HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT

Sustainable Human Resource Management with Salience of Stakeholders: A Top Management Perspective

Maria Järlström1 • Essi Saru2 • Sinikka Vanhala3

Received: 8 May 2015 / Accepted: 21 August 2016 / Published online: 30 August 2016

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Abstract The present paper analyses how top managers

construct the meaning of sustainable human resource

management (HRM) and its responsibility areas and how

they identify and prioritize stakeholders in sustainable

HRM. The empirical data were collected as part of the

Finnish HR Barometer inquiry. A qualitative analysis

reveals four dimensions of sustainable HRM: Justice and

equality, transparent HR practices, profitability, and

employee well-being. It also reveals four broader respon-

sibility areas: Legal and ethical, managerial, social, and

economic. Contrary to the prior green HRM literature,

ecological responsibility was largely ignored. The study

also reveals a wide range of stakeholders, specifically,

owners, managers, employees, customers, and employee

representatives, as well as their special roles and require-

ments for sustainable HRM. These findings contribute to

the literature of sustainable HRM by illustrating the

dimensions and broader responsibilities of sustainable

HRM as seen by top managers. Their conceptions of sus-

tainable HRM are largely neglected in the prior literature

despite their crucial role in legitimating HRM and thus

sustainable HRM in companies. These results also

contribute to the theory of stakeholder salience (identifi-

cation and prioritization of stakeholders) in the sustainable

HRM context from the viewpoint of top managers.

Keywords Green HRM � HRM � Sustainable HRM � Stakeholders � Qualitative approach

Introduction

Based on the foundation of business ethics debates, cor-

porate social responsibility (CSR) and the ethical aspects of

human resource management (HRM) have received

increasing attention among scholars (Cooke and He 2010;

de Gama et al. 2012; Gond et al. 2011; Greenwood 2013;

Morgeson et al. 2013; Waldman and Siegel 2008). This

attention is mainly due to the growing interest of different

stakeholders in corporate-level issues, such as the treatment

of employees, environmental pollution, and financial

transparency. In CSR statements, companies try to define

what responsibilities businesses need to fulfil (Jamali

2008). Correspondingly, the economic, legal, ethical, and

philanthropic (or discretional) responsibilities of CSR have

been identified (Carroll 1991). While most research on

CSR and sustainability has focused on the macro level of

analysis (see Morgeson et al. 2013), Jamali et al. (2015,

p. 126) suggested that ‘‘HRM can potentially provide a

promising managerial framework that can support organi-

zational efforts in translating CSR strategies into practical

managerial actions and outcomes’’. A relatively new

research area of sustainable HRM has also appeared

(Clarke 2011; Ehnert 2009a; Ehnert et al. 2014), namely,

one that connects corporate sustainability to HRM prac-

tices to explore the role of HRM in integrating general

corporate sustainability practices and strategies within

& Maria Järlström [email protected]

Essi Saru

[email protected]

Sinikka Vanhala

[email protected]

1 University of Vaasa, Post Box 700, 65101 VAASA, Finland

2 Turku School of Economics, University of Turku,

20014 TURUN YLIOPISTO, Finland

3 Aalto University School of Business, Post Box 21230,

00076 AALTO, Finland

123

J Bus Ethics (2018) 152:703–724

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3310-8

organizations (Ehnert et al. 2016). Hence, sustainable

HRM seeks to develop sustainable business organizations

and create sustainable HRM systems in those

organizations.

The research on sustainability in HRM covers numerous

related topics, such as sustainable HRM (Ehnert 2009a, b;

Zaugg et al. 2001), socially responsible HRM (Cohen 2010;

Cohen et al. 2012; Hartog and Muller-Camen 2008), green

HRM (Jabbour and Santos 2008; Jackson and Seo 2010;

Jackson et al. 2011; Renwick et al. 2008, 2013, 2016), and

strategic environmental HRM (Egri and Hornal 2002). The

plurality of the concept and its theoretical frameworks can at

least be partially explained by the short history of the sus-

tainability debate. The following original and broad defini-

tion for sustainable HRM was recently presented by Ehnert

et al. (2016, p. 3; Ehnert 2009a):

…the adaption of HRM strategies and practices that enables the achievement of financial, social and

ecological goals, with an impact inside and outside of

the organization and over a long-term time horizon

while controlling for unintended side effects and

negative feedback.

This definition is open to multiple goals and complex

relationships between HRM systems and their internal and

external environments (e.g. Schuler and Jackson 2014)

leading one to the so-called open-system model of HRM

with HRM stakeholders (Beer et al. 2015).

The stakeholder approach within HRM addresses the

issue regarding to whom business or HRM is (or should be)

responsible (Freeman 1984; Freeman et al. 2004). A widely

cited theory of stakeholder salience deals with the identi-

fication of key stakeholders based on the attributes (legit-

imacy, power, and urgency) possessed by these

stakeholders (Mitchell et al. 1997). Despite this recent

interest in stakeholders by HRM scholars (Beer et al. 2015;

De Prins et al. 2014; Ehnert 2009a; Guerci et al. 2014;

Jackson and Schuler 2003; Slack et al. 2015), stakeholder

theory still remains almost absent from the theoretical

discussions on HRM and sustainable HRM (e.g. Guerci

et al. 2014; Van Buren III and Greenwood 2011). Corre-

spondingly, there is a lack of knowledge on stakeholder

salience in the HRM context. For instance, Guerci et al.

(2014, p. 218) claim that a stakeholder perspective ‘‘pre-

sents a potential new insight in developing a deeper level

understanding of sustainability and sustainable develop-

ment’’. Accordingly, one reason for invoking the stake-

holder perspective in HRM is to confer legitimacy. Like

other management systems in an organization, the HRM

system needs to consider its stakeholders in order to be

perceived as legitimate (Guerci and Shani 2013, 2014;

Jackson and Schuler 2003; Ulrich and Brockbank 2005).

Clearly, HRM can serve multiple stakeholders (e.g.

employees, customers, and society), not just the owners of

companies (Beer et al. 2015; Lindström and Vanhala 2013;

Mariappanadar 2003). Therefore, sustainable HRM has

responsibilities to fulfil towards its stakeholders and a

responsibility to satisfy the expectations of all key

stakeholders.

The purpose of this research effort then is to increase the

knowledge of sustainable HRM, its definition, and its key

stakeholders as perceived by top managers. In order to

examine this research theme, this study used qualitative

data collected from 538 top managers. Our two research

questions are as follows:

(RQ1) How do top managers construct the concept of

sustainable HRM and

(RQ2) How do they relate sustainable HRM to its

stakeholders?

Top managers were selected as the target group owing to

their critical role in legitimating HR practices, allocating

resources, and influencing within-group agreement in the

organizational hierarchy (Bowen and Ostroff 2004). Further,

it is the role of these managers to interact with all stake-

holders of the company (Jackson and Schuler 2003). The

findings contribute to the literature on sustainable HRM by

illustrating the dimensions and broader responsibilities of

sustainable HRM as seen by top managers, whose concep-

tions of sustainability in HRM are often neglected in prior

literature in spite of the crucial role they play in legitimating

HRM and thus sustainable HRM inside companies. There-

fore, we continue the research stream that has investigated

sustainability reporting practices by the world’s largest

companies (Ehnert et al. 2016) by including the HRM per-

spective in that stream. These findings also contribute to the

theory of stakeholder salience (Mitchell et al. 1997) by

identifying those stakeholders in a sustainable HRM context

from the point of view of top managers.

The paper begins by describing the scope of sustainable

HRM, and how it adds new elements to the mainstream

discussion of unitary and pluralist HRM (see De Prins et al.

2014). The second part of the paper focuses on the prior

HRM and stakeholder literature. Then we present the data

and methodology for this research effort, after which the

empirical results are illustrated. The paper ends with a

discussion and conclusions. Limitations of the paper and

future research prospects are also discussed.

The Scope of Sustainable HRM

This section focuses on the emerging research field that is

sustainable HRM. There are several academic roots for

sustainability in HRM, and many research areas and

704 M. Järlström et al.

123

disciplines that contribute to this research area (for a

review of them see Ehnert et al. 2014). Sustainable HRM is

an umbrella term that covers multiple dimensions, multiple

levels of analysis, and a certain form of dynamics over time

(Ehnert and Harry 2012). It can be seen as an extension of

strategic HRM (Ehnert 2009a), which has already been

defined as ‘‘the pattern of planned Human Resource

deployments and activities intended to enable the firm to

achieve its goals’’ (Wright and McMahan 1992, p. 298).

This strategic HRM discussion encompasses an ongoing

debate over whether HRM should be soft (Beer et al.

1984, 2015), or hard (Fombrun et al. 1984; Greenwood

2002; Legge 2005). The soft HRM perspective is more

employee and development oriented, emphasizing the role

of the HRM system within an organizational and broader

societal context and stressing both short-term goals (e.g.

performance) and long-term goals (e.g. individual well-

being and societal impact). However, while the soft or

Harvard model represents rather idealistic goals for HRM,

it also ignores the basic ethical values that can contribute to

achieving those goals (e.g. individual well-being, organi-

zational effectiveness, and societal well-being). It also

appears that the sustainable HRM discussion has taken this

soft HRM perspective to a new level. Sustainable HRM has

been suggested for addressing the shortcomings of soft

HRM by offering insights into the positive relationships

that exists between HRM and financial performance, by

addressing the influence of different stakeholders within

and beyond organizations, and by acknowledging the

ambiguities that are associated with HRM practices and its

outcomes (Ehnert and Harry 2012; Kramar 2014).

The basic concept underlying the sustainable HRM

discussion is that firms seek different kinds of outcomes to

satisfy their stakeholders’ expectations. These outcomes

may be economic, social, human, and ecological, and firms

often seek them simultaneously although any one of the

outcomes may be more important to an organization than

others (Carroll 1991). Thus, sustainability in HRM is much

broader and more encompassing than just environmental

outcomes. Environmental outcomes, however, are in the

interest of Green HRM (Jabbour and Santos 2008; Jackson

and Seo 2010; Jackson et al. 2011; Renwick et al.

2008, 2013, 2016). Typically, the role of green HRM is

either seen as supporting environmental management (EM)

by affecting the atmosphere or focusing on organizational

culture toward EM targets, or it is seen as manifesting itself

primarily in HRM practices that are aimed at reducing

carbon footprints by printing or travelling less or adopting

other environmentally responsible practices.

A variety of HRM practices are related to sustainable

HRM discussion, including collaborative HR development,

organizational design facilitating employee participation,

open communication, work roles, and performance

evaluation focused on building employee strengths and

facilitating performance (Browning and Delahaye 2011;

Donnelly and Proctor-Thompson 2011; Ehnert 2009a;

Guerci and Pedrini 2014; Wells 2011). These practices may

develop trust between employees and managers, if con-

sistent messages are delivered to employees (e.g. Bowen

and Ostroff 2004; Guerci and Pedrini 2014). Correspond-

ingly, those scholars focusing on sustainable work systems

(SWS) (e.g. Docherty et al. 2002, 2009) are interested in

the development of HRM practices that result in positive

human or social outcomes, such as facilitating a work–life

balance, but also organizational economic outcomes and

sustainable change processes. Further, HR bundles, such as

high performance work systems or high performance

practices, have also been adopted via the sustainable HRM

discussion (Kramar 2014; Van De Voorde et al. 2012).

The HRM system, which refers to the overall configu-

ration or aggregation of HRM practices (Bowen and

Ostroff 2004), is relevant for the success of the organiza-

tion in a broad sense. Therefore, in the models or frame-

works of sustainable HRM (De Prins et al. 2014; Ehnert

2009a, 2014; Kramar 2014), HR practices are often linked

to the broader corporate sustainability framework. These

models illustrate the elements, practices, outcomes, and

stakeholders involved in this ongoing sustainability dis-

cussion. Ehnert’s model (2009a, 2014) includes the notion

that these internal and external drivers will lead each

company to having a customized sustainability strategy.

The sustainability strategy then includes corporate-level

objectives that guide HRM and those objectives and

activities through which the strategy is executed. The

model targets multiple outcomes.

Kramar (2014) further developed the model of Ehnert

(2009a) by taking into account the literature on negative

externalities (Mariappanadar 2003, 2012) and sustainable

work systems (Docherty et al. 2009). Kramar’s (2014)

model recognizes that HRM practices (or processes) will

have both negative and positive outcomes for different

stakeholders. Further, the model by Kramar (2014)

demonstrates the organizational, social, individual, and

ecological outcomes of sustainable HRM. Contrary to

Ehnert (2009a), Kramar (2014) also includes ecological

outcomes in his sustainable HRM model.

Interestingly, neither of these models directly includes

economic or financial outcomes, but they do include sus-

tained competitive advantage, innovativeness, and pro-

ductivity that can be indirectly interpreted as financial

outcomes. Likewise, these models do not include any dis-

cussion of the responsibilities of sustainable HRM like that

occurred in sustainability and CSR discussions (Carroll

1991; Jamali 2008). In the CSR discussion, these respon-

sibilities are seen to be economic, legal, ethical, and/or

philanthropic (Carroll 1991; Jamali 2008). According to

Sustainable Human Resource Management with Salience of Stakeholders… 705

123

Carroll (1991), economic responsibility is a cornerstone of

social responsibility. For economic responsibility, organi-

zations provide a return on investment to owners and

shareholders, jobs and fair payments to employees, and

new products and services to customers. Especially in

HRM, legal responsibility for society is stressed as well.

Organizations and HRM need to ensure that they fulfil the

minimum legal requirements. Although the ethical aspects

of fairness and justice do relate to economic and legal

responsibilities, ethical responsibility also covers ethical

and moral norms (what is right, just, and fair) that rise

above the law and concern the human aspects of HRM in

terms of reflecting stakeholders’ expectations.

Philanthropic responsibility, on the other hand, refers to

those corporate actions and financial resources that the

organization contributes back to the community (e.g. sup-

port for education systems by providing trainee programs,

sponsoring the arts or sport leagues), although not in the

ethical or moral sense. While these responsibilities are

mainly discussed in CSR, which focuses mainly on insti-

tutional-level phenomena, the discussion about sustainable

HRM also includes organizational-level practices. There-

fore, sustainable HRM adds a new angle to the discussion

of the responsibilities of social responsibility.

In summary, the concept of sustainable HRM still

remains ambiguous because of several research streams. To

date, sustainable HRM research has focused mainly on the

positive outcomes the concept can generate and has not

dwelt on the relationship between HRM practices and

ecological or environmental outcomes (Jabbour and Santos

2008; Renwick et al. 2008), or on potential negative human

or social outcomes (Kramar 2014; Mariappanadar

2003, 2012). Elkington (1988) has suggested that compa-

nies should focus on multiple bottom lines (financial,

social, and environmental) to maintain their stakeholder

support. To combine these two elements, we next focus on

HRM and its stakeholders to build a bridge between sus-

tainable HRM and its stakeholders.

Stakeholders of HRM and Sustainable HRM

One of the central discussions when examining the stake-

holder theory relates to the question regarding which

groups or individuals are actually identified as organiza-

tional stakeholders (Mitchell et al. 1997). A stakeholder is

‘‘any individual or group who can affect or is affected by

actions, decisions, policies, practices or goals of an orga-

nization’’ (Freeman 1984, p. 25). Though all stakeholders

can matter, Post et al. (2002, p. 8) suggest that ‘‘the

capacity of a firm to generate sustainable wealth over time,

and hence its long-term value, is determined by its rela-

tionships with critical stakeholders’’. Hence, limited

resources and rationality lead organizations to identify and

prioritize their key stakeholders (Carroll 1991; Freeman

1984; Mitchell et al. 1997; Parent and Deephouse 2007).

Mitchell et al. (1997) developed a theory of stakeholder

salience. They proposed that salience (i.e. the degree to

which managers pay attention to a stakeholder/s) is

dependent on that stakeholder’s attributes, i.e. power,

legitimacy, and urgency. The more attributes a stakeholder

has, the greater the salience is. From a CSR and sustainable

HRM perspective, power and legitimacy may be critical

attributes (Carroll 1991).

Legitimacy refers to the extent to which a stakeholder

has a justifiable right to make a claim. Suchman (1995)

indeed defined legitimacy as ‘‘a generalized perception or

assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable,

proper or appropriate within some socially constructed

system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions’’ (p. 574).

Power, on the other hand, is ‘‘the ability of stakeholders to

impose their will on a given relationship through coercive,

utilitarian, or normative means’’ (Parent and Deephouse

2007, p. 2). Stakeholders have more power if they are

organized (Carroll 1991), just like employees in trade

unions. Employees can be identified as high legitimacy

stakeholders (Greenwood 2007; Mitchell et al. 1997). The

practical challenge is how to fulfil the objectives of the

primary stakeholders and at the same time keep all other

stakeholders satisfied (Jamali 2008).

Although the stakeholder theory has attracted interest

among management scholars, it is almost nonexistent in the

theoretical discussions on HRM (e.g. Greenwood and

Freeman 2011; Guerci et al. 2014; Van Buren III and

Greenwood 2011). There are, however, strong arguments

for adopting a stakeholder perspective for HRM (Guerci

and Shani 2014; Guerci et al. 2014), including the con-

ferring of legitimacy and consistency to treat key stake-

holders appropriately to avoid the instrumental approach to

HRM and understand conflicts, and for ethical reasons.

Cleveland et al. (2015) also discuss the manifold stake-

holders served by HRM. Their concept is that the aspect of

humanity should be brought back into the discussion about

the future of HRM. That view might be realized by taking

the needs of multiple stakeholders into consideration so as

to build a healthy and effective organization. Those

stakeholders can include employees and their families and

the communities of which they are a part of.

The call for perspectives on HRM to consider a broad

range of stakeholders has also been echoed elsewhere. Beer

et al. (2015) and Marchington (2015) advise HR

researchers to go beyond the mere economic value per-

spective to consider, among other aspects, HRM practices

in the context of a multi-stakeholder perspective. Hence,

HRM is seen as being important to organizations’ sus-

tainability and environmental targets (Jackson and Seo

706 M. Järlström et al.

123

2010), and for serving the interests of multiple stakehold-

ers. However, Guerci et al. (2014, p. 217) raise dual

questions: ‘‘What opportunities and challenges do the

firm’s stakeholders present for the HRM system?’’ and

‘‘What responsibilities does the firm’s HRM system have

toward its stakeholders?’’ As shown above, there are many

arguments for the ‘‘whys’’ of the stakeholder approach in

HRM instead of the ‘‘how’s’’ or the ways in which stake-

holders can be included into HRM (e.g. Guerci and Shani

2014; Osland and Osland 2007).

Stakeholder theory enables organized thinking about

organizational responsibilities that also concern sustainable

HRM. The more an organization is engaged with its

stakeholders, the more responsible it becomes (Greenwood

2007). We acknowledge that the stakeholders of an HRM

system may play different roles and have different

requirements that relate to sustainable HRM (Guerci and

Shani 2013; Jackson and Schuler 2003; Ulrich and

Brockbank 2005). Each of these stakeholders may have

specific interests and needs as summarized specifically

below:

• Owners and investors: returns on investments and a corporate reputation

• Customers: The quality of services and products, speed and responsiveness, low costs, innovation, and

convenience

• Society: Legal compliance, social responsibility, and ethical management practices

• Organizational members: Fair pay and fair treatment, good quality of work life, and long-term employment

• Suppliers, unions, alliance partners: Reliability, trust- worthiness, and collaborative problem-solving

Despite these multiple stakeholders in HRM, and a call for

a softer HRM that engages with such stakeholders (see

Beer et al. 2015), HRM research and practice has been

criticized for focusing on profitable performance at the

expense of employees (Guest 2011). For example, some of

this criticism relates to the lack of an employee perspec-

tive, noting that employees are treated as resources to be

exploited by employers rather than assets to be developed

(e.g. Guest 2011; Legge 2005; Marchington 2015; Van

Buren III et al. 2011; Vanhala et al. 2012). Hence, there

have been calls for a greater focus on employee-level

outcomes—such as well-being—and not just on the effects

of HRM for best organizational performance (Armstrong

et al. 2010; Boxall and Macky 2009; Nishii and Wright

2008; Van De Voorde et al. 2012).

As shown above in the literature review, several

approaches and definitions are evident in this relatively

new research area of sustainable HRM. In this paper, we

first analyse how top managers construct the meaning of

sustainable HRM and its responsibility areas. We then

integrate our findings to broader responsibility areas of

CSR as discussed above (see Carroll 1991; Jamali 2008).

Finally, we rely in our analysis of stakeholder salience

theory presented above (Mitchell et al. 1997) by focusing

on how top managers identify and prioritize the stake-

holders in sustainable HRM.

Methodology

Context of the Study

The context of our study is Finland, which along with the

other Nordic (or Scandinavian) countries, ranks high in

surveys of equality, social welfare, and CSR activity

(Andersen 2008; Byrkjeflot 2001; Strand et al. 2015).

Finland and the other Nordic countries enjoy a reputation

for generous social benefits that are available to all citizens,

a high level of well-being, equality in gender relations, and

a corporatist system of employment relations characterized

by close co-operation between labour unions, employer

organizations, and the state. The other side of the coin is

also apparent in terms of high levels of taxation, relatively

high unemployment, deteriorating competitiveness, and

falling output (OECD 2014).

According to a study published by Accountability

(2007), the Nordic countries, along with the UK, dominate

a list of 108 countries wherein responsible business prac-

tices were evaluated. Finland ranked a joint third with

Sweden, in a Transparency International survey of per-

ceived corruption in the public sector that covered 177

‘territories’ or countries. Moreover, in the Global Sus-

tainable Competitiveness index, which evaluated a wide

range of sustainability-related measures (Sol-Ability 2013),

Finland rated number three among the 176 countries

ranked, after Denmark and Sweden. Considering these high

rankings in international CSR-related measures, Finland

offers an interesting context to use to study sustainable

HRM, because managers and employees of Finnish com-

panies and other organizations are familiar with sustain-

ability-related thinking.

Data Collection and Sample

This study draws on data collected via the HR Barometer

research that focuses on the future challenges in HR efforts

in Finland. The HR Barometer consists of the following

parts: Background information (quantitative), future chal-

lenges in HRM (qualitative), assessment and justification

of the most significant challenges in HRM (quantitative),

dimensions of sustainable HRM (qualitative), implemen-

tation of sustainable HRM in respondents’ organizations

(qualitative), and an assessment of HR work (quantitative).

Sustainable Human Resource Management with Salience of Stakeholders… 707

123

The HR Barometer is owned by the Finnish Association

for Human Resource Management (HENRY). The HENRY

network includes several partners including academic

institutions. Data for the current study were collected in

January 2013 from a large number of private and public

organizations that are operating in several business fields

using web-based survey. The focus group consisted of

general managers, supervisors, HR professionals, and shop

stewards who were contacted via Finnish labour market

associations.

This study focuses on top managers’ opinions on the

most important areas of sustainable HRM. A similar

approach has been undertaken through the foundation of

data collection, as in the work of de Gama et al. (2012) that

interviewed HR managers. The focus on top managers was

influenced by the observation of Francis (2002, p. 433) in

that ‘‘It is argued that the discourse of HRM acts as a

powerful medium in the hands of senior managers…’’. Gioia et al. (2012) asserted that top managers are able to

explain their thoughts on sustainable HRM reliably, and we

as researchers should give voice to these informants to

discover new meaning for HRM sustainability.

A total of 538 top managers responded to our survey,

representing a fifth (21 %) of all 2579 respondents to the

2013 HR Barometer. Of the top managers surveyed, 48 %

were men, and 52 % were women. Most of the respondents

were 51–60 years (38 %) and 41–50 years (34 %). The

most common educational backgrounds were either in

economics (28 %) or engineering (19 %). Almost two-

thirds of the top managers were HR managers (59 %), and

over a third (41 %) were other managers. Most of the

respondents (55 %) represented the private sector (of

whom 21 % represented industry), 24 % came from the

public sector, and the rest responded as ‘‘Other’’ (21 %).

The typical size of their employing organizations was

50–250 employees (33 %), while about 6 % of respondents

came from organizations employing more than 5000 staff.

We received 471 short and 303 longer written answers

to the question: ‘‘What do you consider the most important

sub-areas of sustainable HRM?’’ The respondents were first

asked to respond briefly and then to expand on their short

responses. The current research, however, focuses on the

longer answers. Fourteen answers were not related to sus-

tainable HRM at all—they mainly described poor HR

practices or inefficient use of working time. Consequently,

our analysis here covers 289 written responses.

Data Analysis

The current research applied an inductive approach to data

analysis and follows the approach developed by Gioia et al.

(2012), see also Gioia and Thomas (1996) and Miles and

Huberman (1994) on qualitative analysis. This choice

means that we searched for the dimensions of the sus-

tainable HRM concept from the data. As the open form of

the survey question indicates, we were interested in what

the top managers themselves considered to be the most

important elements of sustainable HRM. A similar

approach was applied, for example, by Gioia and Thomas

(1996) for studying top management teams, and de Gama

et al. (2012) for studying HR managers’ experiences with

the rhetoric and reality of HRM. The profound element in

all studies of this type is the assumption that reality is

socially constructed through social and linguistic interac-

tion (Berger and Luckmann 1966; Gioia et al. 2012). It

means that a phenomenon (such as sustainable HRM) is not

something definite, but rather, it is constructed by the

product of the interactions of researchers and practitioners

of HRM and management and is affected by the prevalent

societal discourse on sustainability, ethics, greening, and

the like. Language and communication do not exist in a

vacuum; they are in continuous interaction with the cultural

practices from which they emerged. Applying to this view,

sustainable HRM is something that social actors thus pro-

duce, transform, and maintain.

We began the data analysis by reading the textual

material through several times, after which the researchers

separately performed an initial coding of the material. To

agree on this initial data coding, we compared our

interpretations and discussed their differences and simi-

larities. This type of analysis retains the informants’

voices to make the research language visible. Therefore,

we first associated the data with first-order codes (i.e. the

language used by the informants), and illustrated those

categories with descriptive phrases and quotes. We iden-

tified several first-order codes, a step that helped to cluster

the first-order codes into second-order (i.e. higher order)

themes in terms of the terminology of the researchers. For

example, taking care of employees’ competence develop-

ment, was later refined to read competence development,

thereby giving voice in the analysis to both the informants

and the researchers (see Gioia et al. 2012). After final-

izing these second-order themes, we investigated their

underlying theoretical dimensions to understand how the

various themes interacted with and related to one another

within a broader context. Appendices 1 and 2 outline our

analysis and also record the illustrative quotes, the sec-

ond-order themes, and aggregate theoretical dimensions

that illustrated the top managers’ constructions of sus-

tainable HRM. This analysis process led us to identify

four main dimensions of sustainable HRM: Justice and

equality, transparent HR practices, profitability, and

employee well-being.

Next, we present the findings. First, we detail the four

themes after which we illustrate how these dimensions are

linked to the main stakeholders.

708 M. Järlström et al.

123

Results

In this study, the way in which Finnish top managers

actually construct the meaning of sustainable HRM is

organized into four (interconnected) main dimensions:

Justice and equality, transparent HR practices, profitability,

and employee well-being. We next present here each of

these four dimensions in turn and illustrate how top man-

agers constructed the meaning of sustainable HRM and its

broader responsibility areas. The analysis also reveals how

these dimensions are linked to different stakeholder groups.

The Dimensions of Sustainable HRM

Justice and Equality

The justice and equality dimension of sustainable HRM

covers those topics that relate to obeying laws and regu-

lations, diversity management, ethical values, and man-

agers’ exemplary behaviour. These topics link to the legal

and ethical responsibilities in CSR (Carroll 1991) and also

are part of the ethical discussion in HRM (de Gama et al.

2012; Greenwood 2013). In this study, managers empha-

sized that national laws and regulations form the basis of

justice and equality in their organizations. They also

regarded obeying these laws and regulations as the starting

or minimum point for responsible and sustainable HRM.

Hence, obeying institutional requirements does not neces-

sarily signal that a particular organization is sustainable.

The institutional requirements in European countries are

fairly similar, and thus, they indicate that no benefit is

gained in people management by just obeying the laws and

regulations. To gain a benefit, a company needs to go

beyond these legal requirements (e.g. Van De Voorde et al.

2012). In addition to obeying the laws, managers reported

that the role of collective agreement is an important ele-

ment of sustainability in HRM, as shown in the following

excerpt:

Sustainable HRM includes all issues related to the

employment relationship and further linked to the

collective agreements and laws. In the same vein, the

proper management of employment relationships is a

signal of the responsibility the company has to its

employees.

This excerpt illustrates the meaning and importance of

contextual factors. Collective agreements are fairly com-

mon in the Nordic context, and, therefore, they are not a

differentiating element, but rather a starting point. In Fin-

land—typical of the Nordic context (Andersen 2008)—the

role of unions and collective agreements are important

elements of sustainable HRM.

Turning to diversity management, the importance and

appreciation of having diversity among employees and the

equal treatment of those employees were stressed. The

following excerpts exemplify how this employee perspec-

tive appeared in the managers’ texts:

Every member of the organization needs to be treated

equally, throughout the organizational hierarchy.

Sustainability means equality and appreciation,

instead of hiding behind [terms like] personnel

administration.

It seems that just and fair treatment of employees means

that the rules, responsibilities, and rights are intended to be

the same for everyone throughout an organization. The

tone of the excerpts above is fairly normative, but there is

very little reference to how these intentions should be

implemented in real practice. Overall the diversity aspects

(e.g. gender, age, ethnic background, education, and

health) were mentioned especially in a recruitment context.

Hence, sustainability in HRM seemed to refer to equality

and diversity in recruitment decisions. Ideally the elements

of justice and equality will be woven into the organiza-

tional culture, and that rhetoric becomes reality:

Every employee is subject to the same rules and has

the same responsibilities and rights that apply from

the recruitment process through to the routines of

work. The extent to which an employee feels valued

affects the way leaders or colleagues mould the

organization’s culture.

The written answers of top managers expressed how the

perception of justice and equality among employees

defined the actual level of sustainability. Therefore, fair

treatment only represents a foundation upon which the

meaning and definition of sustainable HRM can then be

built. The top managers see the equal treatment of all

employees as being important, which is also a Western and

especially a Nordic value (Lindeberg et al. 2004). Ethical

thinking and ethical procedures were linked to justice and

equality, as the following quotations clearly illustrate:

As a firm, we operate ethically in everything we do,

and with everyone. We treat our employees as

equally as possible. We get involved with difficult

matters, too. We invest in leadership, and that way

ensure that leadership in our organization is of a high

calibre. We take the needs of both employees and the

organization into account.

Sustainable Human Resource Management with Salience of Stakeholders… 709

123

Ethicality is the cornerstone of good human resource

management even now. In the future, it will be the

lifeblood of good human resource management as

well as of management, in general.

These quotations bring a set of nuances on ethical HRM

to sustainability in contrast to the mainstream economical

outcome-oriented HRM (cf. Greenwood 2013). It high-

lights employees as a stakeholder group (Phillips 1999;

Mitchell et al. 1997) and promotes the fair treatment of all

employees (Jamali 2008).

The managers recognized their own behaviour as being

a role model. Hence, the one way to achieve just and equal

feelings and procedures is to ensure that the managers

modelled them through their own behaviour. Exemplary

behaviour was described in the following way:

Walk as you talk. If you demand your employees to

reduce traveling costs, you need to do the same

yourself, too.

This quotation was the only one found in the data that

related to green HRM (Jabbour and Santos 2008; Jackson

and Seo 2010; Renwick et al. 2008, 2013, 2016). It seems

that environmental HRM or green HRM as it is sometimes

called did not relate to people management in the minds of

these managers. That view supports Ehnert’s (2014) model,

but it contradicts Kramar’s (2014) model on the environ-

mental (i.e. ecological) outcome of HRM. It is possible,

however, that although environmental elements or out-

comes are important, top managers actually see them as

being separate from the other two aspects of responsibility

(people and profit).

It seems that these managers wanted to signal a genuine

intent to promote equal and ethical practices. Justice and

equality seemed to be related to both legal and ethical

responsibilities of sustainable HRM (Carroll 1991). Next,

we focus on the second dimension of sustainable HRM, i.e.

transparent HR practices.

Transparent HR Practices

The transparent HR practices dimension of sustainable

HRM refers to a range of (‘‘best’’ or ‘‘high commitment’’)

HR practices that is applied in organizations (Pfeffer 1998;

Van De Voorde et al. 2012) such as recruitment and

resource allocation, competence development, rewarding,

career planning, participation, and flexibility practices.

Similar HR practices are widely applied around the Wes-

tern world (e.g. Cranet 2011). These practices resemble

those HR-related activities that Ehnert (2009a, 2014) pre-

sented in the practice-based model of sustainable HRM.

Likewise, in the business ethics literature specific HR

practices, such as recruitment, promotion, and

remuneration, have been related by scholars to both fair-

ness and equity (Greenwood 2013).

It was quite common for top managers to define sus-

tainable HRM in terms of only one individual HR practice,

which contradicted the idea of HR bundles (Van De

Voorde et al. 2012). However, several HR practices were

identified in the course of the survey, and it appeared that a

sustainability perspective brings greater nuances to these

practices.

On the topic of recruitment and allocation of human

resources, the managers referred to the allocation of human

resources in the best possible way (the right person in the

right position), including the planning of the quality and

quantity of human resources for the longer term. Especially

this long-term time perspective reflects sustainable HRM

(Ehnert et al. 2016).

Competence development (and management) was seen

as an indicator that the firm cared about its employees.

Competence development related to a central feature of an

organization’s sustainability for the long term. The fol-

lowing statements by managers illustrate the issue well:

I see competence development as a very important

element of the sustainability perspective, because the

organization remains competitive with the help of

competence development; but also individual

employees remain competitive in the job market if

they need to change job.

We want to make sure that every employee has an

opportunity to develop in his/her job by discussing

about his/her interests and needs.

The above excerpts show that managers recognized the

meaning of competence development (i.e. development of

employees’ skills) for both the individual and the organi-

zation. Although competence development targets prof-

itability and the success of the company, top managers

seem to agree that it is the organization that needs to take

responsibility for employee development, including future

employability and career opportunities within and/or out-

side the organization. One of the managers describes this

competence development as follows:

Competence development, so that both the employee

and the employer benefit; and all personnel will be

better equipped to survive changes.

Therefore, although managers stressed the win–win

benefit (mutual gains; see Appelbaum et al. 2000; Van De

Voorde et al. 2012) of competence development for both

parties, their quotes related to managerial responsibility

also highlighted economic responsibility.

The managers also referred to the importance of re-

warding in their responses. Rewarding, alongside

710 M. Järlström et al.

123

recruitment, forms the basis of the employer–employee

relationship. For example, the managers expressed how

‘‘The rewards and the work tasks need to be synchronized

and the level of training taken into account’’ and ‘‘For

instance, the compensation system should be clear and

transparent’’. According to these managers, a transparent

and sustainable rewarding system is important; hence,

‘‘Rewards should apply to all employees, not just the top

management’’.

Career planning was also a practice that the managers

referred to as a sign of sustainable HRM. Career planning

is closely linked to competence management, and it was

seen as a central element especially in expert organizations.

Competency planning is also an element that is closely

linked to CSR and seen as an advanced HR practice in that

same sense (Gond et al. 2011). According to these man-

agers, career planning is a way to acquire competent and

valuable employees who are committed to the organiza-

tion. Individualization of HR practices was related to

career planning, as there is a need for individual career

paths. As with competence development, career planning

was also seen as a way to create a win–win situation for

both the employees and the employers.

Achieving a win–win situation implies employee par-

ticipation just like competence development does. The top

managers certainly referred to employee participation and

to the importance of open, two-way communication in

participation. Participation can help create an open com-

munication culture of an organization. The managers

aspired to make all communication, information sharing,

and organizational actions transparent, and viewed trans-

parency as indeed integral to ensuring sustainability in

HRM. The interaction between both managers and

employees, for example, when giving and receiving feed-

back can contribute to making organizational practices

transparent, and thus clearly understandable to everyone:

Information should not be withheld without good

reason; it needs to be made available to every-

one…and at the same time, openness should flow the other way, too. Employees should be encouraged to

give feedback.

Despite this desire for open communication, however,

there can be regulatory constraints on providing certain

information to the entire workforce, especially within listed

companies. However, employee involvement and partici-

pation in work-related decision making (i.e. on tasks) is a

further element that is important for securing sustainability:

When employees are involved in planning and the

development of their own jobs, and are granted

freedom of action and responsibility, their motivation

increases as well.

Work tasks are formulated together with the

employees.

The above excerpts demonstrate the top management

thinking in this study in that sustainability refers to the joint

responsibility of work tasks, and hence, participation and

dialogue between employees and managers as an effective

way to create and maintain transparency in all HR prac-

tices. Employee participation plays a role, for example, in

how HRM contributes to promoting CSR goals and keep-

ing employees as stakeholders clearly in mind (Jamali et al.

2015).

Flexibility was also related to sustainability in HR

practices. Managers stressed the importance of flexibility in

terms of employee needs. Management recognized the

need for flexibility and individual approaches to issues like

work hours, leave, rewards, remote work, vacations, and

retirement. According to these managers, in the future

especially, the companies that offer more flexibility to help

employees balance both work and life demands may

achieve greater competitive advantage. Flexibility can

affect sustainability in HRM in that it may help employees

have longer careers and stay healthier as well. However,

the managers did note that in reality reconciling the need

for flexibility and HR planning can be challenging,

although ideally they should be integrated.

The responses related to transparent HR practices, as a

dimension of sustainable HRM, revealed a range of poli-

cies and practices among the top managers, and hence the

HRM system was covered relatively widely. Especially for

some HR practices (competence development, employee

participation), the win–win benefits for employer and

employee were emphasized. Transparent HR practices

seemed to be related to the managerial responsibility of

sustainable HRM. This responsibility area is new to Car-

roll’s (1991) list of social responsibility and can be further

explained by focusing on the organizational-level aspects.

Next, we thus turn to the (economic) profitability dimen-

sion of sustainable HRM.

Profitability

The profitability dimension of sustainable HRM is related

to organizational effectiveness and covers topics that relate

to the integration of HRM and strategy, proactiveness in

actions, long-term thinking, and the business knowledge of

HR managers. Long-term thinking is also a central element

of sustainable HRM (Ehnert 2009a; Kramar 2014).

In our collected data, the managers stressed the link

between HRM and strategic business goals. They clearly

saw that HRM needs to support strategy, and HRM issues

need to be integrated into strategy discussion during the

early phase. This last expectation seems to relate to the

Sustainable Human Resource Management with Salience of Stakeholders… 711

123

strategic role of HRM as well (Ulrich 1997; Jamali et al.

2015), which stresses the role of HR managers in the

strategy process. The following excerpt describes this

aspect:

There is a need in the HR function to see the future

and be part of the strategy process.

This strategy-related viewpoint adds a long-term per-

spective to the sustainability discourse and also raises the

issue of competitive advantage for the company. The long-

term perspective is one of the key elements that define

sustainable HRM (Ehnert 2009a). Several managers stated

that:

Business thinking is one of the cornerstones of HRM.

One of the key elements in the profitability dimension of

sustainable HRM is the integration of HRM and strategy.

The managers stressed the need for holistic thinking in

sustainable HRM, which relates to an organization’s vision,

strategy, economic resources, and environment. The con-

tribution to overall social responsibility of an organization

is present in this thinking and especially in the strategic

partner role that HR managers can play (Jamali et al. 2015).

HRM must consider the organizational entity instead of

only partial optimizing. Sustainable HRM reaches the

valuation of employees, which at best, may lead to inno-

vation, resilience, flexibility, and a new and better perfor-

mance-enhancing atmosphere.

Despite the integration of HRM and strategy, creating

sustainable strategies is not a stable process but rather one

that constantly changes, requiring foresight from leaders

for the organization to be capable of change. Accordingly,

the path to long-term sustainability encompasses proac-

tiveness in both actions and long-term thinking:

Sustainability is like a moving and evolving target.

We must know in which direction opinion and

interpretations about sustainable entrepreneurship is

evolving and how both will impact HR efforts.

Understanding the evolution of sustainability also

requires HR leaders to acquire business knowledge. Their

role in an organization’s top management team and strat-

egy building is relevant to an organization’s basic pursuit

of profitability. It is possible that HR leaders in particular

can increase the visibility of the sustainability discussion in

organizations, and thereby enhance the employer brand.

The benefits of co-creating sustainability with HRM and

CSR (Jamali et al. 2015) are present in this dimension of

sustainable HRM.

The profitability dimension of sustainable HRM seems

inherently related to the hard version of HRM (Fombrun

et al. 1984; Legge 2005) that stresses the financial out-

comes. Profitability is linked to the economic responsibility

of sustainable HRM (Carroll 1991; Kramar 2014) and all

these topics, generally interpreted as advancing perfor-

mance or the profitability of a company can be grouped

under the umbrella of strategic human resource manage-

ment or strategic integration (Legge 2005).The fourth and

last theme found in our study addresses the employee well-

being dimension of sustainable HRM. This dimension

contrasts with the employer and profitability focus descri-

bed above and again introduces people and soft HRM

aspects into the sustainability discussion.

Employee Well-Being

The employee well-being dimension of sustainable HRM

covers topics related to leadership style and caring for and

supporting employees. Overall, caring for employees and

offering support includes showing respect, and that was

seen as defining the sustainability approach to employee

well-being.

Taking care of employees includes the idea that one

is ready to fight ignorance and be ready to inspire

employees to identify and seize new challenges.

This emphasis on employee well-being is a response to

the criticism that employees are too often seen as resources

to be exploited rather than assets to be developed (Guest

2011; Marchington 2015). Employee well-being not only

implies well-being and health-related thinking; it encom-

passes all types of caring. Examples of this kind of thinking

are catering to employees’ physical and mental demands

and safeguarding their work relationships with supervisors

and colleagues (e.g. to ensure good fit in selections). The

managers surveyed also linked work–life balance, the

ageing workforce, and the differing needs of employees at

different points of their career to well-being (see Ehnert

2009b; Docherty et al. 2009; Kramar 2014), as shown in

the following excerpts:

Inthe nearfuture,it isnot self-evidentthatallemployees

will strive to reach a one hundred percent result. There

will increasingly be ageing employees and people

whose tasks must be modified according to their work

abilities and knowledge background. A responsible

employer takes into account these aspects when con-

sidering employees in their work lifecycle model.

Balance working hours with employees’ ability to

work and their family situations, so that enough free

time is available to maintain a positive work–life

balance.

We should take care of both mental and physical

strains and try to reduce both.

712 M. Järlström et al.

123

The managers also stressed the idea of mutual or shared

responsibility between the organization and its employees

for employee well-being and work conditions in this

dimension. Mutual responsibility can also be linked to

psychological contract discussion (Shore and Barksdale

1988), and mutual gains (win–win) (Appelbaum et al.

2000; Van de Voorde et al. 2012).

In terms of employee well-being, managers raised the

importance of leadership and leadership style. Here, sus-

tainable HRM enters the individual realm as well, although

other aspects have mainly related to the organizational

level. The managers shared the view that leadership style

has much to do with well-being issues, and managers

actually have a responsibility to safeguard employees’

well-being in a broad sense (health, work, and life). Sim-

ilarly related to leadership and managerial skills, managers

advocated an easily approachable personality as an

important trait for managers to have. Support for employ-

ees, and a soft leadership style appeared to be important for

sustainable HRM.

[the manager] is easily accessible…can be contacted even in the case of difficult problems…does not underestimate anyone.

The multiple entity of well-being includes good

leadership. How we treat each other.

Immediate supervisors in middle management have a

decisive role to play. They operate as interpreters of

management desires for the employees. The expertise

of immediate superiors, both in management and

leadership, must be at a high level.

Employee motivation is one of the routine tasks of man-

agers. When motivation and its determinants are considered

from the sustainability perspective, it seems that these

motivating elements should be individually tailored. Indi-

viduals are motivated by different issues (e.g. rewards, career

progress, and work–life balance) depending on issues like

age, gender, family situation, and career phase. This is why

the managers described various ways to use to motivate

employees and were aware that the same things do not

motivate all employees. Moreover, the leadership skills of

supervisors and the ability to take care of employees were

connected by managers to company results:

The better the line manager/supervisor is, the better

the result his/her team will get.

Individual differences are taken into account in

leadership.

The above excerpt reveal how the theme of employee

well-being also highlights the role of well-being in

supporting company performance, and the mutual gains

aspect (Appelbaum et al. 2000; Van De Voorde et al.

2012). The following excerpt describes the win–win situa-

tion and multiple responsibilities (economic and social) of

sustainable HRM:

Good results and caring for people go hand in hand.

Accordingly, the mutual gains model refers to an opti-

mistic view of the role that employee well-being plays in

the HRM and performance relationship (Peccei et al.

2013). This optimistic view holds that HRM has a positive

effect on both employee well-being and organizational

performance (see Van De Voorde et al. 2012). When

considering the sustainability of HRM, the target of the

optimistic view is to bring people back into the human

resource management equation (De Prins et al. 2014).

Employee well-being also seems to be related to the social

responsibility of sustainable HRM (see Ehnert 2009b;

Kramar 2014).

These results are in line with Ehnert et al.’s (2014)

concluding thoughts, namely, that HRM needs to imple-

ment practices that foster, among other things, the mental

and physical health of employees to be sustainable. Our

findings indicate that both managers and employees have a

central role to play in delivering sustainability in terms of

employee well-being. It is suggested that the central ele-

ment differentiating sustainable HRM from strategic HRM

is a call for greater focus on employee-level outcomes—

such as well-being—over the effects of HRM on organi-

zational performance (Armstrong et al. 2010; Boxall and

Macky 2009; Nishii and Wright 2008; Van De Voorde

et al. 2012). Because the strong commitment of top man-

agers is considered as a key to achieving sustainability

(Ehnert et al. 2016; Kramar 2014), the fact that the top

managers in our data outcome linked employee well-being

to sustainability is a signal of the important role that

employee well-being plays in building sustainable HRM.

Overall, the themes of employee well-being and trans-

parent HR practices dominated the answers that were

received from top managers. The importance of employee

well-being probably stems from the recent public debate on

issues about well-being in Finland, which partly relates to

an ageing workforce. This shift toward an employee-cen-

tred view of people management (Beer et al. 2015; Van

Buren III 2005) can be detected in the previous theoretical

discussion as well. In general, the theme of employee well-

being emphasized the employee focus over an organiza-

tional one. Even if an organization applies a soft HRM

approach, that in and of itself does not guarantee the well-

being of its employees.

The employer brand is an integral part of sustainable

HRM, and it is an aspect that emerged from our data as

well, but not as an individual dimension. The employer

Sustainable Human Resource Management with Salience of Stakeholders… 713

123

brand is an example of how sustainable HRM breeds out-

side of organizational boundaries and yet covers all of the

dimensions of sustainable HRM. From a sustainability

perspective, it is desirable for an organization to be rec-

ognized as an employer of choice (see Ehnert 2014) in

order to attract talented people. These managers saw the

image of the employer brand as originating within the firm,

but also saw its effects spreading beyond the firm:

The employer brand has to be based on results that

are measured and focused on a real target group. A

good internal employer brand also spreads outside the

company and serves as an efficient tool to build the

external employer brand. Co-operation with schools

and internships are also functional tools for that

purpose.

In the next section, we illustrate how the dimensions of

sustainable HRM that were elicited from our respondents

affected their firms’ stakeholders.

Stakeholders of Sustainable HRM

The managers queried referred to a wide range of stake-

holders and the stakeholders’ special roles and require-

ments in sustainable HRM; specifically, owners, managers,

employees, customers, labour unions, and employee rep-

resentatives. While there may be many ways to determine

who is the stakeholder of an organization, these specific

stakeholders seem to have both attributes of power and

legitimacy (for the organizations in our data at least) where

stakeholder salience is concerned (Mitchell et al. 1997).

Below we connect the dimensions of sustainable HRM

derived from the above analysis to the stakeholders that

were mentioned in them.

In terms of the justice and equality, national laws and

regulations along with collective agreements represent the

institutional level of influence of sustainable HRM. From

that perspective, both legislators and trade unions are

stakeholders for sustainable HRM.

Responsibility can be demanded of human resource

management as well for obeying laws, orders, con-

tracts and so on, and complying with the general

morality.

This is a natural continuum of the construction that

states that obeying laws and regulations is the starting point

of being sustainable: It logically extends to the stakehold-

ers, which have both power and legitimacy to keep track of

the actions of an organization.

Managers tended to include employees among the key

stakeholders in sustainable HRM. Employees were seen as

the primary stakeholders with power and legitimacy and in

that way, they were also highly salient (Mitchell et al.

1997; Phillips 1999). This aspect was evident, especially

when the managers referred to employee well-being and

profitability themes:

By taking care of the well-being of employees, the

organization can affect the results of the work and

also employee turnover. Well-being is a factor

through which the organization can compete for a

competent workforce.

Organizations constantly seek more efficient and pro-

ductive ways to act. These goals have a tremendous

impact on people and their work, the work environ-

ment, and doing the work. It is not self-evident to

everyone involved with 100 % motivation. You need

to be present, and communication needs to flow flu-

ently before rumours start if you wish to succeed.

The above excerpts clearly exemplify the co-existence

of the profitability and well-being themes, which may also

commit employees to an organization. Employees are

important stakeholders to the managers, but the managers

also pointed out that the relationship is reciprocal. Even if

it is the employees toward whom sustainable HRM is

primarily aimed, the managers also expect those employees

to strive to reach the goals of the organization:

Work is developed together with the employees.

Opportunities to participate increase an organiza-

tion’s productivity and well-being.

Leadership that takes employees’ competencies,

skills, and opportunities into account…

This reciprocal nature of keeping profitability and well-

being at a high level, when taken together, also signals the

nature of the employee stakeholder role. Employees have a

powerful role because they act in the name of the company

and represent the company to other stakeholders (Crane

and Matten 2004). On the other hand, the respondents saw

the role of managers (and supervisors) as to actively

safeguard the employees’ welfare. In some respects, the

concern for employee well-being might be seen as being

the role of employee representatives. Perhaps contrary to

expectations, one of the managers expressed this situation

as follows:

The unions often push the union’s interests, and

surprisingly, often the interests of an employee are

fought for by the employer

This view indicates that there are various expectations

for employees, managers, and employee representatives,

and a balance between these roles needs to be found to

reach sustainability.

714 M. Järlström et al.

123

The profitability dimension of sustainable HRM natu-

rally related to shareholders as a stakeholder group.

Although shareholders are considered to be the main actors

who are truly interested in the profitability and perfor-

mance of the organization, the same concerns affect

employees as well. As the following extract illustrates, the

profitability aspect is important to several types of

stakeholders:

We are working for and responsible to our owners. In

the same vein, we are also responsible to each other

for the success [of the firm]. Everyone wants to be

part of a successful company and benefit from the

elements that success brings, such as flexibility, a

good working environment, happy customers, eco-

nomic benefits…

As illustrated above, good profitability helps build

flexible HR practices and employee well-being. Jamali

et al. (2015) recognized that different actions taken by the

company contribute to the well-being of employees as a

stakeholder group. These include (among others) family

friendly work environment, open and flexible communi-

cation, employee development, equitable reward systems,

and overall fair treatment of employees.

Leaders and managers are another stakeholder group

that were reported by managers to be affected by sustain-

able HRM. Leaders are part of the entire HRM system and

can, therefore, be nominated as stakeholders in any of the

four dimensions of sustainable HRM. Leadership and the

role of leaders are both central for how they can affect the

CSR–HR interface, i.e. responsible leadership (Gond et al.

2011). The respondents particularly mentioned leadership

development:

At the moment, the leaders’ abilities and skills to lead

employees as people with feelings play a minor role

in executive development.

The employee representatives or unions were also seen

as a stakeholder group, which do have the power and

legitimacy to follow the impacts of the organization’s

actions on employees (e.g. layoffs or major organizational

changes). They also have a central role in the actions

between managers and employees. The managers viewed

having ‘‘a working relationship with employee represen-

tatives’’ as relevant when sustainability in HRM is targeted.

Although the managers emphasized internal stakehold-

ers in sustainable HRM (e.g. employees, managers, and

employee representatives), they also picked up on the

importance of customers as external stakeholders:

In a service industry, it is important to understand the

operative level and the possible customer interface

and their effects on HRM.

To conclude, the dimensions of sustainable HRM

revealed several connections to internal and external

stakeholders. The stakeholders identified in the justice and

equality dimension were legislators, labour unions, and

employer organizations. The stakeholders identified in the

transparent HR practices dimension were managers who

implement HR practices, and the employees who are the

target of those practices. The stakeholders identified in the

profitability dimension were owners, and also managers,

because they are involved in creating business strategies

and are responsible for the overall success of the organi-

zation. Finally, in the employee well-being dimension, the

employees are the main stakeholders, but managers and

supervisors also play an important role as actors who are

safeguarding employee well-being.

Further, the managers connected several stakeholders to

sustainable HRM and discussed their special roles and

requirements (see Guerci and Shani 2013; Jackson and

Schuler 2003). This occurrence is in the line with March-

ington (2015), who suggests that there is a place for moral

and business case sustainability for HRM, if a more bal-

anced engagement with all stakeholders is desired.

Discussion

Our goal in this study was to increase the knowledge of

sustainable HRM, its dimensions and responsibility areas,

and the key stakeholders as perceived by top managers. In

our qualitative analysis study, we identified four dimen-

sions of sustainable HRM in top managers’ answers: Jus-

tice and equality, transparent HR practices, profitability,

and employee well-being. We combined these dimensions

into several correspondingly broader responsibility areas of

sustainable HRM: Legal and ethical, managerial, eco-

nomic, and social responsibility. In addition, our findings

indicate that the top managers referred to the wide range of

stakeholders found in sustainable HRM, and specifically,

owners, managers, employees, and trade unions were

mentioned in this regard. These findings show that,

depending on the dimension of sustainable HRM, some

stakeholders seem to be more important than others. For

example, legislators and trade unions related mainly to

justice and equality, shareholders and other owners, and

managers related to profitability, managers (and supervi-

sors) related to employee well-being, and finally, employ-

ees related to transparent HR practices, employee well-

being, and profitability, which may indicate their impor-

tance and thus their salience as a stakeholder group. In the

following sections, we discuss the contributions this study

makes to the sustainable HRM literature, and stakeholder

theory.

Sustainable Human Resource Management with Salience of Stakeholders… 715

123

Theoretical Contributions

Our study makes several contributions to the under-

standing of sustainable HRM from a top management

perspective. The sustainable HRM concept itself and its

related stakeholders have been unclear and ambiguous in

the sustainable HRM literature (Ehnert and Harry 2012;

Ehnert et al. 2014; Guerci et al. 2014; Jackson and Seo

2010). In spite of top management’s crucial role in

defining and legitimating the HRM system and HR

practices (Azmi and Mushtaq 2013; Legge 2005), and

sustainable HRM, the top management perspective has

been largely ignored in the prior sustainable HRM liter-

ature, which has focused mainly on sustainability report-

ing (e.g. Ehnert et al. 2016) and conceptual development

and literature reviews (e.g. Kramar 2014). We continued

the research stream that has investigated sustainability

reporting practices by the world’s largest companies

(Ehnert et al. 2016) by including the HRM perspective.

The findings here on the dimensions of sustainable HRM

combine the managerial, economic, social, legal, and

ethical elements of sustainability into a single entity.

Interestingly, the findings mainly ignore the ecological (or

environmental) elements in sustainable HRM (e.g. Jack-

son and Seo 2010; Jackson et al. 2011; Renwick et al.

2008, 2013, 2016), and thus provide support for Ehnert’s

sustainable HRM model (2009a, b, 2014) instead of

supporting the model by Kramar (2014).

The main reason for the absence of these environmental

issues in the findings, however, was less evident. Although

environmental issues are important in organizations, they

can be related to sustainable management in general rather

than to HRM specifically. Indeed, according to a study by

National Environmental Education Foundation (2009), the

organizational units such as CSR, Environmental Safety

and Health, and Marketing and Sales are more likely to

actively lead environmental sustainability initiatives than

the unit of Human Relations. However, more recent studies

on green HRM suggest that applying HR practices based

on green HRM would lead to improved organizational

performance and employee well-being (Renwick et al.

2013, 2016) suggesting that environmental management is

closely linked to HRM too.

Our study contributes to the sustainable HRM research

and systems (e.g. Ehnert 2009a; Ehnert et al. 2014; Kramar

2014) by presenting the four dimensions of sustainable

HRM and their broader responsibility areas from a top

management perspective. Compared to CSR responsibili-

ties or social responsibilities (Carroll 1991), sustainable

HRM supports the legal, ethical, and economic responsi-

bilities of CSR, neglects the philanthropic responsibility of

CSR, and raises managerial and social responsibility as two

new responsibility areas. Therefore, our findings can indi-

cate that sustainable HRM can be partially seen as a feature

of social responsibility at the organizational level. Espe-

cially, it appears that managerial responsibility refers to

those HRM practices that are applied in organizations (Van

De Voorde et al. 2012).

Our results contribute also to the call for more discus-

sion on the ways in which HRM can contribute to or be

involved in CSR (Jamali et al. 2015). Sustainable HRM can

fill this gap by taking into account the four dimensions and

their interconnected roles in people management. The

identification of these four dimensions brings forth precise

elements that can build ‘good HRM’ (Gond et al. 2011),

thereby opening the current discussion on what is the actual

interface or boundary between HRM and CSR.

The discussion about the role that HRM plays in

building the sustainability of organizations is part of the

broader discussion about the future of HRM. Respect for

humanity at work (Cleveland et al. 2015) is seen as the

future direction for HRM. It means that the future role

of HRM and the managers involved in HRM is broad

and crosses the boundaries of different contexts, e.g.

organizational context, society, and the wider (global)

environment (Cleveland et al. 2015). As Cleveland et al.

(2015) suggest, HRM plays a critical role in advancing

this new direction and needs to be the employees’

advocate. Sustainability thinking in HRM can help to do

just that.

Further, these findings contribute to the theory of

stakeholder salience (Mitchell et al. 1997) by identifying

the important stakeholders in sustainable HRM conducted

by top managers. Although stakeholders have been inclu-

ded in discussions of sustainability (e.g. Hörisch et al.

2014), ethics (e.g. Greenwood and Freeman 2011), CSR

(e.g. Jamali 2008; Jamali et al. 2015), HRM (Ferrary 2009;

Jackson and Schuler 2003), and also sustainable HRM

(Guerci et al. 2014), our unique contribution stems from

the explicit link found between each dimension of sus-

tainable HRM and specific stakeholder group(s) that sup-

ports the theory of stakeholder salience (Mitchell et al.

1997), especially from a top management perspective

(Parent and Deephouse 2007). As shown in our findings,

sustainable HRM indicates stakeholder power and legiti-

macy (Greenwood and Van Buren III 2010; Mitchell et al.

1997) rather than urgency (situation based); therefore,

including the stakeholder perspective on sustainable HRM

is justifiable (Guerci et al. 2014). Indirectly, our findings

also give support to an open-system HRM model (Beer

et al. 1984, 2015; Van Buren III and Greenwood 2011) by

considering both internal and external stakeholders and

their values and roles in building sustainable HRM in

organizations.

716 M. Järlström et al.

123

The findings also indicate the salient role of employees

in sustainable HRM, which may partially be explained by

the Nordic context in this instance (Andersen 2008) and the

role of unions and collective agreements as important

elements of sustainable HRM in Finland. Correspondingly,

top managers see the equal treatment of all employees as

important, which is a Western and especially a Nordic

value as well (Lindeberg et al. 2004). Our results, as they

relate to employees and their well-being are in line with

Ehnert et al.’s (2014) concluding view that HRM needs to

implement practices that foster, among other goals,

employee mental and physical health to be fully

sustainable.

Our findings also indicate that managers and employees

both have a central role to play in delivering the sustain-

ability of employee well-being. Because the strong com-

mitment of top managers is considered the key to achieving

sustainability (Ehnert et al. 2016; Kramar 2014), the fact

that the top managers in our data did link employees to

sustainability is a signal about the important role of

employee well-being in building sustainable HRM. Next,

we will offer certain precise implications for practice.

Practical Implications

In addition to contributing to theory, this study offers

several important issues useful in actual organizational

practice. For instance, in line with Lamm et al. (2015), we

believe it is possible to encourage sustainable behaviour

among employees in an ecological sense, too. For example,

sustainable HRM could encompass work practices that

reduce the use of resources (energy, paper, water use) and

travelling. If this is the case, there should be more open

discussion about what sustainability actually means in

organizations and how HRM does relate to sustainable

management in general. One of the traditional roles of the

HR function is that of a change agent to foster organiza-

tional cultural changes (Ulrich 1997); consequently, it is

the task of a company’s HR to implement organization-

wide change in sustainability thinking and practices. Jamali

et al. (2015) also suggest that the objective for HR man-

agers is to promote change in CSR.

HR managers need to adapt to face new challenges from

their internal and external environments. The increasing

emphasis on sustainable HRM may also lead to an updating

of the roles and competencies of HR professionals, as they

strive to contribute more to organizational effectiveness.

To seize new opportunities successfully, HRM will have to

undertake new roles, such as understanding and partnering

with multiple stakeholders and balancing all their concerns.

Our findings suggest that there is a need for both long-term

and outside-in perspectives in HRM combined with a

simultaneous focus on people and the business (Ulrich and

Brockbank 2005). Transparency requires coherent and uni-

vocal messages, and hence, the development of consensus

between all decision makers (Bowen and Ostroff 2004;

Guerci and Pedrini 2014). Transparency, which related to

HR practices in our study, may also spread outside of the

organization in the future more than it does at present, and

would thus demand more awareness from managers on what

aspects of sustainable HRM should be reported and how that

reporting is successfully implemented. The pressure on

organizations to include sustainability elements in their

reporting is already evident, although much of the current

reporting is now voluntary (e.g. Ehnert et al. 2016; Hahn and

Kühnen 2013). Companies report information to convey

their transparency and ultimately to discharge their duty for

providing accountability to their stakeholders (e.g. Gray

et al. 1995, 1996; Roberts 2009).

The practical contribution of this research is the obser-

vation that the ways in which top managers construct

sustainable HRM is important, because top managers do

pass their viewpoints on to other stakeholders, both internal

and external ones. Top managers play a critical role in

legitimating HR practices, allocating resources, and influ-

encing within-group agreement in the organizational hier-

archy (Bowen and Ostroff 2004). Thus, how these

managers think about sustainable HRM may concretize

into new actions and actual behaviours. We agree with

Kramar (2014), who has stated that in the implementation

of HRM policies, it is the top managers who must play a

central role by sending consistent messages to their line

managers who then are responsible for the actual imple-

mentation of all relevant practices (Bowen and Ostroff

2004).

Sustainable HRM can be a more visible part of CSR

reports and programs in the future, which will also increase

awareness of this topic. The dimensions of sustainable

HRM can also be complemented by such measures (Kra-

mar 2014), for example the quality of the employment

relationship, the health and well-being of the workforce,

actual productivity, the quality of relationships at work, the

employer brand, work–life balance, and the costs associ-

ated with business travel.

We next discuss the limitations of our study and offer

suggestions for future research.

Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Future

Research

Our findings contribute to the further understanding of

sustainable HRM and stakeholders, but the effort did have

Sustainable Human Resource Management with Salience of Stakeholders… 717

123

several limitations that we need to be acknowledged here.

The first one relates to our target group and the cross-

sectional research design. Because this study focused on

top managers’ perceptions of sustainable HRM, it is pos-

sible that their hierarchical positions might have affected

their answers (Parent and Deephouse 2007). For example,

the managers largely ignored any environmental discussion

(Jackson and Seo 2010; Jackson et al. 2011; Renwick et al.

2008, 2013, 2016), contract workers, and customers. We

expect that this choice is related to stakeholder salience but

that inference needs further studies for clarification. It is

also possible that top managers will employ particular

interpretations of sustainable HRM that reflect well on

themselves (e.g. Christensen et al. 2013; Rojo and van Dijk

1997), and accordingly, the answers they gave may not

represent the reality that exists in their organizations, but

rather their rhetorical management intentions or even their

aspirations.

Acquiring a better view of actual organizational reality

might involve studies that investigate other employee

groups, such as manual and clerical workers, as their ideas

about sustainable HRM might differ greatly from those of

the managers interviewed for this study. With a different

focus group, we could have gained different results—

middle managers would likely discuss customers and

contract workers more, and employees would likely discuss

the permanent employment relationship, outsourcing,

health care, or increasing employee influence.

Different stakeholders might also apply different deci-

sion-making logic and power as both relate to the impor-

tance of sustainability and their own operation areas (see

Greenwood and Van Buren III 2010; Hahn et al. 2015). For

example, trade unions and customers might focus on

employee-level outcomes (employee well-being, commit-

ment, intent to stay, etc.) more than they would on orga-

nizational outcomes (profit, market share, etc.). Similarly, a

stakeholder perspective may expand to include social

activists (Fineman and Clarke 1996), who may take a more

active role if the company is not taking care of its

employees. The urgency attribute was not visible in our

data, and longitudinal studies are required to understand the

potential changes in the salience of stakeholders and their

attributes more clearly (Mitchell et al. 1997; Parent and

Deephouse 2007).

Second, Brewster and Mayrhofer (2012) reported that

geographic location is an important factor when explaining

how HRM is understood, which stakeholders’ HRM is

meant to serve, the practices that spur legitimacy, and the

effects of specific HR practices. Because a global con-

sensus on the meaning of sustainability in HRM does seem

unlikely (Kramar 2014), the main limitations of this study

then link to the context in which it was conducted. Hence,

the context is a Nordic (or Scandinavian) country, which do

score high in terms of equality, social welfare, and CSR

activity (Accountability 2007; Ryner 2007). The dimen-

sions of sustainable HRM that we identified herein con-

structed the meaning of sustainability in HRM from the

perspective of Nordic top managers. However, we believe

that these findings can also be generalized to most Western

countries. Finland is a modern developed country, and we

do expect that the meaning of sustainability might differ in

other contexts, such as in those developing countries

struggling with child labour, bad working conditions,

environmental sustainability issues, or resource scarcity

and/or depletion. While the dimensions of sustainable

HRM do not reveal which dimension is the most dominant

one, further studies could investigate the relationship

between the dimensions and in so doing identify others as

well. One path for future research would be to study how

the concept of sustainable HRM fits into research on CSR–

HRM interface (Gond et al. 2011; Jamali et al. 2015).

Third, the importance of the supply chain as it relates to

HRM was mainly ignored (see Ehnert et al. 2016).

Although some external stakeholders were mentioned,

there is still a long way to go to fully understand the

supplier–organization–customer value chain because sup-

pliers, like customers, may also evaluate an organization

based on the level of sustainable HRM, including their

impressions of how employees are treated in that

organization.

Finally, the topic of sustainable HRM can benefit from

more discussion of the links between HRM and sustain-

ability and the differences between sustainable HRM and

strategic HRM as well as the role HRM plays in an overall

CSR discussion (Gond et al. 2011; Jamali 2008; Jamali

et al. 2015). Especially, the boundary and overlap between

CSR and HRM needs more discussion (Gond et al. 2011).

Sustainable HRM as a term may refer to the type of people

management that brings the social dimension of HRM to

the CSR discussion and represents the ‘‘good HRM’’ that

Gond et al. (2011) mention.

Conclusions

Based on a general discussion of sustainability and stake-

holders in organizations (e.g. Hörisch et al. 2014), business

ethics, green HRM, social responsibility, responsible

leadership, and the ethical aspects of human resource

management (HRM) have received increasing attention

among scholars (Cooke and He 2010; de Gama et al. 2012;

Gond et al. 2011; Greenwood 2013; Jackson and Seo 2010;

718 M. Järlström et al.

123

Morgeson et al. 2013; Renwick et al. 2008, 2013, 2016;

Voegtlin et al. 2012; Waldman and Siegel 2008). CSR,

responsible leadership, ethics in HRM, and sustainable

HRM all relate in different ways to the social responsibility

and stakeholders. One important question a stakeholder

theory asks is: ‘‘What responsibility does management

have to stakeholders?’’ (Freeman et al. 2004, p. 364).

Hence, we focused on sustainable HRM (Clarke 2011;

Ehnert 2009a; Ehnert et al. 2014), which seeks to connect

corporate sustainability to HRM practices and develop

sustainable business organizations with sustainable HRM

systems. By focusing on top managers’ responses, we

identified four dimensions of sustainable HRM and corre-

sponding broader responsibility areas, and illustrated how

they are linked to salient stakeholders. This relationship has

previously attracted only limited research attention (for

exceptions see, Guerci and Shani 2013; Schuler and Jack-

son 2014), and is a step forward in conceptualizing the

sustainable HRM concept (Ehnert et al. 2014). The findings

indicated that although employees are a key stakeholder

group in sustainable HRM and salient based on their

legitimacy and power, sustainable HRM relates to multiple

stakeholders supporting stakeholder theory (Freeman

1984). Thus, sustainable HRM seems to bring the people

and respect for humanity back to the human resource

management (Cleveland et al. 2015) and widen the future

HR perspective to include both internal and external

stakeholders as well as more employee-oriented thinking in

organizations turning the leadership also to a more

responsible direction (Gond et al. 2011; Voegtlin et al.

2012). Based on our findings, sustainable HRM relates

CSR to organizational level, and leads towards ‘good

HRM’ (Gond et al. 2011) by bringing new responsibility

areas into social responsibility (Carroll 1991). Therefore,

there is a call for further studies which integrate CSR and

HRM (Jamali et al. 2015; Gond et al. 2011) to extend our

knowledge and understanding of the connection between

CSR and HRM and sustainability in HRM. Our focus on

sustainable HRM with a keen relation to CSR is connected

to a wider discussion on business ethics (Grace 1995)

raising thus a need for further research on the relationship

between sustainability in HRM and business ethics.

Sustainable Human Resource Management with Salience of Stakeholders… 719

123

Appendix 1: Structure of the Data

Illustrative Quotes Related to Sustainable HRM Categories Aggregate Dimensions "Distribute and allocate human resources in the most suitable way. Neither too sloppy nor too tight." "To ensure recruitment in difficult fields, such as nursing."

"I think that sustainable human resource management is taking care of employees competencies so that it benefits the business. It is the best way to maintain jobs and job satisfaction." "In my opinion competence management is extremely important from the sustainability perspective since that is one way the company stays competitive, but also the individuals stay competitive in the job markets in case they need to change jobs."

"Pay should be based on the job demands and on a transparent payroll system. Rewards should apply to the whole personnel, not just the top management." "Pay and job tasks need to be synchronized taking the level of training into account."

"Particularly in expert organizations, career planning should play a central role." "Committing to the right kind of competencies and developing those so that a win-win situation is created. Caring, and building a personal career path."

"Giving people the opportunity to participate in planning and developing their own work has positive effects on motivation, and that way the responsibility for individuals' work is shifted to the employees." "We make sure that it is possible for everyone to develop in their own job by discussing their interests and needs with every employee."

"Flexibility in terms of working hours will play an even bigger role as an employer offering in the future. Daily flexibility or longer leave periods help employees (to balance their lives and) wellbeing, but are demanding for HR planning. In the future, those organizations able to offer flexible working hours will have an advantage." "Money, job descriptions, flexible working hours, remote working, vacations, retirement - there needs to be room for flexibility in these areas."

"Includes all of the issues related to the employment relationship, and as such is also linked to the collective agreements, laws etc. At the same time it speaks of the organization taking responsibility for the employment relationship." "The organization acts in accordance with the agreements and decisions made (nationally and locally)."

"In the recruitment process, ethnic groups, age structures, gender and health are considered in order to get a diverse workforce which will then be led well." "A big employer needs common, equal, and just rules for everyone but there needs to be room for well grounded flexibility too."

Diversity management

"Ethicality is the cornerstone of good human resource management even now. In the future, it will be the lifeblood of good human resource management, as well as of management in general." "As a company we will act ethically in everything we do and towards everyone. We treat our personnel equally as far as that is possible. We address difficult matters. We invest in leadership and that way make sure that the company has good leaders. We take into account the special needs of our personnel."

"Walk as you talk. For example, if you demand your followers cut travelling costs, do so yourself too." "A leader's decisions should be well grounded, transparent, and understandable. The decisions need to be based on the same principles in every case. If exeptional decisions need to be made, those need to be well justified."

Participation

Career planning

Rewarding

Ethicality as a cornerstone of

HRM

Exemplary behavior as a manager

Obeying laws & regulations

Flexibility

Competence development

Recruitment and allocation of human

resources

Transparent HR practices

Justice & equality

720 M. Järlström et al.

123

Appendix 2: Structure of the Data

Illustrative Quotes Related to Sustainable HRM Categories Aggregate Dimensions

"Employee development, work motivation, and commitment to their work, all of this is based on good leadership." "To be easily approachable. Possible to contact in difficult matters. A leader does not underestimate anybody." "The employees need to be able to trust their superior in multiple areas of working life." “The individual differences are taken into account in leadership" "People and only people do all the work. Only if you understand the needs, motivation, and activities of these people, can sustainable results be achieved." "Motivation stems from the feeling that your work is meaningful and appreciated. A motivated employee is responsible, hard-working, inventive, committed and feels good."

"Both mental and physical stress factors need to be taken into account and we must strive to reduce them." "To take care that no one gets hurt or perish at work." "Well organized occupational health and safety and occupational health care will serve both sides [employees, employer]." "The importance of mental well-being grows in future." "How do we treat each other?"

"Human resource management is not a separate task but is planned to support "HR is part of strategic management and it follows the changes in the business environment from the business perspective, not only from the HR perspective; and it will seek solutions to reach business goals."

"It is not wise to take a back seat. There is always something to learn and improve. There are numerous improvement opportunities ranging from human resource management to organizational development."

"Sustainability is a moving and developing target. One needs to be aware of the direction the interpretations of responsible business are taking and how they affect human resource management."

"When making decisions one needs to keep the totality of the business in mind and think what is best in the long-term." "The most important thing is to create opportunities for comprehensive human resource managment while keeping the company vision, strategy, economic realities and the operating environment in mind."

"To do right things in a profitable way. HR managers need to look at things from the business perspective and from the profitability perspective. The human resource matters behind the numbers are important too." "Business thinking is one of the cornerstones of HR-management."

Leadership style

Caring & support of employees

Proactiveness in actions

Long-term thinking

Business knowledge of HR

leader

Integration of HRM and strategy

Profitability

Employee Well-being

Sustainable Human Resource Management with Salience of Stakeholders… 721

123

References

Accountability. (2007). The state of responsible competitiveness

2007. Making sustainable development count in global markets.

Retrieved April 13, 2015, from http://www.accountability.org/

images/content/0/7/075/The%20State%20of%20Responsible%

20Competitiveness.pdf.

Andersen, T. M. (2008). The Scandinavian model—Prospects and

challenges. International Tax and Public Finance, 15, 45–66.

Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. (2000).

Manufacturing advantage: Why high performance work systems

pay off. New York: Cornell University Press.

Armstrong, C., Flood, P., Guthrie, J., Liu, W., Maccurtain, S., &

Mkamwa, T. (2010). The impact of diversity and equality

management on firm performance: Beyond high performance

work systems. Human Resource Management, 49(6), 977–998.

Azmi, F. T., & Mushtaq, S. (2013). Assessing the role of internal and

external agents in HRM: Scale development and validation.

South Asian Journal of Management, 20(3), 74–103.

Beer, M., Boselie, P., & Brewster, C. (2015). Back to the future:

Implications for the field of HRM of the multistakeholder

perspective proposed 30 years ago. Human Resource Manage-

ment, 54(3), 427–438.

Beer, M., Spector, R., Lawrence, P., Quinn Mills, D., & Walton, R.

(1984). Human resource management: A general manager’s

perspective. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of

reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City,

NY: Anchor Books.

Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM–firm

performance linkages: The role of the ‘‘strength’’ of the HRM

system. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 203–221.

Boxall, P., & Macky, K. (2009). Research and theory on high-

performance work systems: Processing the high-involvement

stream. Human Resource Management Journal, 19, 3–23.

Brewster, C., & Mayrhofer, W. (2012). Handbook of research on

comparative HRM. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Browning, V., & Delahaye, B. (2011). Enhancing workplace learning

through collaborative HRD. In M. Clarke (Ed.), Readings in

HRM and sustainability (pp. 36–50). Melbourne: Tilde Univer-

sity Press.

Byrkjeflot, H. (2001). The Nordic model of democracy and manage-

ment. In H. Byrkjeflot, S. Myklebust, C. Myrvang, & F.

Sejersted (Eds.), The democratic challenge to capitalism:

Management and democracy in the Nordic countries (pp.

19–21). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility:

Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders.

Business Horizons, 34, 39–48.

Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2013). CSR as

aspirational talk. Organization, 20, 372–393.

Clarke, M. (2011). Sustainable HRM: A new approach to people

management. In M. Clarke (Ed.), Readings in HRM and

sustainability (pp. 1–7). Melbourne: Tilde University Press.

Cleveland, J. N., Byrne, S., & Cavanagh, T. M. (2015). The future of

HR is RH: Respect for humanity at work. Human Resource

Management Review, 25, 146–161.

Cohen, E. (2010). CSR for HR: A necessary partnership for

advancing responsible business practices. Sheffield: Greenleaf.

Cohen, E., Taylor, S., & Muller-Camen, M. (2012). HRM’s role in

corporate social and environmental sustainability. SHRM

Report. Retrieved April 24, 2015, from http://www.wfpma.

com/sites/wfpma.com/files/CSR%20Report%20FINAL%202012.

pdf.

Cooke, F., & He, Q. (2010). Corporate social responsibility and HRM

in China: A study of textile and apparel enterprises. Asia Pacific

Business Review, 16, 355–376.

Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2004). Business ethics, a European

perspective: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability

in the age of globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cranet. (2011). International executive report: Cranet survey on

comparative HRM. Cranfield: Cranfield University.

de Gama, N., McKenna, S., & Peticca-Harris, A. (2012). Ethics and

HRM: Theoretical and conceptual analysis experiences of HR

professionals. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 97–108.

De Prins, P., Van Beirenbrock, L., De Vos, A., & Segers, J. (2014).

Sustainable HRM: Bridging theory and practice through the

‘Respect Openness Continuity (ROC)’ model. Management

Revue, 25(4), 263–284.

Docherty, P., Forselin, J., Shani, A., & Kira, M. (2002). Emerging

work systems: From intensive to sustainable. In P. Docherty, J.

Forselin, & A. B. Shani (Eds.), Creating work systems. Emerging

perspectives and practice (pp. 3–14). London: Routledge.

Docherty, P., Kira, M., & Shani, A. (2009). Creating sustainable work

systems: Developing social sustainability. Abingdon: Routledge.

Donnelly, N., & Proctor-Thompson, S. (2011). Workplace sustain-

ability and employee voice. In M. Clarke (Ed.), Readings in

HRM and sustainability (pp. 117–132). Melbourne: Tilde

University Press.

Egri, C. P., & Hornal, R. C. (2002). Strategic environmental human

resource management and perceived organizational perfor-

mance: An exploratory study of the Canadian manufacturing

sector. In S. Sharma & M. Starik (Eds.), Research in corporate

sustainability: The evolving theory and practice of organizations

in the natural environment (pp. 205–236). Northampton, MA:

Edward Elgar.

Ehnert, I. (2009a). Sustainable human resource management: A

conceptual and exploratory analysis from a paradox perspective.

Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.

Ehnert, I. (2009b). Sustainability and human resource management:

Reasoning and applications on corporate websites. European

Journal of International Management, 3(4), 419–438.

Ehnert, I. (2014). Paradox as a lens for theorizing sustainable HRM.

In I. Ehnert, W. Harry, & K. J. Zink (Eds.), Sustainability and

human resource management developing sustainable business

organizations (pp. 247–272). Heidelberg: Springer.

Ehnert, I., & Harry, W. (2012). Recent developments and future

prospects on sustainable human resource management: Intro-

duction to the special issue. Management Revue, 23(3), 221–238.

Ehnert, I., Harry, W., & Zink, K. J. (2014). Sustainability and HRM.

In I. Ehnert, W. Harry, & K. J. Zink (Eds.), Sustainability and

human resource management developing sustainable business

organizations (pp. 3–32). Heidelberg: Springer.

Ehnert, I., Parsa, S., Roper, I., Wagner, M., & Muller-Camen, M.

(2016). Reporting on sustainability and HRM: A comparative

study of sustainability reporting practices by the world’s largest

companies. The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 27(1), 88–108.

Elkington, J. (1988). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of

the 21st century business. Gabriola Island/Stony Creek: New

Society Publishers.

Ferrary, M. (2009). A stakeholder’s perspective on human resource

management. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 31–43.

Fineman, S., & Clarke, K. (1996). Green stakeholders: Industry

interpretations and response. Journal of Management Studies,

33, 715–730.

Fombrun, C., Tichy, N., & Devanna, M. (Eds.). (1984). Strategic

human resource management. New York: Wiley.

722 M. Järlström et al.

123

Francis, H. (2002). The power of ‘‘talk’’ in HRM-based change.

Personnel Review, 31(4), 432–448.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder

approach. Boston: Pitman.

Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A., & Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder theory

and ‘‘the corporate objective revisited’’. Organization Science,

15(3), 364–369.

Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2012). Seeking

qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia

methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.

Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Identity, image, and issue

interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in Acade-

mia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 370–403.

Gond, J.-P., Igalens, J., Swaen, V., & El Akremi, A. (2011). The

human resource contribution to responsible leadership: An

exploration of the CSR–HR interface. Journal of Business

Ethics, 98, 115–132.

Grace, D. (1995). Business ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gray, R., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1995). Constructing a research

database of social and environmental reporting by UK compa-

nies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 8, 78–101.

Gray, R., Owen, D., & Adams, C. (1996). Accounting and account-

ability: Changes and challenges in corporate, social and

environmental reporting. London: Prentice Hall.

Greenwood, M. (2002). Ethics and HRM: A review and conceptual

analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 36(3), 261–279.

Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of

corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 315–327.

Greenwood, M. (2013). Ethical analyses of HRM: A review and

research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 114, 355–366.

Greenwood, M., & Freeman, R. E. (2011). Ethics and HRM: The

contribution of stakeholder theory. Business & Professional

Ethics Journal, 30(3–4), 269–292.

Greenwood, M., & Van Buren III, H. J. (2010). Trust and stakeholder

theory: Trustworthiness in the organization–stakeholder rela-

tionship. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 425–438.

Guerci, M., & Pedrini, M. (2014). The consensus between Italian HR

and sustainability managers on HR management for sustainabil-

ity-driven change—Towards a ‘strong’ HR management system.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management,

25(13), 1787–1814.

Guerci, M., & Shani, A. (2013). Moving toward stakeholder-based

HRM: A perspective of Italian HR managers. The International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(6), 1130–1150.

Guerci, M., & Shani, A. (2014). Stakeholder involvement in human

resource management practices: Evidence from Italy. Manage-

ment Revue, 25(2), 80–102.

Guerci, M., Shani, A. B., & Solari, L. (2014). A stakeholder

perspective for sustainable HRM. In I. Ehnert, W. Harry, & K.

J. Zink (Eds.), Sustainability and human resource management

developing sustainable business organizations (pp. 205–224).

Heidelberg: Springer.

Guest, D. (2011). Human resource management and performance: A

review and research agenda. The International Journal of

Human Resource Management, 8(3), 263–276.

Hahn, R., & Kühnen, M. (2013). Determinants of sustainability

reporting: A review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities

in an expanding field of research. Journal of Cleaner Production,

59, 5–21.

Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., & Figge, F. (2015). Tensions in

corporate sustainability: Towards an integrative framework.

Journal of Business Ethics, 127, 297–316.

Hartog, M., & Muller-Camen, M. (2008). Corporate social respon-

sibility and sustainable HRM. In M. Muller-Camen, R.

Croucher, & L. Susan (Eds.), Human resource management: A

case study approach (pp. 467–488). London: CIPD.

Hörisch, J., Freeman, E., & Schaltegger, S. (2014). Applying

stakeholder theory in sustainability management: Links, simi-

larities, dissimilarities, and a conceptual framework. Organiza-

tion & Environment, 27(4), 328–346.

Jabbour, C., & Santos, F. (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.

Jackson, S. E., Renwick, D., Jabbour, C., & Muller-Camen, M.

(2011). State-of-the-art and future directions for green human

resource management: Introduction into the special issue.

Zeitschrift fur Personalforschung, 25(2), 99–116.

Jackson, S., & Schuler, R. (2003). Managing human resources

through strategic partnerships (8th ed.). Mason, OH: Thompson/

South-Western.

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

scholarship. Organization Management Journal, 7, 278–290.

Jamali, D. (2008). A stakeholder approach to corporate social

responsibility: A fresh perspective into theory and practice.

Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 213–231.

Jamali, D., El Dirani, A., & Harwood, I. A. (2015). Exploring human

resource management roles in corporate social responsibility:

The CSR–HRM co-creation model. Business Ethics: A European

Review, 2(2), 125–143.

Kramar, R. (2014). Beyond strategic human resource management: Is

sustainable human resource management the next approach. The

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(8),

1069–1089.

Lamm, E., Tosti-Kharas, J., & King, C. E. (2015). Empowering

employee sustainability: Perceived organizational support

toward the environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 128,

207–220.

Legge, K. (2005). Human resource management: Rhetoric and

reality. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lindeberg, T., Månsson, B., & Vanhala, S. (2004). Sweden and

Finland: Small countries with large companies. In C. Brewster,

W. Mayrhofer, & M. Morley (Eds.), Human resource manage-

ment in Europe: Evidence of convergence? (pp. 279–312).

Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Lindström, S., & Vanhala, S. (2013). Performance in local govern-

ment HRM: The role of external customers. Baltic Journal of

Management, 8(3), 252–368.

Marchington, M. (2015). Human resource management (HRM): Too

busy looking up to see where it is going longer term? Human

Resource Management Review, 25, 176–187.

Mariappanadar, S. (2003). Sustainable human resource strategy. The

sustainable and unsustainable dilemmas of retrenchment. Inter-

national Journal of Social Economics, 30(8), 906–932.

Mariappanadar, S. (2012). The harm indicators of negative externality

of efficiency focused organizational practices. International

Journal of Social Economics, 39, 209–220.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis:

An expanded source book. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory

of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle

of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review,

22, 853–886.

Morgeson, F. P., Aguinis, H., Waldman, D. A., & Siegel, D. S.

(2013). Extending corporate social responsibility research to the

human resource management and organizational behavior

domains: A look to the future. Personnel Psychology, 66,

805–824.

National Environmental Education Foundation. (2009). The engaged

organization: Corporate employee environmental education

survey and case study findings. Washington, DC: National

Environmental Education Foundation.

Sustainable Human Resource Management with Salience of Stakeholders… 723

123

Nishii, L., & Wright, P. (2008). Variability within organizations:

Implications for strategic human resource management. In D.

B. Smith (Ed.), The people make the place: Dynamic linkages

between individuals and organizations (pp. 225–248). New

York: Taylor & Francis.

OECD. (2014). Economic Survey of Finland 2014. Retrieved April

12, 2015, from http://www.oecd.org/eco/surveys/economic-sur

vey-finland.htm.

Osland, A., & Osland, J. S. (2007). Aracruz Celulose: Best practices

icon but still at risk. International Journal of Manpower, 28(5),

435–450.

Parent, M., & Deephouse, D. (2007). A case study of stakeholder

identification and prioritization by managers. Journal of Busi-

ness Ethics, 75(1), 1–23.

Peccei, R., Van De Voorde, K., & Van Veldhoven, M. (2013). HRM,

well-being and performance: A theoretical and empirical review.

In J. Paauwe, D. Guest, & P. Wright (Eds.), HRM and

performance. Achievements and challenges (pp. 15–46). Chich-

ester: Wiley.

Pfeffer, J. (1998). Seven practices of successful organizations.

California Management Review, 40(2), 96–124.

Phillips, R. (1999). On stakeholder delimitation. Business and

Society, 38, 32–34.

Post, J., Preston, L., & Sachs, S. (2002). Managing the extended

enterprise: The new stakeholder view. California Management

Review, 45, 6–28.

Renwick, D., Jabbour, C., Muller-Camen, M., Redman, T., &

Wilkinson, A. (2016). Contemporary developments in green

(environmental) HRM scholarship. The International Journal of

Human Resource Management, 27(2), 114–128. doi:10.1080/

09585192.2015.1105844.

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

review, process model, and research agenda. University of

Sheffield Discussion Paper No. 2008:01. Retrieved April 10,

2015, from http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.120337!/

file/Green-HRM.pdf.

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

resource management: A review and research agenda. Interna-

tional Journal of Management Reviews, 15, 1–14.

Roberts, J. (2009). No one is perfect: The limits of transparency and

an ethic for ‘intelligent’ accountability. Accounting, Organiza-

tions and Society, 34, 957–970.

Rojo, L., & van Dijk, T. (1997). ‘‘There was a problem, and it was

solved’’: Legitimating the expulsion of ‘‘illegal’’ migrants in

Spanish parliamentary discourse. Discourse & Society, 8,

523–566.

Ryner, M. (2007). The Nordic model: Does it exist? Can it survive?

New Political Economy, 12(1), 61–70.

Schuler, R., & Jackson, S. (2014). Human resource management and

organizational effectiveness: Yesterday and today. Journal of

Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 1(1),

35–55.

Shore, L., & Barksdale, K. (1988). Examining degree of balance and

level of obligation in the employment relationship: A social

exchange approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19,

731–744.

Slack, R. E., Corlett, S., & Morris, R. (2015). Exploring employee

engagement with (corporate) social responsibility: A social

exchange perspective on organizational participation. Journal of

Business Ethics, 127, 537–548.

Sol-Ability. (2013). Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index.

Retrieved April 13, 2015, from http://www.solability.com/pdfs/

Sustainable_Competitiveness_Index_2013.pdf.

Strand, R., Freeman, R. E., & Hockerst, K. (2015). Corporate social

responsibility and sustainability in Scandinavia. An overview.

Journal of Business Ethics, 127, 1–15.

Suchman, M. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional

approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571–610.

Ulrich, D. (1997). Human resource champions. Boston: Harvard

Business School Press.

Ulrich, D., & Brockbank, W. (2005). The HR value proposition.

Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Van Buren III, H. J. (2005). An employee-centered model of

corporate social performance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(4),

687–709.

Van Buren III, H. J., & Greenwood, M. (2011). Bringing stakeholder

theory into industrial relations. Employee Relations, 33, 5–21.

Van Buren III, H. J., Greenwood, M., & Sheehan, C. (2011). Strategic

human resource management and the decline of employee focus.

Human Resource Management Review, 21, 209–219.

Van De Voorde, K., Paauwe, J., & van Veldhoven, M. (2012).

Employee well-being and the HRM-performance relationship. A

review of quantitative studies. International Journal of Man-

agement Reviews, 14, 391–407.

Vanhala, S., von Bonsdorff, M. E., & Tilev, K. (2012). Comparative

HRM. Challenges of survey research. In S. Vanhala, K. Tilev, &

S. Lindström (Eds.), Ristivetoa vai yhtä köyttä? Henkilöstöjo-

htaminen, työhyvinvointi ja tuloksellisuus (pp. 117–131). Busi-

ness & Economy 5/2013. Helsinki: Aalto University School of

Business.

Voegtlin, C., Patzer, M., & Scherer, A. G. (2012). Responsible

leadership in global business: A new approach to leadership and

its multi-level outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 105, 1–16.

Waldman, D., & Siegel, D. (2008). Defining the socially responsible

leader. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 117–131.

Wells, S. (2011). HRM for sustainability: Creating a new paradigm.

In M. Clarke (Ed.), Readings in HRM and sustainability (pp.

133–146). Melbourne: Tilde University Press.

Wright, P., & McMahan, G. (1992). Theoretical perspectives for

strategic human resource management. Journal of Management,

18(2), 295–320.

Zaugg, R., Blum, A., & Thom, N. (2001). Sustainability in human

resource management: Evaluation report. Survey in European

companies and institutions. Bern: IOP-Press.

724 M. Järlström et al.

123

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.