ed.). London: John Wiley & Sons.

YONG ET AL.228

Conservation and Recycling, 50(4), 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. resconrec.2006.07.003

Weisberg, H. F., Krosnick, J. A., & Bowen, B. D. (1996). An introduction to

survey research, polling, and data analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/ smj.4250050207

Wirtenberg, J., Harmon, J., Russell, W. G., & Fairfield, K. D. (2007). HR's

role in building a sustainable enterprise: Insights from some of the

world's best companies. Human Resource Planning, 30(1), 10–20.

Wright, P. M., Dunford, B. B., & Snell, S. A. (2001). Human resources and

the resource based view of the firm. Journal of Management, 27(6),

701–721. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700607

Yong, J. Y., & Mohd‐Yusoff, Y. (2016). Studying the influence of strategic human resource competencies on the adoption of green human

resource management practices. Industrial and Commercial Training,

48(8), 416–422. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT‐03‐2016‐0017

Yong, J. Y., Yusliza, M.‐Y., Ramayah, T., & Fawehinmi, O. (2019). Nexus betweem green intellectual capital and green human resource manage-

ment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 215, 364–374. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.306

Yusliza, M. Y., Ramayah, T., & Othman, N. (2015). Why examining adoption

factors, HR role and attitude towards using E‐HRM is the start‐off in determining the successfulness of green HRM? Journal of Advanced

Management Science, 3(4), 337–343.

Yusoff, Y. M., Nejati, M., Kee, D. M. H., & Amran, A. (2018). Linking green

human resource management practices to environmental performance

in hotel industry. Global Business Review, 21(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0972150918779294

Zaid, A. A., Jaaron, A. A., & Bon, A. T. (2018). The impact of green human

resource management and green supply chain management practices

on sustainable performance: An empirical study. Journal of Cleaner

Production, 204, 965–979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018. 09.062

Zailani, S., Jeyaraman, K., Vengadasan, G., & Premkumar, R. (2012).

Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) in Malaysia: A survey.

International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 330–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.02.008

Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K. H. (2008). Confirmation of a measurement

model for green supply chain management practices implementation.

International Journal of Production Economics, 111(2), 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.11.029

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: Yong JY, Yusliza M‐Y, Ramayah T,

Chiappetta Jabbour CJ, Sehnem S, Venkatesh M. Pathways

towards sustainability in manufacturing organizations: Empiri-

cal evidence on the role of green human resource manage-

ment. Bus Strat Env. 2020;29:212–228. https://doi.org/10.

1002/bse.2359